User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 5

Just a friendy hello...
"May your day be filled with giggles." LA If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 05:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

NCIS medcab
Thank you for trying to mediate. What other options are available to me? Also, what is your assessment regarding this dispute. Thanks for getting back to me. Ueberhund (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first step would be to try to talk to the other user, generally at User talk:Twp. However, including trivia in articles is usually frowned upon. If you want to include it, Youtube is also not a good source, especially considering copyright concerns. A better source might be a TV Guide episode summary, or something like that. If no external third-party sources comment on the restaurant's appearance, then it probably isn't important enough to be included on Wikipedia.
 * As far as the dead links, they can often be saved by using the Internet Archive. Removing them means that nobody will be able to find them again. The Wordsmith Communicate 02:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. That all makes sense. Best regards Ueberhund (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Query
Hi! I notice that you included this in a list headed, "Diffs of rude edit comments since 26 June." I was wondering which part of the edit-comment you found rude? (And since this is identified as, "same as above," perhaps you could also explain its presence?) Thanks, ╟─ Treasury Tag ► inspectorate ─╢ 20:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Several editors had commented that you told Sarek not to speak to you again. A handful of those diffs (three, I think) show you disregarding other editors' requests to not interact on their talk page, so I included them to disprove that as a legitimate complaint against Sarek. Now that I look at it again, I probably should have put those three in a separate section and commented on them. The Wordsmith Communicate 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification that they were, in fact, a different class of diff. I nevertheless think that you may be misreading the situation: my comment to Sarek read, I don't want you to "talk" to me, ever. There was no instruction not to edit my talkpage. There was no suggestion that they were in any way banned from communicating with me. It was simply an expression of my state of mind and of my feelings towards Sarek. The diffs you highlight do not show any inconsistency: they merely emphasise my position that Wikipedia editors cannot blacklist individuals from their talkpages, merely make non-binding requests. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► most serene ─╢ 20:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that. Several other editors also took it to mean that you were banning him from your user talkpage. In general, when someone asks you to leave their talkpage, you should probably do it. Not because you have to, but because it is the polite thing to do. Except for official notices, like aninotice and article deletion/block messages, it would probably be best for everyone if you choose to honor those requests. The Wordsmith Communicate 20:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you: if someone asks me not to edit their talkpage, it is polite and collegial not to do so. I italicised the word "asks" for a reason. Because if someone orders me (eg. "I'm going to use my RIGHT right now and ask you not to go to my talk page again including the ridiculous talk back template on my page seeing as how if I had wanted to see your response I would have watchlisted your page but frankly I've lost the respect I had for you with your inability to recognize the common law application of the fact that YES people can be banned from talk pages,") – especially since no such power to issue such orders exists – I'm sure you will appreciate that their lack of politeness and lack of collegiality rather disinclines one to extend the same virtues to them! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Woolsack ─╢ 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that I asked you twice to stay off my talk page "In the future, please stay off my talk page unless it is to apologize" and "This is a formal request you stay off my talk page (including talkback notices) unless you are there to apologize." Both a please, which was ignored, and a formal request, which got you to post a bunch of things to my talk page.  Hobit (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I objected (and object) to your use of the phrase "formal request" – in what way was it formal? Which Wikipedia policy or process conferred any sort of formality on your request? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► duumvirate ─╢ 05:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, you continued to write to my page after the "please stay off" which came first. I thought I'd try to be more clear.  And even if you object, don't you think that posting multiple messages when you know you aren't welcome is, well, a bit childish?  Hobit (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think it's any more childish than making an ooh-so-scary-you-might-get-sued "formal request" despite knowing perfectly well that there is no such thing... ╟─ Treasury Tag ► stannator ─╢ 06:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.
Sorry, used the wrong section by accident (this time ;-). Thanks for fixing that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured it was probably an accident; I moved it up so you wouldn't get yourself in trouble. No worries. The Wordsmith Communicate 21:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Mr"
Rest is ok but when you said "Modern conventions indicate that males should generally be called Mr," that bit is plain wrong. Being called "Mr" adult to adult is pejorative, almost with exception in my experience. It just about passes from school child to teacher and in formal letters, just about. --BozMo talk 22:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Rollback removal on R.D.H.
Can you please explain your reasoning for removing rollback right in response to the reverts said user made?

For a difference of opinion it seems a little extreme. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Side note, uploader concerned later left this on my talk page in response to another user that's also upset about image tagging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sfan00_IMG&oldid=393189867. Since when is 'effciency' ground for blocks or bans? Am I applying the relevant policy too literally again? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What is efficiency to some is overzealous enforcement to others. But thank you for pointing out that Wordsmith overreacted, and for reminding me again that Wikipedia is all about opinions and power. That is the right of those who have power to enforce their opions upon those who don't.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, i'll explain. According to WP:ROLLBACK, the feature is only to be used for a very limited set of circumstances. RDH's use of it was very much outside those uses, i.e. reverting good faith edits which were actually in line with policy. Rollback is easy come, easy go, so I simply removed it. If he later demonstrates that he knows how to use it properly, then it can be reinstated. The Wordsmith Communicate 12:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not about to come groveling to you for the return of such a useless bobble. I have an extension with a script that pretty much does the same thing anyway, and I've been dying to use it. Now if you want to ban me for defending my old friend Ansbachdragoner‎'s talkpage from the mindless spam of a gaming copyright troll with it, then that's your call.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Derivatives
Any chance you could show the decrease in Category:All unreferenced BLPs as a function of time? I have a feeling that some people cannot see the obvious from just this graph. NW ( Talk ) 16:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Chris Molitor
I was curious as to this decision to delete, on the following grounds: Could you please elaborate upon your deletion rationale? To be clear, I am not objecting to your closure due to my !vote in the matter or my (brief) investment in the article; rather, I feel that consensus was misread here and established policies/guidelines were not correctly applied. Thank you. -- Kinu t /c  04:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The vague argument that the notability is "marginal" is rebuked by several editors stating that WP:ATHLETE, a guideline created through consensus, was unquestionably met.
 * Arguments saying that magnets for vandalism should be deleted do not cite any appropriate policy/guideline, and indeed WP:BLPDEL indicates that [b]iographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed and that [p]age deletion is normally a last resort. While AfD is not cleanup, the WP:BLP concerns were addressed during the course of the discussion through cleanup of the article, addition of reliable sources, and oversighting of necessary diffs, meeting this aspect of the policy and not necessitating the given last resort.
 * While a closure as no consensus could still be justified, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, [i]n any XfD (WP:AfD, WP:TfD, etc.), "no consensus" defaults to keep.
 * It is rather late now, so I will take a second look at the article and AFD in the morning. I will give you a more full rationale then, if that will suffice. The Wordsmith Communicate 05:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting close - I look forward to the DRV - should be a good test of "no consensus" closes in BLP matters. @Kinu - WP:ATHLETE is only a guideline - it doesn't guarantee inclusion, only a presumption of notability. Those of us on the delete side knew full well it was "met" but considered the guideline should be set aside in the circumstances.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully understand that WP:ATHLETE is a guideline. My contention in this closure is that such an individual is "presumed notable" if they meet the criteria, and that beyond that the appropriateness of the article is determined by satisfying policies including WP:V and WP:BLP, which has occurred in this case. On the other hand, no reasoning behind setting aside the guideline was given other than (to quote one of the !votes for deletion) "common sense" in this case, which is rather vacuous (and hardly policy based) given that even that editor agreed notability was established, albeit (again, to quote said !vote) "barely". In other words, the "circumstances" you claim have either been addressed or appear to be invalid rationales for deletion that a closing admin should consider more carefully. At any rate, I'll let The Wordsmith take a look at this in the morning and we'll go from there. I appreciate the dialogue here. -- Kinu t /c  05:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, here is my expanded rationale:
 * As was said above, WP:ATHLETE only gives a presumption of notability. The Delete voters argued that his lack of significant playing time in a top-tier league meant that although he met the Athlete guideline, he was still not notable for inclusion. This position was, in my view, not refuted except by saying that he had the presumption of notability (which was never in dispute, and thus not an actual rebuttal). Deleters made a case for ignoring the guideline in question, and the Keepers didn't demonstrate that we should follow it in this instance. In terms of strength of arguments, deleters had the edge, but not enough to call it a Delete close (thus the No Consensus). Ordinarily, I would have closed as No consensus, default to keep. However, there was a BLP violation which was so bad it had to be Oversighted (not just RevDeleted or reverted), that lasted for months. That was not acceptable. When faced with an article about a person of marginal/borderline notability, and the article had BLP issues, there is a precedent for defaulting to delete in the absence of a clear consensus.

I hope that explains my reasoning adequately, and I thank you for being patient. The Wordsmith Communicate 14:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a case where a "no conscious, default to delete" close was upheld outside of the subject requesting deletion? I think they have all been overturned.  The D.S. case isn't one, it was a pure delete.  Using a Wikipedia editor as a subject the best way to find an exemplar of an AfD discussion in any case. Hobit (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to point you at the second DRV for the Shankbone article. After the initial DRV, which reopened the AFD, it was closed by Jake Wartenberg as a delete, even though he admits there was no consensus. At the second DRV, closing admin Black Kite endorsed the no consensus/default to keep with the following comment "was the closer, regardless of involvement, justified in closing as No Consensus, default to delete? Answer - Yes, that was within his remit. This is a BLP, and therefore should not automatically default to Keep. The policy clearly allows for No Consensus delete in this situation, even if that is not the only option. Question 4 - Thus, is "Endorse" the correct decision at this DRV? Answer - Yes - "This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process" - there was no obvious closure error. The only issue that needs to be addressed here is this one." I hope this helps. The Wordsmith Communicate 18:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To elaborate, in the case of D.S., there are certainly other deeper factors contributing to the BLP issues (and thus to the deletion rationale), more than simply a random hit-and-run editor inserting possibly libelous information at a random article. -- Kinu t /c  20:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Therein lies the issue, as I've mentioned above. You state the delete !voters made an argument for ignoring the guidelines. What was that argument? It was based around phrases such as "common sense" and "foolishness"... while those arguing to keep cite a guideline, one would think that a guideline is a more legitimate reason to keep than a vague, I don't like it style argument for deletion. For example, an argument that argues "only played in 5 games" is a choice to ignore the guideline, as WP:ATHLETE indicates one game as the consensus threshold for presuming said notability; to ignore that aspect of it would require some sort of rebuttal beyond the vague arguments given. Otherwise, we're talking about a slippery slope where notability guidelines are met and no policies are breached, but any editor can cite "common sense" as a reason for deletion. Since you agree that the presumption of notability was there, do you not agree that the burden of proof should be on those arguing to delete? To wit, one of the delete !voters used the argument it is an article about a non-notable person that no-one attends to, which you yourself have seemingly discounted by granting that some notability is there in your deletion closure. Indeed, on the other hand, I did cite WP:V, which is a policy and certainly seems a lot more legitimate of a grounds than blanket arguments such as "common sense" and "foolishness". As for the BLP issue, I agree... it was not acceptable, but it was corrected eventually. It was perhaps not as efficient as we would have liked, perhaps because this topic is not present on many editors' radars/watchlists, but it did happen. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and to remove now-legitimate content because of previous BLP issues and the hypothetical fear of future BLP issues is a wholly unconvincing rationale. -- Kinu t /<sub style="color:red;">c  18:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd like this to go to DRV for a wider audience. I'd also like some more info on "there was a BLP violation which was so bad it had to be Oversighted" above. When I made my comments during the AFD there was a very dodgy edit by Jodiejodie (reverted when I saw the article) still in the history. Is this the one refered to or did I miss out on further vandalism not considered when I made my comments. (no details on the content are being asked for, just existance) duffbeerforme (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some diffs that have been removed from the history, so that not even Administrators can view them. This sort of action is very strictly regulated and only used in cases of personal information being leaked, or blatantly libelous material. As for DRV, if you wish to do that you may, of course, open one. The Wordsmith Communicate 18:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I have listed this at DRV: Deletion_review/Log/2010_October_29. And, just to be frank, I am not questioning your ability as an administrator, etc., nor due I have any deeper interest in the article beyond what can be said objectively. I simply feel that consensus was misinterpreted here and feel that DRV is the best option. :) -- <strong style="color:blue;">Kinu <sup style="color:red;">t /<sub style="color:red;">c  20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle whitelist revert warning?
First-off, thanks for taking on Huggle.

Peter Larlsen suggested a worthwhile idea to reduce the chances of reverting to prior vandalism:


 * this particular error almost always results from partially reverting an edit by a user on Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist... to a revision by a user who isn't whitelisted. I believe that when an editor tells Huggle to do this, this action is usually a mistake, not the desired result. Therefore, reversion of a whitelisted editor to a revision by a non-whitelisted user should raise a warning dialog before the edit is saved.

Is this something you could consider implementing? Ocaasi (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually taken on Huggle, i'm not a programmer (not a very good one, anyway, and the thought of VB.NET makes me shudder). What you saw was gurch whining that he couldn't get his way and stop everyone on all Wikimedia wikis from using Huggle. However, I think someone is working on an actual fix to the problem. The Wordsmith Communicate 19:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision visibility
Hi The Wordsmith! Would you please change the revision visiblity for this edit as RD2? Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  22:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  07:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should do the same with this one too? Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  07:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 08:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  08:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Once again I come to ask: Would you please change the revision visiblity for this, this, and this ? Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  21:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ and semiprotected, too. The Wordsmith Communicate 02:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! At least with the semi-protect, you won’t here from me until May. :) —  Spike Toronto  05:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Taunting
It is not appropriate for you to taunt topic banned editors with comments such as. Hipocrite (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposes without rationales are not likely to be given any weight by the crats. I am deciding whether or not to support the RFA, and I would like to know why he doesn't like the editor in question. The way you handled your oppose is fine, by giving a general reason but stating that you were banned from giving more detail. The Wordsmith Communicate 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Spreading the wildfire...
I'd rather not extend the thread on Scott's talk page, so I'll state my concern here. I agree that it's unlikely that the thread is unlikely to produce anything worthwhile - both main protagonists have restated their respective positions a number of times without any movement. But this is completely inappropriate. Tony has violated neither NPA nor CIVIL in the thread (if anything, he has stayed above the, admittedly not very high, level of the discussion). And threatening "disciplinary action", and then in the abstract, using the passive voice and claiming possible necessity, is both completely inappropriate and really bad style. I would really prefer you to strike that comment, or to rephrase it as a polite request. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. I just read that thread and from a wikipedia POV I was more shocked by your statement than anything else. Polargeo (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling several prominent Wikipedia editors trolls, making unsupported accusations against the founders of the forums (all of which are living people, and some of which use their real names) and accusing Scott of causing harm to Wikipedia editors all fall afoul of the decorum we expect editors to maintain. It also seems uncharacteristic of Tony, so I stepped in to ask that he cease his attacking. Some of the WR members probably are trolls, and some are banned from Wikipedia (Jimbo even tried to ban one from the entirety of Wikimedia), but Tony's comments are bullying, plain and simple. It will not take place on Wikipedia. The Wordsmith Communicate 19:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong, wrong, arguable, n/a, true, false, and "are you kidding me?", in that order. If you want to see bullying, look into a mirror. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was Giano's name next to those comments, he would have been blocked and unblocked with an ANI subpage by now. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe the rules apply to everybody. You are welcome to your own opinion, though. The Wordsmith Communicate 04:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fairly sure you know that referring to StephanSchulz in this way is not acceptable because of the nazi overtones but if you don't then you do now, please don't do it. Also I consider you as a WR commentator trying to defend WR onwiki as being heavily involved, particularly after your reaction it is best you leave it to others. If you have a problem with the comments you should take it to another forum rather than putting everyone through the pain of having to review your admin actions. Polargeo (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I...don't believe there are any overtones in there, Nazi or otherwise. Giano is frequently blocked for less than Tony said, and drama ensues. The rules should apply to everyone. Stephen's opinion may be different, and that's okay. I'm not seeing the subtext. The Wordsmith Communicate 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You refered to Stephan Schulz as SS in your edit summary. Most people who have had frequent dealings with Stephan, as I know you have had, know that as a German national this is not acceptable to him. If it was a mistake then fine, just a point to remember in the future. Polargeo (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it now. I was just using his initials, but if he would prefer I address him in some other manner then I will do so. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. I usually go by StS to avoid the association, however. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On another front. The argument, "we block Giano for x,y or z" holds no water with me and I would hope you were aware "otherstuff" is just a very very poor argument on wikipedia in general. If that is the only way you can justify something then you have lost the argument before it has started. Polargeo (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Giano frequently complains that the rules are unfairly applied to him. He's right. Nobody should be blocked as much as he is, but we do need to start enforcing a minimum standard of civility for everyone. That doesn't seem to be a poor argument from where i'm standing. The Wordsmith Communicate 19:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * TWS: I let it slide when I saw it, trying to stay out of it all as much as possible, but I was dismayed by Tony's word choices and characterizations. I agree with your view on this matter. I'm disappointed that others are giving you a hard time for your principled stance. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm glad that at least somebody agrees with me. However, I do welcome it when users question my actions. I have nothing to fear from transparency. The Wordsmith Communicate 19:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Questions are fine... But not letting go is another thing. Best. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kye Allums (2nd nomination)
I'm confident that this was an inappropriate non admin closure (twice). That's not a DRV issue, it's a simple AfD issue. Shadowjams (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry mate, it wasn't a non-admin closure. I'm a sysop. To contest the result or procedure of an AFD, you use DRV, not a second AFD. The Wordsmith Communicate 11:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well mate, that's not exactly correct... you "closed" it 2 hours later after it was relisted (actually listed), and it should have run. It's certainly not a speedy candidate. So I'm not sure what criteria you want to close it out at after 2 hours... unless you implicitly endorse the non admin closure... which brings us back to my original point. Shadowjams (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD is not for contesting the result of an AFD. That's what DRV is for. The original NAC was after the 7 days had expires, and there was a consensus to keep. TS probably should not have made his NAC, but mine is valid on procedural grounds that you are in the wrong forum. The Wordsmith Communicate 12:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I always think a timely edit is worth a try where the alternative is to let things pass by default (hence my non-admin closure of the second nomination). The nominator has opened a third nomination, and I've commented on the merits there. The flip side of WP:BURO is that the merits are what matter, not the procedural failings and unorthodox tactics of Shadowjams. The reasons for deletion should be taken seriously even if three nominations and two weeks of discussion are rather OTT. This is after all a fairly marginal BLP stub. --TS 12:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:LOBU
That entry didn't slip by, it was removed by. You might want to contact her about it. --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 20:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you wanted one
Here's an orange bar! Netalarm talk 06:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Michel Geiss
I note your edit here; "The text of this page has been removed from Wikipedia because it was a biography of a living person which does not have, and has never had, any sources, and an administrator believed that this action was appropriate to enforce the policy on biography of living persons". Was there anything potentially dangerous or libellous there that I'm unaware of, or are you simply trying to enforce a highly stringent BLP policy? Ironholds (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI
I went ahead and opened this even though I don't necessarily disagree with what you are doing. I figured a more neutral thread opening might make for a more civil conversation. Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Gigs (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been suggested that manual blanking is not necessary. All we have to do is redirect the unsourced BLP template to a template that has an open comment tag at the end to blank every unsourced BLP with a single edit. Gigs (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've modified the blanking template, an admin needs to redirect BLP unsourced to the blanking template now, and that should take care of all of them. Gigs (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please come help us at Unreferenced BLP Rescue if you want to actually be a part of the solution to the BLP "problem". I ask that you cease this mass vigilante blanking.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  16:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner." Jumping the gun, not learning from the CCI blanking is being chaotic... even WP:POINTy.  How many UBLPs have you actually referenced this year - I see it is approx 0 last month.The-Pope (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Raell Padamsee
Hi! I nominated this article under G11, but you deleted it under A7 and informed me with a templated notification on my talkpage. I felt the article met G11 more readily than A7 (although I felt both were probably appropriate), and was just wondering whether your notification meant you disagreed with this analysis (I'm always keen to improve the accuracy of my article tagging). -- Lear's Fool 05:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, both are appropriate. I didn't mean to send you the template, Twinkle did that automatically. Your analysis was correct, no problems here.

Blanking BLPs
We tried. I had hundreds of articles all ready to blank this morning, but it appears that this attempt is already over, despite our best efforts to beat out a compromise. For the meantime, I'll go back to replying to the emails from BLP subjects and fobbing them off with 'discuss it on the talk page, the community has spoken'. I'd appreciate it if you could drop me a line on IRC if you or the community decide to renew the blankings, it'll make my job a lot easier if they go through. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You might gain support for this if you actually propose a method of blanking that is not haphazard and poorly thought out. As noted, the rush to pretend you are doing something useful only resulted in needless drama, bots running around doing needless tagging and the removal of categories and interwikis actively hampered the ability to reference and restore those same articles. The intentions may be good, but the actions were not.  Square the actions with the intentions, and you may gain support.


 * One area to start, imnsho, is to compile a list of the most problematic areas as evidenced by OTRS emails. The Pope noted on the ANI/BLP page that he has found remarkably few problematic articles out of Olympians.  My own experience with hockey bios has been the same.  But if you can step up and say "over the last three months, I have dealt with x BLP complaints related to politicians/actors/eskimos, and found that {high percentage} of these articles were completely unreferenced", then you will have hard evidence to support a targeted blanking of that group of articles, and an area to focus referencing and restoration efforts. From there you can gauge the effectiveness of a blanking campaign and push for wider usage. Resolute 16:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The bad cases of BLPs issues I have dealt with have always been sourced articles. E.g., Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive602.  I wish IP editors could not edit BLPs, I know its an easy hurdle to overcome, but many vandals are very low-effort people.  If a BLP subject ever emails you and you need help fixing the article, I would be happy to help.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  17:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding some of your recent AfD noms
They look like they would be relatively uncontroversial PRODs. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? Ray Talk 03:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My contribs are being watched, so I know that if I mass prodded the unsourced BLPs of questionable notability, they would be contested in an instant. Then, I would end up bringing them to AFD, where I am now. So, I decided to cut out the middleman and just nominate them at AFD a few at a time. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. I see. I appreciate your keeping the volume to a manageable pace, then. Cheers, Ray  Talk 03:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being polite about your inquiry. Certain other users love to bring their problems to ANI before asking me about them. Anyway, I only nominated 20 yesterday. I'll probably do 20 more today, depending on how much free time I have. I have a list of over 1,200 articles to take to AFD. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, a number of the nominations were good, a few were bad, but I commented on those. 20 good noms a day will make a good dent over time.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  06:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Depending on how AFD handles it, I may increase the number of articles per day (especially if other editors want to help work the list). I want to be rid of unsourced (and later poorly sourced) BLPs, and this is just the second step (blanking was the first). The Wordsmith Communicate 06:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell you what... you prod 'em for tomorrow, and let me know if anyone comes along and mass-undoes them. There's most likely no one going to comment on the majority of them, and with the current relisting climate, that means they'll be around for three weeks and closed as "no consensus"... when a PROD would have gotten 'em done and gone in a week. Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fear not, I also have a list of articles to PROD, and some to outright delete. Its all part of the plan. The Wordsmith Communicate 08:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so long as your plan is to improve rather than destroy... Resolute 14:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Destruction is improvement. It's like pruning a bush: by cutting away the articles that shouldn't be here, it lets people who source them focus on the salvageable ones. All the unsourced BLPs will be gone, sooner or later (hopefully sooner). The Wordsmith Communicate 19:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Pruning requires discrimination, seeking only to cut away the dead branches.  Digging up the entire garden to clear one dying plant is destruction lacking improvement. Resolute 22:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

About these AFD nominations, could you please put just a little more information into the nominations? Knowing why you think the people are non-notable will help others assess whether they agree with you. Also, if you put something in the nomination that says a little bit about who the person is (e.g. are they a musician, politician, etc.), that will help people browsing through AFDs to spot ones that interest them. Just a statement like "musician who has only performed locally" or "athlete who has never played professionally" would help. Calathan (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4
Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, very late thankyou for the barnstar you gave me, sorry it's so late. Cheers. Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?   16:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your BLP AfD nominations
I would be grateful if you could add a few words characterizing the person in each of your AfD nominations, so that other editors can decide which meet their interests and may possibly be worth an attempt to save by adding good references. I see you do this occasionally but not in the majority of cases. For example, I have no interest or expertise in footballers but want to look into artist BLPs nominated for AfD. A few words specific to the particular BLP would indicate to me and perhaps to others that you have taken a look at that specific article and have concluded that it is beyond redemption. I agree with you that BLPs need to be referenced but would like the chance to find and help add references when that is a good solution that will improve the encyclopedia. Thank you for considering my views on this matter. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

 * I'm not quite sure what I did to deserve this, but I appreciate it very much. Thank you. The Wordsmith Communicate 08:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fail
<b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. Never listen to anyone who says that blocking while intoxicated is okay, even if that person is a sysop. The Wordsmith Communicate 04:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what would be a good idea to do while intoxicated? A drinking game with the the most recent Doctor Who—drink on "time can be rewritten," "Marilyn" or "Christmas." <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't fancy a trip to the hospital tonight. Good episode, though, the most Christmassy yet. The Wordsmith Communicate 04:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Rose Hilton
You deleted the article about Rose Hilton giving reason A7 for speedy deletion. Rose Hilton is a painter from the UK. She is regarded highly enough to have been given an individual retrospective at Tate St Ives, part of the Tate, a major art institution in the UK. She was also married to Roger Hilton. Even if the previous article didn't contain this information, it should be clear that Rose Hilton is a notable artist. Could the Rose Hilton article please be reinstated? neilg (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you agree to add references (such as the Tate source) into the body of the article, I will restore it for you. Deal? The Wordsmith Communicate 18:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair. Thanks neilg (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Call the question
Do you still stand behind ORR proposal as an alternative to a whole-sale topic ban? Some editors support (Cerejota, Cptono, and myself) while others have not been explicit in their opposition to it, but defer to the traditional topic ban. In any case, I do appreciate your involvement and consideration regardless of the outcome. Thanks. Wikifan Be nice 21:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support 0RR as a first choice. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is very encouraging to hear. Admins can often be slow at responding to questions so thanks for the quick response.. Wikifan Be nice  21:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * AE still split and on-going. I would really appreciate it if you could finalize your view because I'm not sure if other admins not involved in prior issues with myself will weigh in there. If you still believe 0RR is a viable alternative that's cool, but if you feel the topic bans are a better route it should be made known at the discussion. whatever the outcome thanks for endorsing the alternative sanctions before. AE doesn't see a lot of diversity when it comes to admin participation.  Wikifan Be nice  17:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've commented over there. It seems to be going the way of indef topic ban with a review in 6 months. If that is enacted and you stay out of trouble, I will endorse your appeal at that time. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting and taking the time to support a very different kind of sanction. I can tell you right now I probably won't be appealing any topic ban so I'm trying to contribute and tighten a few I/P articles before I go. I still hope this 0RR can work out, as multiple non-admins who know me support, but if not thanks again for your contributions at the AE. Wikifan Be nice  18:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Plo Koon
Hi Wordsmith,

I was wondering if you had any advice or could help me in keeping the Plo Koon page up and not just a redirect, since it looks like you are the coordinator of WikiProject Star Wars. I have expanded it some and added an image, but another user believes that it the character is non notable. I could use some help in getting more sources to prevent its deletion. If you know anyone else that would be willing to help would be great. Thanks, --CPacker talk to me 04:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary
Wishing The Wordsmith a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 01:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear The Wordsmith,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.115.210 (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Douchebag
FYI, I restored semi-protection.... if we set a limited full-protection, then when it expires the article will be completely unprotected, which would be a decidedly bad thing. I don't think we'll have too many registered users vandalizing, and if they do, it's an easy warn/block. If you greatly disagree I'm open to overturning. - Running On Brains (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I had two people I know through Facebook announce their intent to vandalize the page, so I upgraded the protection to prevent that. I'm sure plenty of others are going to do the same. We should consider indef full-protection, then downgrade it back to indef semi at some point after Tesla Day. The Wordsmith Talk to me 05:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

International Men's Day
Hi I'm an amateur on Wikipedia seeking your assistance. Today and tomorrow is International Men's Day. a disruptive editor keeps vandalizing the date of IMD and changing it from November 19 to April:

Can you have this user banned (user: 74.66.82.89) or block him somehow? seeing the same vandalism has happened at least 6 times.

Thanks if you can help NOW (IMD is today when people read the IMD wikipedia entry) 124.170.97.103 (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
Cf here I reverted your (completely reasonable and kind) revert on my talkpage because I like to keep even the stupid spam. Call me crazy. Thanks, though. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I mass rollbacked the user's edits before the account was blocked and suppressed. The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you around again
I just wandered by your talk page after seeing your post to Arbitration and David Gerard's talk page. Just wanted to say that it's nice to see you around again, and it's also nice to see how far Wikipedia has come (and how far it still must go) since that 2010(!?) decision you quote above. Best, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is good to be back, my old friend. Wikipedia has come pretty far in some respects, but the current issue before the Committee proves that in some respects we're still back in 2006 in terms of how we treat BLP subjects. You know how strong a supporter I was of our BLP policy, and you have before you a chance to decide another landmark case like Rachel Marsden, Badlydrawnjeff and Footnoted Quotes. I caution you not to waste the opportunity. The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP
Hello, The Wordsmith! Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico (2nd nomination), the use of Plaxico Burress in reference to shooting oneself in the foot is a BLP violation. Would you mind correcting your ANI post referencing the "Plaxico effect"? I'm surprised it slipped under everyone's radar. Rgrds. --64.85.216.136 (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My, times have changed. Of course, i've redacted it. The Wordsmith Talk to me 11:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute
Dear The Wordsmith.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014
Hi The Wordsmith. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Acalamari 11:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Editors' activity off-site
Hello The Wordsmith. I was glad to see another administrator showing up at WP:GGE to offer their views.

Would you be willing to say more about a comment you made on the enforcement page: You mentioned WP:EEML there. For years I had never thought that EEML was much of a precedent because the wording of the decision made me imagine that Arbcom didn't like having to use off-wiki evidence. Their explanation for when such evidence could be used was not much of a bright line. But your citation of EEML could perhaps give a way forward for thinking about the off-wiki stuff. Are you open to having a discussion here, or would you prefer that I confine any remarks to the noticeboard? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine having a discussion here. I was around for the EEML case, and was involved in mediation (as the Mediation Cabal Coordinator) in the Eastern Europe topic area before the case was opened. The entirety of it isn't applicable here (I have absolutely no evidence that there has been secret off-wiki collaboration, and if I did I would have brought it to Arbcom by now), but I do think that specific quote I mentioned can give guidance on when it is appropriate to bring off-wiki evidence on-wiki, and when it is appropriate to sanction somebody for offwiki conduct. The Wordsmith Talk to me 12:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like the discussion I wanted to have may no longer be so relevant. The question of how to handle off-wiki issues is now being debated on the Evidence and Proposed decision pages of the GG Arbcom case. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow
Looks like you've instigated them to do just that. Good job, I guess? Silver seren C 20:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no control over peoples' actions offwiki. If he didn't want it to seem like paid editing, perhaps he shouldn't have accepted money from one side of a content dispute and continued to edit in the disputed area. That said, I've made a throwaway reddit account to talk to them. The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good idea and will likely just make things worse. Also, can you even control and reject donations made on GoFundMe? If not, then your complaint seems rather superfluous. Silver  seren C 23:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You fine sir have mastered the art of stuffing legumes up one's nostrils. Though hast surely pressed ze button without fear.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just surprised it didn't happen sooner. I advised him to step back before the inevitable happened, he refused, and the inevitable thing happened. This is...my fault somehow? I still think he should step back from this topic area. He already admitted that he can't edit neutrally any longer, so why is he? The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, kinda entirely your fault. Someone probably went directly to Milo after that thread was made on KIA to link him to it, if he doesn't observe KIA personally in the first place. And that thread was made thanks to you, so...yeah. Not that it matters, since we're talking about Milo of Breitbart. His past monetary scandals *cough*Kernel*cough* would just exacerbate his own hypocrisy if he writes an article about it. Also, again, Breitbart. Even if he writes an article about it on there, no one cares since it's Breitbart. Silver  seren C 05:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still not concerned with what happens offwiki, as long as it doesn't affect things onwiki. When you have an editor that is doing something controversial, going to their user talk page to politely ask them to step back is pretty standard procedure. I'm not going to change that just because others are watching. Ryulong admitted he was no longer impartial, that was the reason for the self-imposed topic ban. He also knew he was being watched. Perhaps he should have taken my advice and stuck to the self-imposed ban. The Wordsmith Talk to me 05:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You could have sent him an email instead. That isn't that hard to do. Silver  seren C 06:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:GGE
Please see my closure here. I hope this wording agrees with what you thought. Closing with 'No consensus' might be too strong since there was a shortage of uninvolved parties who thought the COI was actionable. Though I could imagine a new case being made on different grounds, it's hardly worthwhile if Arbcom is considering the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the close, thank you. And Arbcom is notoriously slow; we're not going to have a decision for a while. The proposed decision is scheduled for 28 December, and the Arbcom elections go into effect 3 days later. That's going to slow down the final voting.
 * Plus, its pretty rare for them to overturn community sanctions. They'll probably impose Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions, and convert all existing community sanctions to that (in addition to handing out their own bans). It isn't expected to be a groundbreaking decision. The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With GGTF they did sanction half a dozen editors and did so quickly (2 months). That's in addition to authorizing discretionary sanctions. I can see how they might have thought the community would spin endlessly trying to decide who to sanction in that case. Perhaps they will have the same concern with Gamergate. EdJohnston (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's small potatoes, really. When writing their decision, the precedent they're going to look to is WP:ARBCC. The case is surprisingly similar: a lot of new editors on one side, some sock/meat puppets, a number of entrenched veteran editors on the other side, nobody being very civil. In that case there was also a previous community-based discretionary sanctions (actually, I think that might be the first time that the community created discretionary sanctions) that got out of control. I expect the decision to look a lot like that, but there's no telling where the banhammer might fall so it makes sense to work to remove disruptive editors ourselves. Arbcom doesn't exactly have a reputation for finesse or competence. The Wordsmith Talk to me 07:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Amherst Student article on Gamergate
If you would like to see the article in question, I can provide you an archive link, or screenshots via Imgur if you would prefer. ReynTime (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That would help clear things up, thanks. To avoid posting potentially libellous content onwiki, can you please send it via Special:EmailUser/The_Wordsmith? That would be great. The Wordsmith Talk to me 05:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Avono (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

E-mail incoming
Hello, I have e-mailed you and a link to the cached version of the Amherst GG piece. Hopefully that works. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see that another user had already done so above. Well, the more the merrier. :) Tarc (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:BLPTALK. Linking in a way that doesn't involve claims is preferred and encouraged.  No claims were made on WP so the fact that the external source is required to indict (as opposed to exonerate) is a misapplication of BLP policy.  You are correct that claims made on talk can be BLP violations but that is not what happened here.  No claims were made.  The original request was for a warning.  It appears that his link conforms to WP:BLPTALK and the fact that your interpretation requires the contents of material not actually in WP would negate virtually all BLP concerns in talk space.   --DHeyward (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Re your GGE request close
In response to your closing statement: No, I have never edited the central GamerGate page or talk page and I have never had any content dispute with DHeyward or anyone else on those pages. The fact that you missed the diffs that showed disruptive behavior on the GamerGate page, not the Christina Hoff Sommers page, leads me to believe that you didn't consider all the diffs. Moreover, yes there was ample evidence of violation of other policies, such as WP:OR and WP:NPOV as well as the repetition of problematic BLP allegations. For instance, I cited this edit as an example where DHeyward used sources that don't even mention Sommers (i.e., the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization link), let alone call her "feminist". Here and here are other examples of misrepresentation of sources to advance his opinions. I don't understand how you can say that you don't see any policy violations when DHeyward says that he opposes using any reliably sourced label that the subject objects to. It negates our basic content policies because any BLP subject from Rush Limbaugh to Barack Obama to Jon Stewart would be able to say "I object" via Twitter and we wouldn't be able to write the article based on what reliable sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wordsmith: This is a note to help explain how User:Sonicyouth86 is connected to User:DHeyward. The former was quite active in discussion at Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers in late November, though he hasn't participated at Gamergate controversy proper. At the Sommers talk page Sonicyouth and DHeyward have interacted, for example at Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers and Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers. At first I didn't know how the Sommers article was connected to anything. But now I assume that some statements by Sommers that appear to support Gamergaters may have drawn the attention of editors concerned about the GG controversy. (Thus the claim that Sommers is 'anti-feminist' which does raise BLP issues if stated in Wikipedia's voice). Sonic and Heyward appear to disagree about using 'anti-feminist'. I still agree with your reasoning in closing the GGE thread opened by Sonicyouth86. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I actually reviewed the current talk page before making my statement. I saw the interaction and that, though there are ideologues on both sides, it does appear to be a good faith content dispute. Though I question the motives of those who would deliberately ignore the self-identification of a BLP subject, especially one who feels that the article is portraying her negatively. I have high hopes that this particular sub-dispute will be resolved amicably, without the need to step in with heavy-handed sanctions like the main GG area. The Wordsmith Talk to me 02:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It actually shows that you didn't review the CHS talk page or any of the diffs about DHeyward's editing on the GamerGate page. Nobody has ever suggested to "ignore the self-identification of a BLP subject". What was suggested was to add that while the BLP subject identifies as X, scholars describe the BLP subject as Y. DHeyward has rejected the notion that the article should reflect the scholarly opinion alongside Sommers' self-identification because Sommers' objects to the portrayal in RS. But let's get back to your closing statement: You said that you saw "no evidence of violation of WP:BLP or any other policies/guidelines". Let's consider the first diff that I provided as an example. The diff shows DHeyward misrepresenting the sources and adding his personal take on Sommers, i.e., the diff shows him adding WP:OR. The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization source that DHeyward used doesn't even mention Sommers and the Sanford Encyclopedia source doesn't call her a feminist scholar (which was pointed out to DHeyward by two other editors). So even the very first diff shows that there is evidence of policy violation. With you closing statement you (and User:EdJohnston) went on record essentially saying that adding original research and misrepresenting sources is not a policy violation, thus enabling such behavior. We could examine each diff that actually does show policy violation and contrast it with your claim that there is no such evidence. It's obvious that you did not consider the evidence before declaring that there is none. Let me pass the very large trout that you handed me to you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Mail
You've got mail. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Avono topic ban
So you know, I mentioned the topic ban against Avono as part of the arbitration evidence. While I am not naming you or suggesting your overall conduct was problematic, if you wish to respond there feel free.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I believe my conduct to be quite reasonable and within the scope of the General Sanctions as well as BLPSE, so I don't feel the need to comment. Any comments I make would likely revive the argument, and I have no desire to participate in anything Arbcom-related outside of enforcing the will of the community. The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette
I see you dropped the protection to semi. I originally declined to reprotect it but it got silly again, here, and I re-protected it. I checked all the links but there does not seem to be one showing Doc James making the edit that AlbinoFerret added back in. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I have no idea why this article is so controversial, the current version is a barely-coherent mess and it should be easy to fix. No worries on the reprotection, we'll have to deal with that for now. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Cla68/Ryulong interaction ban
Hello! I noticed that you just hatted this section after the IBAN was imposed on 04:17, 20 December 2014, but there was a report of its violation at 21:56, 23 minutes before hatting. (The reported violation was at 12:32, but I see another taunt at 12:31.) Should there be a new section on the Requests for enforcement page, or does the IBAN not officially start until the section is closed or hatted? Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was just about to ask about this because even after the interaction ban was instituted, he sniped at me.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That interaction ban was a clerk action that applied specifically to "GamerGate arbitration case pages". The diffs you post here seem to be outside of the scope of that. If you wish to collect the evidence and make an enforcement request about Cla68's civility in general, I'd be happy to review the evidence and act appropriately. I'd need more than that, though; civility bans have been controversial for years and I highly doubt any uninvolved admin would expand the i-ban based on one comment and an edit summary. If you show a larger pattern, that's a different story. The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand now. I was under the impression that it was across the project, not just in arb. Sorry to be a bother. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So he's allowed to snipe at me outside of arbitration pages then? That's bullshit. He shouldn't be given free reign like this.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 23:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically nobody is allowed to snipe at anybody, but in this contentious topic area there have been much more important issues such that things like snarky comments tend to get ignored. Hell Ryulong, you yourself have made quite a few caustic remarks as I recall. Like I said, a one-off thing is not worth a sanction, because that would be punitive. If you show me enough evidence to establish an ongoing pattern of harassment, then expanding the scope of the interaction ban to all of Wikipedia would be preventative and I would absolutely do it. The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a one-off thing. He has repeatedly made reference to what I reported him for on and off arbitration pages, before and after I gave him the community sanction notification and before and after Guerillero instituted the ban. Woodroar points out that he even taunts me on his user talk page in response to being notified that he got banned. What more do you need?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 00:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I need exactly what I told you I need. You say repeatedly, but i've only seen a two diffs outside the scope of the current ban. I'm not fishing through all of Cla68's contribs looking for something to ban him for. If it truly is repeated and consistent and outside of arb-space, collect all the diffs and show me. The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've presented everything he's done.   And on top of the actions in arbspace, even if it was before the iban.— Ryūlóng  ( 琉竜 ) 00:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I left a talkback template on Cla68's talkpage to let him know about this discussion, and give him an opportunity to present his side of the issue. The Wordsmith Talk to me 06:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also confused as to how he can present these accusations as proposals in the workshop but I cannot inherently respond to them or others who have commented on them.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 03:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong
I'm not taking any position on whether Ryulong's talk page should be locked, but as long as it is, I don't see why you should be able to leave messages on the page simply because you're an administrator. At a minimum, you should discuss the issue with who protected the page. If you've already addressed this issue somewhere, I apologize. BTW, I don't believe we've ever interacted before; it's nice to meet you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. You should at least remove your message. Kelly  hi! 23:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Updated scripts
Hi The Wordsmith. I edited your <tt>monobook.js</tt> to update you to the latest version of ajax sysop, which is compatible with the latest MediaWiki changes and resides on the Wikimedia Tool Labs for easier updates. I also updated deprecated functions and made your scripts HTTPS-compatible. Let me know if anything breaks. :) — Pathoschild 06:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again! I moved your scripts to <tt>common.js</tt> so they work in all skins. If anything goes wrong, let me know and I'll help fix it. :) — Pathoschild 03:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)