The Wordsmith (talk | contribs) OneClickArchived "Signature" to User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 10 |
The Wordsmith (talk | contribs) OneClickArchived "Copyvio" to User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 10 |
||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
:Thank you! <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
:Thank you! <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Copyvio == |
|||
Hey. |
|||
Re {{diff2|1198070406|this revert}}, are you sure? Footnote a in [[WP:ELNEVER]]#1 states that a URL to a full copy of a copyrighted work, including those in citations, is a copyright violation. The edit I undid, and revision I highlighted in that copyvio-revdel template was to a full copy of [[The Internet of Garbage]], which per its first page is copyrighted. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Resolved per [[Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)#PDF of Jeong's The Internet of Garbage is not a WP:COPYVIO]]. Sorry for the hassle. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::No problem, I can absolutely see how it looked like a copyvio at first glance. I thought the same thing until I took another look at the URL. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 22:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yeah, from the URL I thought it was maybe something that had been found on a Libgen or Scihub mirror. Glad we were able to resolve it though. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ec}} According to [[The Internet of Garbage]], that version was published by Vox and the link went to Vox's [[content delivery network]]. An e-book publisher publishing an e-book on their own servers is expected behavior. The work might be copyrighted, but linking to an authorized published copy of a work is allowed the same as linking to a newspaper article published on the newspaper's website. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Deletion of Page == |
== Deletion of Page == |
Revision as of 03:44, 2 March 2024
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 11
as User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 10 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
| |||||||||||||
Contentious Topics awareness templates |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
- Clovermoss
- Dennis Brown
-
- Julia W
- Marasmusine
- PBS
- Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
- The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.
- The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
A bathrobe for you!
A bathrobe for you! | |
I saw the top of this page and how could I not do this? QueenofHearts 19:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
- Thank you! The WordsmithTalk to me 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Deletion of Page
Hi Dear Administrator,
Please teach me on how the guidelines were interpreted in deleting the Page Mariya Rusalenko. I am here to learn, and most of debates of page were not properly answered. I have always detailed everything.
If the experienced users feel not to explain things, It is very difficult to contribute. Existence Leesaaisath 09:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- The consensus on that discussion was clear that the subject didn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Some of the sources were sponsored, and others did not give significant coverage of Rusalenko. If better sources exist that weren't presented, I might suggest going through the Articles for Creation process. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would like your assistance in the issue I have tired highlight. I think we can make wiki better everyday with diversity.
- Not recognizing cultural and various local language sources when we write about individuals from those areas.
- Editors who have language barriers make decisions on subject language and related articles.
- Short answers without explaining new users and cold form of answers when given some.
- I have worked in Maldives and later in Belarus/Russia, ( As journalist major), and I have come across these issues in both countries. Many sources that are major accredited sources are disregarded without research by experienced editors and lot of work and research goes to waste.
- I am here for for over 4 years and keep on trying to develop myself with rules and guidelines. Its like having a fog in the work when aforementioned issues arise.
- As an administrator, I hope you will assist users like us and provide a road to navigate and learn in a good respected environment. I will again work on the page, hope to have your assistance in that too. Existence Leesaaisath 21:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would like your assistance in the issue I have tired highlight. I think we can make wiki better everyday with diversity.
Relist vs. delete
Just my opinion, but I think relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taka N'Gangué probably would have been better than closing "delete" on the 1k-2d discussion considering that almost half of the discussion had occurred in the past few hours. Just noting. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I took a second look at the timestamps, and you're right that much of the discussion was very recent. I've reverted my closure and relisted for now. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I also think it may have been beneficial to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Binkley (3rd nomination) open a bit longer rather than closing "keep". I recognize that the number of !votes was very visibly in favor of the "keep" side, but at least in my view as someone who didn't fall into either the delete camp or the keep camp, the weight of the arguments on both sides was not balanced and there were enough !votes against keep to warrant keeping it open a little longer. Indeed, the "keeps" outnumbered the "not keeps" 2:1, but a not insignificant number of "keeps" relied on impermissible arguments. The last comment on that AfD before closure was an inquiry in which I requested some of the keep !voters articulate how the page is sufficiently notable, as many !votes fell into arguments to avoid territory e.g. "other stuff exists" votes or simple assertions of notability without elaboration. Or worse, simply mentioning how many votes the candidate received or pointing to the age of the page as an argument it should be kept. I think giving !voters some time to respond to the inquiry could have given the keep side time to give some more weight to their positions. Or, if nothing else, it would have been appreciated if the closing comment offered a more detailed breakdown that took the strength of the arguments into consideration, rather than simply reading "The result was keep." Thank you. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've given that one a second look as well, and I stand by my close. The numbers weren't a significant factor in my close,(though as long as we're counting, the ratio was closer to 3:1) and several non-keeps were weak as well. Ultimately what it came down to is that the Keep !votes demonstrated significant coverage of the person in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and there was no convincing counter-argument. The only real argument for deletion/redirection was WP:BIO1E/WP:NOTNEWS, which wasn't a strong policy-based argument. Considering a period spanning from April 2023 to (so far) January 2024 which encompasses coverage of multiple independent events and the subject's role in them as "one event" stretches the policy beyond what was ever intended. I saw a clear consensus to keep, and closed it as such. I won't be reverting this one, but as always WP:DRV is available if you would like to pursue it. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I also think it may have been beneficial to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Binkley (3rd nomination) open a bit longer rather than closing "keep". I recognize that the number of !votes was very visibly in favor of the "keep" side, but at least in my view as someone who didn't fall into either the delete camp or the keep camp, the weight of the arguments on both sides was not balanced and there were enough !votes against keep to warrant keeping it open a little longer. Indeed, the "keeps" outnumbered the "not keeps" 2:1, but a not insignificant number of "keeps" relied on impermissible arguments. The last comment on that AfD before closure was an inquiry in which I requested some of the keep !voters articulate how the page is sufficiently notable, as many !votes fell into arguments to avoid territory e.g. "other stuff exists" votes or simple assertions of notability without elaboration. Or worse, simply mentioning how many votes the candidate received or pointing to the age of the page as an argument it should be kept. I think giving !voters some time to respond to the inquiry could have given the keep side time to give some more weight to their positions. Or, if nothing else, it would have been appreciated if the closing comment offered a more detailed breakdown that took the strength of the arguments into consideration, rather than simply reading "The result was keep." Thank you. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2024
- News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail
- Opinion: Until it happens to you
- Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry
- Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]"
- Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down
Administrators' newsletter – February 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
-
- Ameliorate!
- Ancheta Wis
- Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
- Cobi
- Ev
- Moondyne
- Worm That Turned
- An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
- Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
- Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
- Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
- Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
- The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
Your opinion
Hi there. I noticed that a number of your edits involve articles for deletion. I'm wondering if you could have a look at an article recently moved from draft, Anthony D. Viazis. I have found little coverage of this person online, but there are other accomplishments listed in the article. Can I get your opinion about the notability of this article? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I do plenty of work in deletion, but academics are not a topic area I touch very often so my opinion might be of limited use. Based solely on the article content and sources, it might scrape by WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1. That really depends on whether 1500 citations is "highly cited" for the field of orthopedics/orthodontics, and how noteworthy those journals are. The Fastbraces thing also might count for Criterion 1b but the article doesn't currently demonstrate that, and we don't have an article on the technology itself. My instinct is that it doesn't meet the criteria. The only real source is the Ritz Herald one, but I've got some concerns about their reputation or lack thereof. No Wikipedia article on them, no discussions about them at WP:RSN, and essentially nothing online that's been written about the newspaper itself. Their X account has 11,000 posts, but ~2400 followers and their posts are seen by an average of 20 people. They're a news/press release aggregator, and the article looks like a press release. Honestly the whole thing looks like a G11, but I might be inclined to send it to AFD instead in case I'm wrong about the subject not meeting WP:NACADEMIC. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I looked around for sources to improve the article, but found little. I might AFD. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
NFL Draft
This seems an easy overturn:
- First, the three RfC precedents you cite in your close. [1] did not change any article titles but clarified MOS language. [2] was done at Kyiv, a page which had already gone through an RM and was simply asking if other pages using the name "Kyiv" should also be changed (a usual practice unusually brought to an RfC but, importantly, at the relevant page). And [3] a request to clarify guideline language about two video game naming options in an RfC at the topic-relevant "Naming conventions (video games)". Unlike any of those, or probably unlike anything in the history of RfC's on Wikipedia, your NFL Draft close will likely be used as a reason to move hundreds of page titles, which will lead to further debate and contention as an admin has already said they would reverse any such action.
- Many editors commented that this RfC was in the wrong venue for a Requested Move, and so did not comment on its merits. Since the question itself did not contain anything about moving pages, but was simply an opinion poll, these editors did not leave their opinions other than correctly state that this was not a recognized RM.
- Not one of the hundreds of pages which some editors may try to title-change because of the close were notified about this RfC, not even the readers of the centrally important National Football League Draft article. This seems way too inside-baseball and amounted to purposely hiding hundreds of asked-for name changes in a backroom of Wikipedia. This is fine for discussion purposes, but not for an RM.
- A panel of at least three experienced closers was asked for. This was ignored (although you said within the discussion that if others materialized they could join in but, if not, you were going to close alone). Shouldn't you have reached out and/or waited until two other experienced closers were recruited?
- Just one more point so as not to wall of text this. A most unusual thing in this unusual RM disguised as an RfC, you extensively interacted with one of its main proponents within the RfC while it was in progress. This was done, of course, in good faith, but shouldn't that be disqualifying in any RfC?
In light of all of that, and much more that can be articulated, I respectfully request that you overturn your close and instead ask participants to take the question to an RM at the National Football League Draft page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: I'm going to have to respectfully decline your request. If another admin has pledged to move war against consensus, that's on them and any conduct issues can be handled at that time. It doesn't change what the consensus actually was. Regarding your framing of the RfC as an opinion poll, I'm well aware that's how you see it. The phrases "opinion poll" and "opinion survey" collectively appeared 16 times on that page, and 14 of them were you (the last two were SMcCandlish quoting you in response). A panel was requested by two editors, and there were no other volunteers. This RfC was very long, but not actually that complicated. Nothing that can't be handled by a single experienced administrator. Who is it that I've "extensively interacted with"? Granted I interact with a lot of people, but I don't recall anything that would call WP:INVOLVED into question. Of course my memory isn't the greatest, so if I missed something please do point it out. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. You did not address how this RfC is so very dissimilar than the examples you used to justify the close. I thought that your interaction with SMcCandlish in the section asking for a panel of closers may or may not be disqualifying, which is why I asked. The coming edit war is not really an edit war, just a disagreement if this outlier RfC can take the place of an RM - you think it can and others reasonably take the opposite view. I'll ask that you please study the three examples you gave with the focus on checking if they had anything to do with replacing RM's (I'm not reading them as doing so). Taken that there is no precedent for replacing an RM with an RfC in such a way, I think I correctly read the wording of the nomination as asking for opinions. It was not made clear in the nomination wording that the RfC would replace an RM, and many editors did not offer an opinion on the merits because they too did not view the venue as an appropriate substitute for a real RM which would change titles at hundreds of articles. I'd again ask that you reconsider after studying the "precedents" you used as foundational to your close. A last question, do you think it would be appropriate to take your close to a move review (murky water, that)? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) re-ping after name fix Randy Kryn (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I meant to touch on your point about the other precedents, but got distracted so I can address that now. There were several more examples given, but I singled out those three as a few of the most relevant here. They were all examples of RfCs that were not directly an RM, but sought to clarify how a set of pages should be named to comply with the MOS and other policies. With the consensuses (consensi? consenses?) reached, pages were moved as a natural consequence. The circumstances were obviously slightly different, but they were the same from the perspective of "Can a centralized RfC result in page moves for several articles?". I don't think there is an intent here to replace RM with RfC, but as I mentioned in my close WP:CONSENSUS suggests RfC and the Village Pump for seeking a wider consensus when discussions have been contentious. Regarding my interactions with SMC, I've taken another look at them. My two direct replies to him were confirming that I had seen points that he raised, encouraging all participants provide all the policy-based arguments they had, and encouraging civility/discouraging bludgeoning. Those seem to fall squarely within the
purely in an administrative role
line of WP:UNINVOLVED, as well asWarnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved.
As far as going to WP:MRV, it does not seem like that venue is equipped to handle a discussion like this. According to that page, the sidebar, and WP:PROCESS#Formal review, the appropriate venue for seeking review of the closure is WP:AN. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I meant to touch on your point about the other precedents, but got distracted so I can address that now. There were several more examples given, but I singled out those three as a few of the most relevant here. They were all examples of RfCs that were not directly an RM, but sought to clarify how a set of pages should be named to comply with the MOS and other policies. With the consensuses (consensi? consenses?) reached, pages were moved as a natural consequence. The circumstances were obviously slightly different, but they were the same from the perspective of "Can a centralized RfC result in page moves for several articles?". I don't think there is an intent here to replace RM with RfC, but as I mentioned in my close WP:CONSENSUS suggests RfC and the Village Pump for seeking a wider consensus when discussions have been contentious. Regarding my interactions with SMC, I've taken another look at them. My two direct replies to him were confirming that I had seen points that he raised, encouraging all participants provide all the policy-based arguments they had, and encouraging civility/discouraging bludgeoning. Those seem to fall squarely within the
- Thanks for your response. You did not address how this RfC is so very dissimilar than the examples you used to justify the close. I thought that your interaction with SMcCandlish in the section asking for a panel of closers may or may not be disqualifying, which is why I asked. The coming edit war is not really an edit war, just a disagreement if this outlier RfC can take the place of an RM - you think it can and others reasonably take the opposite view. I'll ask that you please study the three examples you gave with the focus on checking if they had anything to do with replacing RM's (I'm not reading them as doing so). Taken that there is no precedent for replacing an RM with an RfC in such a way, I think I correctly read the wording of the nomination as asking for opinions. It was not made clear in the nomination wording that the RfC would replace an RM, and many editors did not offer an opinion on the merits because they too did not view the venue as an appropriate substitute for a real RM which would change titles at hundreds of articles. I'd again ask that you reconsider after studying the "precedents" you used as foundational to your close. A last question, do you think it would be appropriate to take your close to a move review (murky water, that)? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) re-ping after name fix Randy Kryn (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'll be honest, I don't see how there possibly could have been considered a consensus there. So. Many. Issues. That discussion was a disaster. Wrong place; not enough appropriate notifications (e.g. there were no notices at the top of any relevant page as is necessary per WP:RM); many felt that this wasn't really a proper proposal and did not comment (e.g. many of the contributors from the very recent RM on this isssue, such as Jweiss11). Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, one of the most active and interested places on this topic, was never notified. Dicklyon and SMCcandlish (Randy to an extent as well) literally BLUDGEONED THE HELL out the discussion, discouraging many from contributing. The amount of editors actually !voting was like a fifth of the discussion because of all the nonsense side-discussions. Everything–This was a complete wreck. It needs a do-over. That was no consensus. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion certainly was messy, with tons of bludgeoning, aspersions and assumptions of bad faith. Several editors bludgeoned the crap out of it, both on the Good Forum/Lowercase side and the Bad Forum/Uppercase side (Side note, of all the people who took positions on both the RfC legitimacy and the capitalization, there were zero examples of Good Forum/Uppercase or Bad Forum/Lowercase. It didn't play any part in the closure, but an interesting statistical anomaly nonetheless). I made every effort to ensure that the quality of the argument, and not how many times it was repeated, was the basis for the closure. WikiProject College football wasn't specifically notified about the RfC, but they were notified about the Village Pump discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Village Pump discussion, concerning the NFL Draft while that discussion was open, a few days prior to the RfC opening. Notifications were also sent to WikiProject National Football League[4], WikiProject Ice Hockey[5], WikiProject Baseball[6], WT:MOS, WT:NCCAPS, and the talkpages of the last several years of NFL drafts as well as the main Talk:National Football League Draft. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's still not enough notifications - college football has many interested editors who would have had interest in the proposal; the vast majority of relevant draft pages had no notifications at all, let alone a notice at the top of the article page (where its more likely to be viewed, and is required by WP:RM), none of which had that. The discussion was perhaps the most disastrous discussion I have ever seen; like half the people thought it wasn't even the proper forum! Many editors were discouraged I'm sure by the bludgeoning in response to everyone that did not agree with Dicklyon and SMcCandlish (to a lesser extent the other side as well) – such a disaster cannot possibly produce a consensus any way. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- 100% agree, I don't envy anyone who had to close that mess of a RFC, but it's incredible that a consensus was pulled out of the wreckage. It seems like this kind of close that just encourages overzealous bludgeoning and badgering. Nemov (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion certainly was messy, with tons of bludgeoning, aspersions and assumptions of bad faith. Several editors bludgeoned the crap out of it, both on the Good Forum/Lowercase side and the Bad Forum/Uppercase side (Side note, of all the people who took positions on both the RfC legitimacy and the capitalization, there were zero examples of Good Forum/Uppercase or Bad Forum/Lowercase. It didn't play any part in the closure, but an interesting statistical anomaly nonetheless). I made every effort to ensure that the quality of the argument, and not how many times it was repeated, was the basis for the closure. WikiProject College football wasn't specifically notified about the RfC, but they were notified about the Village Pump discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Village Pump discussion, concerning the NFL Draft while that discussion was open, a few days prior to the RfC opening. Notifications were also sent to WikiProject National Football League[4], WikiProject Ice Hockey[5], WikiProject Baseball[6], WT:MOS, WT:NCCAPS, and the talkpages of the last several years of NFL drafts as well as the main Talk:National Football League Draft. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this sanely could have closed any other way. Those who refuse to drop the stick should get on with their WP:AN thread, which will close for endorse, so we can put this to bed and get on with something more productive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that discussion sanely could have closed in favor of any way. It was improper in just about every way one could think of. Don't think you're in the best position to accuse of not dropping the stick when you and Dicklyon have been trying for years through rejected proposals, non-consensus based moves against the rejections, and then more rejected proposals until now when you finally get your way through bludgeoning the hell to drive everyone away who doesn't agree with you. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Both of you, kindly chill out. This page isn't the place to attack each other and continue rehashing arguments. Continued assumptions of bad faith and accusations regarding sticks, horse-shaped bloody spots on the ground, bludgeoning and the like are not likely to be productive. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. The community coming to a decision BeanieFan11 doesn't like isn't a conspiracy. It's just doing what it does with the available WP:P&G (especially MOS:CAPS and WP:CONLEVEL) and independent instead of primary sourcing. If someone thinks MOS:SPORTCAPS is somehow wrong, or the entire lead of MOS:CAPS is, and that it should say something like "WP will capitalize anything found capitalizd in 50.000001% or more of the sources", that's a proposal they can make at WT:MOSCAPS. Good luck with that, since it would result in orders of magnitude more capitalizations, across at least hundreds of thousands of articles, and the community does not want that. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, c'mon now, that's definitely not chilling out. There's no need to relitigate this here, I'm confident Wordsmith can handle this themselves. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not relitigating anything. Various people think the guidelines should be different. I've told them where and how to try to make that happen. I've also predicted with good reason that a consensus in favor of the proposal will not happen. But it remains the proper process for trying to get what they want. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, c'mon now, that's definitely not chilling out. There's no need to relitigate this here, I'm confident Wordsmith can handle this themselves. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. The community coming to a decision BeanieFan11 doesn't like isn't a conspiracy. It's just doing what it does with the available WP:P&G (especially MOS:CAPS and WP:CONLEVEL) and independent instead of primary sourcing. If someone thinks MOS:SPORTCAPS is somehow wrong, or the entire lead of MOS:CAPS is, and that it should say something like "WP will capitalize anything found capitalizd in 50.000001% or more of the sources", that's a proposal they can make at WT:MOSCAPS. Good luck with that, since it would result in orders of magnitude more capitalizations, across at least hundreds of thousands of articles, and the community does not want that. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Both of you, kindly chill out. This page isn't the place to attack each other and continue rehashing arguments. Continued assumptions of bad faith and accusations regarding sticks, horse-shaped bloody spots on the ground, bludgeoning and the like are not likely to be productive. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that discussion sanely could have closed in favor of any way. It was improper in just about every way one could think of. Don't think you're in the best position to accuse of not dropping the stick when you and Dicklyon have been trying for years through rejected proposals, non-consensus based moves against the rejections, and then more rejected proposals until now when you finally get your way through bludgeoning the hell to drive everyone away who doesn't agree with you. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
BTW - 'The National Football League Draft' page has moved to lowercase. I don't know if that's what the RFC closure calls for? But it's been done. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Probably better as an RM, citing the RfC result. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@The Wordsmith: - Seeking clarification. Is your decision, giving the 'green' light for National Football League Draft to moved to National Football League draft? GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC) - Copied here from the RFC page. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- My determination was that there was consensus that the pages should be moved to the lowercase titles. That doesn't mean it has to happen all immediately in a mass pagemove; care should be taken to make sure we don't break templates, categories, transclusions, double redirects etc. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect the movement of the core page (not done by you) in the RFC-in-question, might be problematic. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Do the steps at Wikipedia:Cleaning up after a move cover the potential breaks you refer to? As far as redirects after a move, I sometimes see arguments that those don't need immediate fixing per WP:COSMETIC, though I suspect editors will eventually want to change the prose too, not just the titles. —Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- I expect to have to make changes to a number of lists I've promoted and the two I currently have at FLC. If we're going to downcase there's a lot to be done. I'm fine to handle the templates and may start chipping away after the individual drafts are downcased. Or are we waiting on something? Hey man im josh (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Those steps sound about right, I just don't handle complex page moves often so I figured I'd leave the exact process to the people who know it better. One thing I don't see listed there is that especially in sports-related articles, WP:SELECTIVETRANSCLUSION is sometimes used to copy statistics or tables between multiple pages, and I'm not sure offhand if that can be affected by page moves. I don't think we're waiting on anything specific, but of course there's WP:NODEADLINE so there shouldn't be any harm in taking a little time to plan it out and avoid breaking things. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- @GoodDay, @The Wordsmith: Does this question added at the RfC page after the close merit a formal update to the close, or can it be safely removed as being addressed here? —Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Would've preferred that The Wordsmith had updated the RFC closure message, in response to my concerns, for clarity sake. If this were done, then I'd have no complaints, if my question were deleted from there. GoodDay (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've added that to the end of my close per your request. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Would've preferred that The Wordsmith had updated the RFC closure message, in response to my concerns, for clarity sake. If this were done, then I'd have no complaints, if my question were deleted from there. GoodDay (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
That was a bear of a discussion. Thank you for responding to the request for closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- You see what I mean about insufficient notifications? One of the most prominent and active football editors: When and where did that consensus happen? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that a precedent may have been set, that an RFC can over-ride any RMs. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm certainly sympathetic, but the page Jweiss11 put that comment on is one that was specifically notified about the RfC. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Though, Jweiss participates almost exclusively at the college football project, which was not notified. The discussion likely would have been much different if proper notifications had been issued, and it had taken place at the correct venue. smh BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- @BeanieFan11: It looks like the college football WikiProject was notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Village Pump discussion, concerning the NFL Draft. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: That was about Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_189#Over-capitalization_of_NFL_Draft, which was a separate discussion before the proposal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- @BeanieFan11: It looks like the college football WikiProject was notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Village Pump discussion, concerning the NFL Draft. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Worth seeing this comment as well / this discussion. The fact that a number of the relevant editors didn't even understand the terms of the proposal or that it was even taking place shows just how truly flawed it was. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is no way to inject awareness and interest directly into people's heads. The discussion was widely advertised, even on WP:CENT for a while, with highly non-neutral, downright alarmist, notices canvassed in various places as well, so there is little more that could have been done to involve more editors who might care. Hell, there was still a big pointer at VPPOL to the RfC until just now (I archived it since the RfC is long close). Most of us have lives, and do not spend every waking moment poring over Wikipedia minutiae. Consensus is gauged among the editors who do show up; we can't second-guess every decision because someone after the fact pops up to complain about the result or about not partipating back when the discussion was open. As for whether there was something confusing about the discussion (despite it being titled 'RfC on capitalization in "NFL Draft"/"National Football League draft" etc.', and before that as 'Over-capitalization of NFL Draft' – both unmistakably about whether to capitalize this), there clearly was, namely a text-wall of attempts to deny the community the ability to examine the question, before the question itself was visible. When we want an RfC to be clear and to include particular slices of the community, the thing to do is to leave neutral notices in appropriate places, and put the question up-front and succinctly. What happened here was people in the best to position to know who might care to participate didn't leave notices in some of those places, probably because they were too involved in a campaign to prevent VPPOL and RfC from being used to touch "their" topic. A saying about reaping and sowing comes to mind. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I really don't see this as a helpful comment, it's more or less saying "too bad" and making bad faith accusations including canvassing (post diffs of it or don't make these statements please). Editors made valid comments about the pages not being tagged, I think that's relevant. You can argue semantics if you want but the downcasing occurred due to a lack of consistency in sources, which, by default, favours downcasing, not due to a consensus determining that "this clearly is not a proper noun". What makes a proper noun is difficult to define and that's why we have the policy we do, to do our best. However, the policy is written in a way that there are going to be "mistakes" made where names of things are downcased. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is no way to inject awareness and interest directly into people's heads. The discussion was widely advertised, even on WP:CENT for a while, with highly non-neutral, downright alarmist, notices canvassed in various places as well, so there is little more that could have been done to involve more editors who might care. Hell, there was still a big pointer at VPPOL to the RfC until just now (I archived it since the RfC is long close). Most of us have lives, and do not spend every waking moment poring over Wikipedia minutiae. Consensus is gauged among the editors who do show up; we can't second-guess every decision because someone after the fact pops up to complain about the result or about not partipating back when the discussion was open. As for whether there was something confusing about the discussion (despite it being titled 'RfC on capitalization in "NFL Draft"/"National Football League draft" etc.', and before that as 'Over-capitalization of NFL Draft' – both unmistakably about whether to capitalize this), there clearly was, namely a text-wall of attempts to deny the community the ability to examine the question, before the question itself was visible. When we want an RfC to be clear and to include particular slices of the community, the thing to do is to leave neutral notices in appropriate places, and put the question up-front and succinctly. What happened here was people in the best to position to know who might care to participate didn't leave notices in some of those places, probably because they were too involved in a campaign to prevent VPPOL and RfC from being used to touch "their" topic. A saying about reaping and sowing comes to mind. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Though, Jweiss participates almost exclusively at the college football project, which was not notified. The discussion likely would have been much different if proper notifications had been issued, and it had taken place at the correct venue. smh BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- As someone with a sort of mixed opinion I just read the close and I thought you did an excellent job of both describing the discussion and working everyone through your logic in determining whether there was consensus, nice work. SportingFlyer T·C 09:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note as someone who saw, but neglected to !vote in, the RfC that I think your close was unimpeachable as the obviously correct reading of P&G-based consensus. I don't see how any admin who is truly uninvolved with the topic could have closed it any other way. JoelleJay (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Executing and cleaning up
I agree there's no rush, but I went ahead and asked for the main page to be moved, at WP:RMTR, and that was done. GoodDay and others had expressed the opinion that that would be a prerequisite for other changes. I'll chip away at it, but I'm pretty busy, traveling in Australia, for the next couple of months. And I won't be able to do major cleanup until/unless I get JWB permission back. I'm happy to work on moves, or RMTR filings to ask for moves. And I'm happy to collaborate with anyone else who wants to help. If there are template issues that I need to be careful around, I might need help realizing that and doing the right thing. If people who reverted some of my changes before want to chip in by reverting their reverts (including those in other drafts with no reason for capitalization), that would be cool, too. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Wordsmith. I think it might be prudent if you clarified at the RFC-in-question, your decision covers only NFL Draft/draft related pages. For example, pages like USFL Draft, CFL Draft, NHL Entry Draft etc, won't be lowercased without going the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I did reply on those other pages you posted to, but I'll copy it here to keep everything in one place.
As the RfC closer, I can confirm that the close applies only to pages related to the NFL draft and has no impact on other leagues or sports. There was some discussion of them at the RfC, but was unrelated to the RfC question or the consensus reached. Anyone trying to use it to bypass discussion on other articles is not interpreting the close correctly.
The WordsmithTalk to me 17:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)- Anyone changing "Draft" to "draft" using the close, and those admins who don't change it back, are engaged in a site-wide use of WP:IAR (the close ignored WP:RFCNOT even as it tried to address it). The WP:RM process has been broken, and move requests can now be taken to and decided either at RM or at an RfC on the Village pump policy page. A couple questions, since the remedy for a disputed RM is a move review, and for the RfC is an AN review, can an RM move dispute also be taken directly to AN (and what is the next step if a review is sought after each)? And since the moves after the close were IAR, can someone justify how they "improve or maintain" the encyclopedia (the requirement for IAR). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I reject the premise that those edits are done through WP:IAR. The close considered WP:RFCNOT as a legitimate argument, but was outweighed by other legitimate arguments. My first draft of it recommended starting a discussion at WT:RFC about that section and how it came to exist, but I cut it because it was branching too far away from the actual issues discussed. I do plan on raising the issue for discussion there so it can be clarified with more community input, but it wouldn't have been proper to do while the RfC was ongoing. I also dispute the notion that this has created a new avenue for debating moves parallel to WP:RM. Our standard processes work fine for most issues, but occasionally consensus is hard to reach after multiple discussions especially on contentious issues that people have strong feelings about, even if everyone participates in good faith. Request for Comment has always been an avenue for seeking wider input to resolve those content issues, just like WP:CONSENSUS suggests. Regarding your process question of WP:RM being taken to WP:AN, I don't participate in them often but I think WP:MRV is fine for most cases. If there have been severe issues like misconduct on the part of the closer, sockpuppetry, disruptive editing by participants etc, I have seen that go the AN/ANI. The general idea is that the "wider" venues like AN, other noticeboards, RfC, Village Pump etc handle the issues that have a larger scope or that the "routine" processes are unable to adequately handle for some reason. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone changing "Draft" to "draft" using the close, and those admins who don't change it back, are engaged in a site-wide use of WP:IAR (the close ignored WP:RFCNOT even as it tried to address it). The WP:RM process has been broken, and move requests can now be taken to and decided either at RM or at an RfC on the Village pump policy page. A couple questions, since the remedy for a disputed RM is a move review, and for the RfC is an AN review, can an RM move dispute also be taken directly to AN (and what is the next step if a review is sought after each)? And since the moves after the close were IAR, can someone justify how they "improve or maintain" the encyclopedia (the requirement for IAR). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- FYI for everyone here that I do intend on starting up a close review soon to check if the close was right. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have brought it for close review at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_review_of_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Capitalization_of_NFL_draft_article_titles. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
You don't have to respond. But, I think if you were to reverse your closure & the page moves (since that closure), then call for an RM to be held at National Football League Draft? It would be for the best. I'm confident that most individuals would respect & accept the decision of such an RM. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I support that idea. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice, but I'm not going to do that. The close review will play out as it will; I believe my closing statement will be endorsed, but if consensus ends up overturning it there's no shame in that. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 February 2024
- News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers
- Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go?
- Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi?
- Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football
- Crossword: Our crossword to bear
- Comix: Strongly
Borscht (a reply almost year late)
IIRC, Taivo[ the ]Linguist keeps ahold the idea no borscht but beetroot borscht is relevant to English Wikipedia. That's why he keeps reverting "place of origin:..." label back to "...Ukraine". All while being part of a Wikipedia project on Ukraine (see the userpage). Hope this helps. 2A00:1FA0:2CF:194E:0:2D:9ED7:4701 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the warning: no need to reply and thanks for reading my words scuffed the worst way imaginable.
2A00:1FA0:2CF:194E:0:2D:9ED7:4701 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not actually sure what this means, but if there's a question or request here please rephrase it and I'll see if I can assist. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Self trout r.e. Bobby Lonardo
Sorry for draftifying, that was dumb of me. Qcne (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, we all have an occasional brain fart! The WordsmithTalk to me 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Word count extension
Hey, I believe I'm already up against the word count limit on my AE filing. Could I request an extension of 500 words to add four more diffs illustrating the problem (~260 words), with the remainder (~250 words) reserved for any replies or clarification necessary to admins? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- For the sake of transparency, requests for extensions really should be made at AE itself. But yes, I'll grant the extension and make a note of it there. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
For the sake of transparency, requests for extensions really should be made at AE itself
I agree, but I don't think that's actually formalised anywhere within the AE structure. I've also personally had bad experiences trying that on the AE page in the past, with extension requests being unacknowledged. I don't know what the ideal solution is here unfortunately. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)- I'm not sure if the location is an explicit rule, but it does make it easier to keep things all visible in one place. I definitely understand that the requests can sometimes get lost. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oooh, idea now that I'm eating some food. So the whole AE request structure is basically a preloaded template. What if we added a dedicated section to that template for non-admin participants to briefly (in as few words as possible) request word limit extensions? That way they're less likely to get lost in lengthy or busy subsections. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the location is an explicit rule, but it does make it easier to keep things all visible in one place. I definitely understand that the requests can sometimes get lost. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Appreciate your remaining even-keeled in resolving the NFL draft dispute. —Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC) |
Operation Torpedo and Operation Dark Huntor redaction
@The Wordsmith @The Wordsmith: I have reviewed the redactions that you made to the two listed articles. I want to continue to work on these to bring them up to the necessary standards that were cited in the discussion/violation about using court documents as primary sources for living persons. I was unfamiliar with the ability for somebody to utilize a tool that could take a revision out of reach of normal editors, so did not make any backups. The work that you redacted represented the only copy of more than 100 hours of work.
- 1. Some of what you redacted was not done surgically, and easily met the standards of wikipedia or at least were not part of the alleged violation. As such they should not have been removed from revision control and placed out of reach of wiki editors for review or revision.
- 2. The parts of the article that you unilaterally decided met the requirements for the violation are now placed out of my reach to correct, or find the requisite secondary and tertiary sources that are required to make the primary sources relevant or reliable enough for use.
As such, I would like you to provide a way to access a copy of the revision so I can continue to work on them, at least to surgically restore the parts that were not in violation, and to rework or bring up to WP standards. If none else, so that I can have the benefit of the 100+ hours of work it took to curate the material so that it can be used in some way external to wikipedia. I also will not use the material to restore the tables or other names of living persons without first bringing it up for discussion/review.
Disclaimer - the intent of the work wasn't to dox or draw undue attention to any living person, but as stated in the discussion to focus on the operation, the laws that surrounded it and new case law that was developed as a result of the novel law enforcement operation. Thus, the work isn't the work of a zealot wishing to further harm the individuals that were members of the cases associated with the operation, which was potentially the concern of the discussion that resulted in the redactions to begin with. eximo (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm certainly sympathetic to your perspective, I would hate to have hours of my effort wasted too. Revision Deletion is a tool that Administrators have, which can hide revisions from non-administrators when it contains serious policy violations. It's very possible that some of the material could meet Wikipedia guidelines, but with an issue like that we don't have the luxury of waiting for it to be fixed. WP:BLP is our most important policy, and including criminal allegations sourced only to court records is a serious issue that had to be handled immediately. In addition, the names of the people arrested/charged should probably not be on anyway, at least not without significant coverage in secondary sources.
- I'm sure your intentions were good, you just misunderstood Wikipedia policy and happened to be working in a topic area where enforcement is unusually strict out of necessity. I'm willing to email you a copy of the material you wrote, as long as you agree not to post the names or personally identifiable information on-wiki. If you'd like to later set up a draft in your own userspace (with names redacted), I'd be happy to review it before you move it into live articles. Let me know if you agree to that condition and I'll send them via email. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith:
- I agree to the terms; thank you for your understanding; I'll certainly reach out to the community to figure out the best way to document these important operations. eximo (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
- Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
- Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.
- The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)
- The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ*ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
- Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.
HaughtonBrit
Good day. I saw that you partially actioned HaughtonBrit's SPI-[8]. However, the other sock Dazzem is unblocked, I believe owing to DatGuy's statement: "Dazzem (talk · contribs) is Possible, but hasn't made enough edits for a behavioural block. I've blocked them for a week for other loutsocking." I'd like to address this, the whole situation is so convoluted because of HB's brazen sockpuppetry, gaslighting, and frequent oscillation of IPs (both IPv6s, v4s and proxies) that it's head spinning. I will try my best to reiterate my case for Dazzem being an obvious sock of HB.
Just to get this out the way, HB's MO on Wikipedia is to aggrandize and augment Sikh military achievements on Wikipedia, since the Sikhs were historically involved in major conflicts with the Afghans, HB tends to be active in Sikh-Afghan conflicts, but also Mughal-Sikh, Anglo-Sikh, Maratha-Sikh conflicts and more. He edits from Pittsburgh or other nearby places in Pennsylvania-[9]. Bbb23 commented-"In addition, MehmoodS has demonstrated by their own admitted use of IPs in the past that they edit from Pittsburgh, and the IPv6s noted in the diffs geolocate to Pittsburgh.". After his accounts Javerine and Ralx888 were blocked, this user has been hounding me non stop with various 2601:547 and 2600:1016 IPs which geolocate to Pittsburgh, or occasionally with different Pittsburgh IPv4s. See block logs-[10], [11], [12]. I listed some of the harassment on the SPI page as well.
In March, a user KamalAfghan appeared, making edits aggrandizing the Afghans. HaughtonBrit immidiately began a campaign against him- for example you can see Javerine (HB confirmed sock) reverting KA-[13], and then HB 2601 IPs hounding him after Javerine was blocked-see 11 HB IP edits editing in close proximity to KA-[14]. More hounding: [15], you can see 14 HB IP edits editing in close proximity to KA-[16]. 8 edits (from both HB's confirmed sock Ralx888 and 2601:547 IP) here-[17]. 12 edits in close proximity to KA here-[18]. You can also see the 2601:547 IP trying to recreate a deleted battle that HB made, which was later declined due to sockpuppetry-[19]. Eventually HB started approaching admins just before KamalAfghan was blocked on May 18 discussing the possibility of sockpuppetry-[20] and [21] (you can note that these messages were made on the same day KamalAfghan was blocked). Somehow, Ponyo caught wind of this and promptly blocked KamalAfghan.
Since then HB has frequently been posting to Pnnyo's talk page regarding KA's sockpuppetry- [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]
[37] (here Ponyo locked her talk page meaning that if HB wanted to canvass, he'd have to do it with an account)
You can see the 2601:547 IPs and the 71 IPv4 geolocate to Pittsburgh, and some of them are FedEx ISP proxies. HB has been abusing a certain proxy network that provides IPs that have a listed ISP of FedEx for years now. [38] + [39] when I filed a SPI on him on Jan 2023 which led to MehmoodS's unblock request being denied, I pointed out how he was using these FedEx proxies to block evade. He has been abusing these proxies since 2020, there are hundreds of diffs of him using them to evade his block and engage in edit warring without an account so he could avoid punishment, but this example is the most glaring- HB was having a disagreement on the page Battle of Saragarhi, making numerous edit both through accounts as well as these 192 and 199* FedEx proxies; he was engaged in a discussion with an admin utcursh-[40]. To troll and gaslight his disputant, he made an account impersonating utcursh, which he pointed out: "Pretty silly of you to create an account impersonating me (User:AtmaramU). The latest sources that you've added are not great either." and [41]-"After posting here, the anon (192 and 199 FedEx proxies) created an account impersonating me (User:UAtmaram), and added a few other sources to the article." and [42]. AtmaramU is a confirmed Hb sock.
You can see on KamalAfghan's SPI, with the exception of Maplesyrupsushi, all of them were filed by HB's FedEx socks-[43]. Dazzem makes the same post on Ponyo's talk page-[44] regarding KamalAfghan despite being a brand new editor. And this was right before HB's confirmed 2601:547 Pittsburgh IPs were harassing Leviathian12, whom HB believed to be a KA sock-[45]. In fact, the most current KamalAfghan SPI report is by the confirmed 2601:547 HB sock-[46]. Just goes to show this user tries to gaslight and be as outlandish as possible, so that anyone who reports him seems like they're exaggerating or being overzealous because no one would act that absurdly.
You can also note that 170* and 199* FedEx proxy who filed the SPI on KamalAfghan and were canvassing on Ponyo's talk page was also on Courcelles' talk page trying to get me blocked by saying I'm a sock of PrinceofRoblox-[47] and [48], [49]. Which is basically what Finmas (now blocked HB sock) was doing [50].
I'm sorry- I know this is pretty convoluted, but Dazzem is 110% a sockpuppet or at the very least meatpuppet of HB, it isn't even a matter of suspicion or plausible deniability. Their behaviours match 1:1. If you want me to clear anything up or have any questions, please let me know, I think it's imperative that a a brazen block evader and gaslighter like HB be shut down swiftly. He has been harassing and hurting people and disrupting Wikipedia for far too long. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- After checking this additional evidence, I've gone back and blocked Dazzem as well. Thanks for following up. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
DRN Filing on India
Thank you for your note. That makes it easier, because now I won't explain in detail what else was wrong with the filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, happy to help. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)