User talk:The Wordsmith
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOREVER
| |||||||||||||
|
| Contentious Topics awareness templates | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Top 100[edit]
Where can I read the top 100 ANI bangers? That sounds fun. Sennalen (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I know there is no list, and creating one would have no purpose but reopening old wounds. Some of my old personal highlights would be the Climate Change wars, GMO battles and Gamergate nonsense, all of which I helped patrol and clear out disruptive influences. The interpersonal conflicts between established editors got pretty wild as well. Those areas seem pretty quiet now, but then again most of the community thankfully seems calmer than it was in the old Wild West days.
- I do have a list of "landmark" Arbcom cases, RFCs etc I need to refer to often that helped shape the policies we have today, some of that is interesting reading. It can be found at User:The Wordsmith/Useful Links. The mass deletion of unsourced BLPs was an especially interesting time for the project, its what led to the Arbcom quote at the top of my user talkpage. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Newimpartial[edit]
The Wordsmith, I am genuinely confused about your comment. What does POINTy mean in this context, and do you feel that I've cast aspersions? I appreciate that it is an unproductive thread, but I often find it difficult to be concise when responding to this editor. In that thread, after I stated that they had engaged in tendentious editing, I suspected that they were indirectly accusing me of TE by moving goalposts, shifting sourcing requirements or misstating the positions I had taken in discussion
. [1] And when I asked for clarification they obfuscated. At Talk:Gender they repeatedly falsely accused me of moving goal posts [2][3], and the gaslighting accusations were all about claims that I had misstated my positions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- My reading of it was that Newimpartial had previously improperly accused others of gaslighting and psychological abuse, and that you were now doing so to prove a point about how inappropriate it was, rather than you actually believing you were being psychologically abused (which is a serious accusation). I'll admit that my reading could be off because there's been so much noise and so many diffs and accusations thrown around on all sides, but could you clarify if that isn't the case? The WordsmithTalk to me 17:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- There has been a misunderstanding. I really have felt psychologically abused and gaslit. I think the false accusations I've received are more straightforward evidence of abuse, but the more subtle forms I guess I have to speak of in terms of what I've felt because I'm not sure if it can be proven. Just on that ANI page I felt like I was receiving abuse. It's difficult on Wikipedia to be able to talk about how we feel when there isn't clear cut evidence, but that needs to happen in some form. BTW, are you still an administrator? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- That's fine then, sincerity doesn't always come across over text. Especially at ANI; there's a good reason it has redirects to it like WP:CESSPIT, WP:ALOTOFDRAMA and WP:AIRINGOFGRIEVANCES. I apologize for the misunderstanding and I'll strike my comment, though I would suggest that if you're experiencing a psychological impact from that topic area then it might be a good idea to take a break, or edit something boring for a bit to reset your mental state. Like an article about a rock, or train station or something. You can also reach out if you're having issues and I'll do my best to help.
- As for my adminship, I was desysopped at the end of December for inactivity. Since my return I've been taking some time to get reacquainted with the community and work out how policies and processes have changed since I was last active, but I have requested my mop be reinstated. After all these threads, it's clear that this topic area needs some heavy cleanup, and I do have experience with clearing out disruption and BLP issues in controversial areas like this. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you; that's very generous of you. I feel like what's most distressing is the community's inability to recognize editors' behavior beyond the surface. And it feels like there's a culture of silence preventing us from talking about our perceptions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- There has been a misunderstanding. I really have felt psychologically abused and gaslit. I think the false accusations I've received are more straightforward evidence of abuse, but the more subtle forms I guess I have to speak of in terms of what I've felt because I'm not sure if it can be proven. Just on that ANI page I felt like I was receiving abuse. It's difficult on Wikipedia to be able to talk about how we feel when there isn't clear cut evidence, but that needs to happen in some form. BTW, are you still an administrator? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
And don't forget...[edit]
... There's also veiled ass Persians and unnecessary ass Persians (scroll down at WP:ASSPERSIANS). EEng 03:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- How could I forget? I was considering making up a custom one for that ANI thread, something along the lines of "Ass Persian Territory" with the third being something like File:Achaemenid Empire 500 BCE.jpg, but the aspect ratio was off and I couldn't be bothered fixing it. Anyway, thanks for helping bring some levity to WP:DRAMABOARD. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2023[edit]
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
- Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
- A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.
Technical news
- The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.
Arbitration
- Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
- The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
- A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.
Miscellaneous
- The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
- Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
- The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a
[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing
. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
BLP question[edit]
Talk page stalkers might want the context at User talk:Levivich#1815 unreferenced BLPs
I know that when you nominate an article for AfD, it's not a good idea to remove content. I'm a bit concerned about Laisa Digitaki, an article I've prodded, though. This is the first time I've tried to do so (and I'd rather be sure I'm getting the process right instead of going on some sort of mass edit spree where mistakes could cause problems fast) but I'm concerned about just leaving some of the content there due to BLP implications. My question is if WP:BLP would overrule the faux pas associated with removing content on an article you think is worthy of deletion. I'm inclined to think it would but I don't want to make anyone upset, either. I'm also worried that maybe my first try at BLPPROD isn't actually applicable? A second opinion would be valued. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ouch, I see what you mean. In general, if there's a clear BLP violation it should be removed whether or not the article is being considered for deletion (until there is consensus for its inclusion). The relevant policy is WP:BLPDEL, which takes priority over most other norms. In this case, the article was almost entirely contentious information and had been unsourced for years. I did a spot check of some of the links that used to be in the article, and they all seemed permanently dead with no archive available. The BLP violation was clear enough here that I just went ahead and summarily deleted it per that same policy. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- So if I see something like that in the future... is there anything I can do as a non-admin other than blpprod? Or should I just bring attention to the article to an admin like what ended up happening here? You're right that the article was essentially full of contentious unsourced information... if I went back in time, should I have practically blanked it because of that? I just want to know what exactly I should've done. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- The way you handled that was perfect. There were a couple sources in older versions of the article which could normally disqualify it from BLPPROD, but the article creator removed them in 2015 because they were permanently dead with no archive or possibility of recovery. Before doing a BLPPROD it makes sense to check the history and verify that sources weren't removed by vandals, but that's not relevant in this case. And yes, if an unsourced BLP is that bad but doesn't really qualify for G10, then asking an admin to check it out is fine. I wouldn't normally recommend blanking, but other options include restoring it to an old version that was unsourced but not awful, or reducing it to a stub while the normal deletion process kicks off (and making a note of it on the talk page, AFD, etc). The WordsmithTalk to me 21:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- So I found another article like the previous one by the same creator at Samuela Matakibau. The article did contain sources at creation (although it's currently unsourced) so it's a similar situation. I used the regular PROD process this time since it did have sources at one point, even though they're not currently accessible from what I can see. My concern is that the article in pretty much its entirety seems to violate WP:BLPCRIME. Should I just wait or is this another case of "ask an admin what they think"? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've killed that one as a G10. In this case, the applicable deletion template would be Template:Db-negublp since there really wasn't any content there that wasn't negative and unsourced. I also left a note for the article creator, asking if he might be able to check his other creations to see if there are other BLP vios to delete. He's created 677 pages in mainspace,[4] so it could be quite a mess. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I considered G10 but I made a mistake with speedy deletion yesterday and was trying to follow Ritchie333's advice that stuff that's been around a long time likely wouldn't be an uncontroversial deletion. That's why I mostly just wanted a second opinion. As for the creator, he hasn't actively edited in quite awhile, so I'm not sure your talk page message will be seen. He's also an adminstrator. [5] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yep I checked his editing history, which is why I'm not too concerned with discussing deletions with him beforehand. I don't really expect him to join in, but asking him anyway is just good manners. I did see that he's an admin and has been for some time. If it turns out that there's a nightmare of BLP violations in his contribs (or if he uses the tools to reinstate them etc) it might be worth taking it to AN/ANI, but if only a few of his creations from ~2007 are a problem it won't be worth the drama. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- G10 sounds fine for Samuela Matakibau - all revisions of it had the same unsourced WP:BLPCRIME violating content. For an example of a controversial G10, consider Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Deletion of Micaela Schäfer Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- I checked out that article, and I think that was a good deletion and a good restoration to fix. I don't think it necessarily qualifies as G10 (borderline), but I would have invoked summary deletion per WP:BLPDEL and then opened the same discussion you did. It seems clear that the subject meets criteria for an article, just not the article that existed at the time. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- G10 sounds fine for Samuela Matakibau - all revisions of it had the same unsourced WP:BLPCRIME violating content. For an example of a controversial G10, consider Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Deletion of Micaela Schäfer Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yep I checked his editing history, which is why I'm not too concerned with discussing deletions with him beforehand. I don't really expect him to join in, but asking him anyway is just good manners. I did see that he's an admin and has been for some time. If it turns out that there's a nightmare of BLP violations in his contribs (or if he uses the tools to reinstate them etc) it might be worth taking it to AN/ANI, but if only a few of his creations from ~2007 are a problem it won't be worth the drama. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I considered G10 but I made a mistake with speedy deletion yesterday and was trying to follow Ritchie333's advice that stuff that's been around a long time likely wouldn't be an uncontroversial deletion. That's why I mostly just wanted a second opinion. As for the creator, he hasn't actively edited in quite awhile, so I'm not sure your talk page message will be seen. He's also an adminstrator. [5] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've killed that one as a G10. In this case, the applicable deletion template would be Template:Db-negublp since there really wasn't any content there that wasn't negative and unsourced. I also left a note for the article creator, asking if he might be able to check his other creations to see if there are other BLP vios to delete. He's created 677 pages in mainspace,[4] so it could be quite a mess. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- So I found another article like the previous one by the same creator at Samuela Matakibau. The article did contain sources at creation (although it's currently unsourced) so it's a similar situation. I used the regular PROD process this time since it did have sources at one point, even though they're not currently accessible from what I can see. My concern is that the article in pretty much its entirety seems to violate WP:BLPCRIME. Should I just wait or is this another case of "ask an admin what they think"? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- The way you handled that was perfect. There were a couple sources in older versions of the article which could normally disqualify it from BLPPROD, but the article creator removed them in 2015 because they were permanently dead with no archive or possibility of recovery. Before doing a BLPPROD it makes sense to check the history and verify that sources weren't removed by vandals, but that's not relevant in this case. And yes, if an unsourced BLP is that bad but doesn't really qualify for G10, then asking an admin to check it out is fine. I wouldn't normally recommend blanking, but other options include restoring it to an old version that was unsourced but not awful, or reducing it to a stub while the normal deletion process kicks off (and making a note of it on the talk page, AFD, etc). The WordsmithTalk to me 21:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- So if I see something like that in the future... is there anything I can do as a non-admin other than blpprod? Or should I just bring attention to the article to an admin like what ended up happening here? You're right that the article was essentially full of contentious unsourced information... if I went back in time, should I have practically blanked it because of that? I just want to know what exactly I should've done. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
From an old-timer[edit]
Re this edit: Yes it did. I hadn't thought of Kurt in years. And I was the one who started the thread to ban him after his similar ArbCom candidacy, where he promised he would vote to dismiss every case brought to it since he thought it was illegitimate, led to four !votes suggesting as much. After which he pretty much left ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- That was definitely an interesting time, and I recall him being allowed to continue for months because one oppose wasn't such a big deal. I only came back recently and I'm surprised by how much has changed, and how much of a furor these two dumb opposes set off on an RfA with 99% support. Maybe this is why we don't have any more RfAs. Sometimes I do miss the old "Wild West" days. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's worth mentioning that at the point that Kurt quit Wikipedia, he realised how disruptive he'd been and apologised for his conduct. So it sounds to me like a young editor who simply grew up and matured. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Precious anniversary[edit]
 | |
| Six years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Polska (internet celebrity) for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Polska (internet celebrity), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polska (internet celebrity) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Desysop proposal[edit]
The desysop proposal you made at WP:AN/I is nothing short of brilliant. In one fell swoop you are cutting right through the gordian knot of all the proposed and failed de-adminship processes. If it succeeds (and I suspect it will) it will be a landmark decision. Even if it doesn't succeed, or ArbCom beats it to the punch, it will still be pointed towards in the future as a way to deadmin someone. Bravo!! There's one potential fly in the ointment though; if ArbCom doesn't pass the motion to desysop, then sending this to ArbCom (assuming it passes) isn't going to do anything. I would recommend that if that should happen that a indefinite block be applied. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! I appreciate the vote of confidence. I'm positive there was a similar case somewhere in the deep history of enwiki, where either AN/I or an WP:RFC/U resulted in a consensus that the admin shouldn't have the tools and Arbcom swiftly desysopped by motion when the request was made. One thing I did notice about all the previous attempts at community desysop proposals was that they were prescriptive, where much of our current policies and guidelines started as descriptive when somebody wrote down the things that we were already doing because someone just started doing them one day.
- Assuming a clear consensus does materialize with no room for doubt, I don't think Arbcom would refuse. The current composition of the Committee seems pretty sensible, moreso than some previous iterations I've seen. Refusing would upset a lot of editors, and I don't think they want to kick over that particular hornet's nest while they have a decent amount of goodwill. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that it was a good idea, particularly as it doesn't try to end run around ArbCom. FYI, I've asked Barkeep49 a question (and pinged you), but I plan on asking ArbCom about this somewhere once the Dbachmann dust settles. I'll let you know when and where. But the more I think about this, the more I like it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well, something quite close to your proposal is now very likely going to pass (as you saw). Ok you didn't propose this on VP, but it's your proposal. Bravo :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2023[edit]
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Technical news
- Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
- The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
- A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.
Arbitration
- The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
- A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.
Procedural notification[edit]
Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've already commented on it, thanks for the notification. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2023[edit]
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
- Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Arbitration
- The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.
Miscellaneous
- The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.
"Wikipedia:YOLO" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
The redirect Wikipedia:YOLO has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 26 § Wikipedia:YOLO until a consensus is reached. Q𝟤𝟪 18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)