User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 073

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

List of archives

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

Edits at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

Thank you, @Matilda Maniac! I love brownies. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the comments directed at @H. Carver below, and including as I now have found out that WP:BLUDGEON is an actual 'thing', I no longer feel like I should have sent you a brownie after all. So I am retracting that offering, unfortunately, and simply wishing you a Good Day. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the youngsters say, wotevah.

If you and H. Carver put a fraction as much effort into applying policy as you have put into complaining about being asked to apply policy, then we would all have expended less effort and would be much closer to a consensus.

Instead we have drama about drama about drama, while the policy WP:AT grows lonely in a corner somewhere. That makes me sad. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BareRefBot

hello there,

You said that you were focusing on other tasks during my work on filling bare URL pdfs when it came to BareRefBot. I have been making improvements to the bot for a while so I would love to proceed with the next steps (if you think the bot is still necessary) Rlink2 (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of orbital launcher families

Hi BrownHairedGirl,

I saw the "bare URL" banner you added today to the page Comparison of orbital launcher families; after a little searching, I found one instance of a bare URL that someone added years ago (in the table entry for the Japanese H3 launcher) and proceeded to convert it to a regular reference with author, date, title, and link. Your comment to the edit adding the banner stated that there's still one instance of bare URL on that page, so this now should have been rectified; I'll leave it to you to remove the banner from that page in case there are more unnoticed bare URLs on that page. Cheers! Spotty's Friend (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spotty's Friend: the easiest way to find a bare URL on a page is to press Ctl-F to search, enter http in the search box, and press F3 to find successive occurrences.

In this case the remaining bare URL is ref #111: http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2014/10/isros-unified-launch-vehicle-ulv.html BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bare URL in reference number 111 led nowhere, Had some difficulties finding another good source from India for this proposed launcher; finally settlted on a secondary source from a US spaceflight discussion forum as replacement. Cheers! Spotty's Friend (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference template

You've tagged many entries on my watch list with the "1 citation" tag (such as the opening tag at Works based on Alice in Wonderland) so there must be many more. If a page has dozens of cites, yet one or even more are missing data, it doesn't seem encyclopedic or helpful to add the subjectively ugly tag onto the entire page. Can you rethink using these? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: that comment makes no sense to me.

You mention the "1 citation" tag, by which I assume you mean {{One source}} ... but I don't add that banner to articles with more than one source. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cleanup bare URLs tag, see top of the Works based on Alice link above. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Randy Kryn. That makes sense now, tho it's pity that you didn't identify the template clearly at the outset.

I have indeed thought about this many times, and then summary answer is no: I won't stop. I could write a very long reply to you, but I will try to make this brief:

No cleanup tag is encyclopedic. None of them conveys encyclopedic content; every one of them is a note about a problem.
bare URLs are a major deficiency in an article's compliance with the core policy of WP:Verifiability. This is not a trivial issue.
This is the mopping-up phase of bare URLs. I have been working on them full-time (50-70 hours per week) since July 2021, and in that period the total number of bare URLs refs has fallen by ~95%, while the number of articles with bare URLs has fallen by 80%
We are now at the limit of what can be achieved with bulk tools such as @Citation bot. That means that further progress can be made only one page at a time, either by manually filling the refs or with tools such as WP:ReFill ... and for that to happen, editors need the pages to be tagged so that they can identify the problem.
Where possible, I use inline tags such as {{Bare URL inline}}
However, the tool WP:Reflinks will not fill refs tagged with {{Bare URL inline}}, so using the inline tag on those refs actually impedes filling the ref.
WP:Reflinks is unmaintained, so there is no prospect of a fix.
So I have developed a list of websites which WP:Reflinks cannot fill, and in those cases I apply {{Bare URL inline}}: see User:BrownHairedGirl/No-reflinks websites. Building that list of over 2,000 websites has taken hundreds of hours of work.
After inline-tagging everything possible, and feeding the articles through @Citation bot many times, I have recently taken to applying the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner to articles which still have untagged bare URLs.
I have now applied the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner to all but ~300 of the remaining articles which still have untagged bare URLs. Once those stragglers have been tagged, the number of {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banners will fall, as the 15-year backlog is slowly cleared up.

Hope this helps. Please note that in August, this was discussed at length at WP:VPM, and I don't have energy to debate it all over again. If you want to read the August debates, see WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 71#Mass_addition_of_Cleanup_bare_URLs_template. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your long and educational answer and for your work. I did find the broken code on one page that was tagged, and it seems a process of going through each one individually if I'm not mistaken. Seems like you've been on a long process with this project, and just consider me a now more educated sidetrack. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your excessive and unnecessary citation edits harassment. Stop.

This is a nasty set of wholly bogus accusations, based on a complete failure to assess my contributions list and a series of absurd assumptions of bad faith.
My initial response[1] was to ask for a retraction of the bogus allegations, as the basis for discussion. But after re-reading @Kingsif's comment in their initial post that This message is not here for discussion, my hope for a civil discussion was clearly misplaced. If Kingsif wants to continue these unfounded accusations, they can go to WP:ANI and enjoy the WP:BOOMERANG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BHG, I had very rarely seen Citation bot edits anywhere until a while back when we had an editing dispute, that I completely forget the details of. Now, they are present and made by you at nearly every article I edit. With this timing and the consistency, you cannot convince me it is a coincidence. Your actions are petty and inappropriate, and I consider it harassment. However you may try to justify it, even if you think you are making improvements, you cannot dispute that actively choosing to stalk my edits and then needlessly editing the same articles almost every single day is wrong.
Since these edits are occasionally meh, mostly detrimental (seriously, the tool is shit), but easy to ignore or revert, I have stayed silent, until now; I did not think an adult(?) could be using Wikipedia edits out of spite so consistently for so long, but that is a you problem.
No, I come here now because it is completely ridiculous to add maintenance banners at the top of articles for a single bare url, especially when tagging is an option. I do not know why you thought it was a good idea in the slightest; you tag bare urls on articles I edit all the time. I am struggling to find a good faith reason for the edit, but will grant you the benefit of the doubt.
However, with the incessant history, it has prompted me to tell you that I do consider your targeted edits/stalking after an editing conflict to be harassment, and since these edits are now more disruptive, I request you stop. This message is not here for discussion, either. I do not wish to engage with you at all, but had to leave a message somehow. Stop, or I will take further steps to resolution. Kingsif (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URL ugraded, in less time than it must have taken to write that screed. PamD 07:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And did writing this comment take more or less time than upgrading another one, Pam? But seriously, I am clearly not talking about a single edit, nor to you. You can improve WP without being snarky about genuine concerns that are none of your business, and I suggest you start. Kingsif (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) Kingsif, I believe you are wrong thinking that the tags have anything to do with you in person, - just look above for others who feel something is wrong. BHG distributes thousands of them, and the best way to react is fixing the bare urls. When it hits an article I watch (in 90+% of the cases not written by me), I just try to repair the problem. Often enough, the one bare url in an otherwise meticulously referenced article was added by an IP, goes nowhere or to the official website or to a dubious website, and so can just be removed. I think I fixed three yesterday, and expect some today. It happens, no more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I accept it happens excessively in general, which I also find unnecessary but clearly BHG is not for reconsidering, especially given her abhorrent treatment of Materialscientist simply for voicing concern above, but as I said upfront, the timing of the start of the frankly absurd number of such edits that bring interactions with me cannot be coincidental (in just the one linked, her edit reason says she made at least 7 passes in 5 days on an article I only started editing recently and she had not before). I do not think BHG finds issues with my edits, which is actually the problem: if BHG is watching the articles I edit, including ones since the dispute which she must be stalking my edits to find, and only then choosing to 'fix' things, that is concerning. I wouldn't care if the edits were good or meh, but they are bad. When they are made on articles I edit, I get to fix them. It would be better if they were never made in the first place. Since stopping BHG and the shit bot completely seems unlikely to happen, stopping her from following my edits and thus making hers at articles I feel some responsibility to improve at least makes her editing less of a problem for me.
It would also be unjustified to ask someone to stop making edits they think are improvements (and which they have previously said they won't stop…) without it being a behavioural (rather than editing) concern, which (since I do honestly believe BHG has only found these articles through stalking my edits and the history supports that) is why I mention the timing and harassment. Kingsif (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: my work on bare URLs is based on lists of articles which are made by two methods:

a set of about 30 scans of the twice-monthly WP:Database downloads
searches for articles with bare URLs, such as insource:/\<ref( [^\>]*)?\>https?:\/\/[^ \<\>\{\}]+ *\<\/ref/i

These methods lead me to feed over ten thousand articles to @Citation bot every day. My work lists are not based on contribs of any editor, and can unequivocally say that I have been wholly uaware of any overlap with your work until you posted here. I can't even recall when you last entered my mind.

Your allegations of stalking and harassment are not just wrong; they are utterly unfounded. They are a blatant assumption of bad faith, and also easily disproven by any examination of the facts.

If you want to strike and withdraw all those allegations, then I will happily discuss any concerns you have about the substance of the edits. If not, I will simply close this section, and direct you to ANI. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have just re-read the opening message by @Kingsif, which says This message is not here for discussion, either. I do not wish to engage with you at all, but had to leave a message somehow.

Since this pile of abusive nonsense is not intended for discussion, my offer to discuss was pointless, and I withdraw it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The history: Kingsif already asked to stay off my talk

A few hours after closing the discussion above, I got curious: what was my previous encounter with Kingsif (talk · contribs)?

I found it in my archives at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 068#February_2022.

It's a pattern of conduct depressingly similar to that above. In February, Kingsif came to my talk, guns ablaze with bogus accusation, based on that occasion on a quote which Kingsif had fabricated. They launched into a barrage of personal attacks against me.

After that, I banned Kingsif from my talk.

I have no idea what causes Kingsif to fabricate quotes, to repeatedly assume bad faith, to ignore evidence, and to make streams of angry personal attacks. But I see no reason at all the indulge such appalling conduct, so for avoidance of doubt Kingsif, do not post on my talk page ever again, for any reason or on any topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Chico Hernandez Article

Thank You BrownHairedGirl for Your help and I can still use more of it ...Please help me get this article to up to Wiki standards...I am just a novice and can use all of the help I can get. Thank You Once Again...Chico 9 (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Chico 9, but there is only one of me, and I have a lot of demands my time. So I try to focus on my to-do lists of tasks which few others do, explaining my work to lots of nice people, and fending off the attacks from angry eejits. (That's not you of course, but I had one very unpleasant eejit today, who sucked a lot of my psychic energy).

If you need more help, I recommend the WP:Teahouse. Good luck! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLs milestone: all tagged

A few hours ago, I finished bare URL tagging as of the 20220920 WP:Database dump.

That means that on every article which had one or more bare URLs as of the 20220920 database dump, either:

the article has a {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner
or
every bare URL on the page has an inline tag, i.e {{Bare URL inline}} or one of the specialised alternatives for other mime types (e.g. {{Bare URL PDF}})

This means that for the first time, Category:All articles with bare URLs for citations does actually contain all articles, because all are tagged.

Note that sadly, hundreds of new bare URL refs are added to articles to every day. Those are picked up in the next database dump, and either filled by @Citation bot (CB), inline-tagged by my User:BrownHairedGirl/No-reflinks websites AWB runs, or if CB fails after multiple passes I add the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner.

Some numbers

Articles with bare URLs as of May 2021: ~470,000
Articles with bare URLs as of 28 September 2022: 94,959
Articles with the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner as of 28 September 2022: 44,049
Articles with one or more {{Bare URL PDF}} tags of 28 September 2022: 36,149

Thanks to everyone who has helped reduce the backlog. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This prompted me to update not just the bare URL on XUL but several other oddly formatted sources. Hopefully it pushes others to keep standards high for verifiability. I have no idea how you find the time to handle all this. Good luck! Rjjiii (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the banner truly is ugly

Hey, just wanted to be another one of the people stopping by and letting you know that I thought the banner you’re dropping all over the place is ugly. Many of these will probably just sit at the top of these pages forever…. I routinely find citation needed templates that are over 10 years old. This is just adding to that same type of clutter. Regards ShaveKongo (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the banner is ugly. But the bare URLs are a failure of the core policy of WP:Verifiability.

The banner can be removed when the problem is fixed.

And no, I am not dropping [the banner] all over the place. I have added it to ~16,000 pages this month, making a total as of right now of 44,006 pages with the banner. That is only 0'67% of all articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl are you no longer an admin? Ishan87 (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2022

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244

Online events:

New: Alphabet run: G and H | Women in STEM / Ada Lovelace Day | Geofocus West Asia
Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman

See also:

Women in Green's "Wildcard Edition" Good Article editathon

Other ways to participate:

Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications.
Join the conversations on our talkpage.
Help us plan future events.
Follow us on social media:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Tag

Hatting this discussion, because yet again the snarky, conflict-seeking Rambling Man prefers ABF and antagonism to problem-solving and won't respect a clear request to stay off this page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can you explain why you made this edit please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) The script used can't see that the bare url is commented out. Compare just above, #Klais Orgelbau. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then the script needs to stop being used until that bug is fixed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the reply to that above? - Also I understand that the job is done, so won't happen to old articles again (until someone adds the next bare url). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Just down to the rest of us to clear up the mess then. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. A I explained above in the section #Klais Orgelbau to which Gerda linked, I will be trying to clean it up using data from the next database dump. But as usual, The Rambling Man prefers snark and ABF to civil discourse, which is why I banned him from my talk long ago.

I estimate that the number of articles with this problem is about 100–150 out of 44,006 articles with the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to follow up?

I decided to have a go at resolving some of the pages you'd recently tagged (after doing the one mentioned above), so picked on the initial "P", and hit a question on the first attempt: Push (2009 film). The bare URL (https://www.cgccomics.com/census/search-results.aspx?title=push&issue=1&matchtype=anywhere) leads to a log-on page, no access for non-members. The link was added by an IP in their only edit. Where do we go now, to save other editors wasting time following the steps I've just done? Perhaps ask for an expert from a relevant WikiProject? What do you think?

Best wishes! PamD 07:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm nowhere near experienced in that, but with the circumstances being an IP adding the link and it being their only edit, I'd probably remove it altogether. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As said in the above discussion: I'd also just remove it, without much ado. A link that doesn't help and causes a formatting problem doesn't have to be there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's another in Port Adelaide, again added by IP. PamD 08:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: that IP edit amounts to adding a link which other people cannot view, while providing no info on what is in the link. That feels like a form of passive aggression.
The whole point of a ref is to assist WP:Verifiability, but this not does aid verifiability. So I am inclined to agree with @LilianaUwU, and revert the edit which added this non-ref.
Other options I have used include tagging the ref with {{Bare URL inline}} or {{Failed verification}} or {{subscription required}}, but those just kick the can down the road with little likelihood that anyone else will be able to resolve the problem. So I think that removal is probably best. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 28 September 2022‎ (UTC)

I think "passive aggressive" is perhaps a bit OTT: just thoughtless. The IP presumably had subscriber access themself, and it's not always easy to remember what one's accessing through a subscription or membership access, as opposed to what everyone else will be able to see (if you use Facebook you'll see the same kind of thing, where people try to "Share" something to a group and it comes up as "Content unavailable" because it's restricted to members of some other group that the poster is a member of). I'll have a think. Meanwhile, I need to stop spending so much time on this fascinating quest: I've worked my way from Push (2009 film) to Peter Joslin and found all sorts of variations - the most recent being a Googlebooks snippet which did not support the information it was supposed to. Addictive. I must get on with some Real Life stuff. Perhaps a mention in the Signpost would be worth doing, when you get to the end of your tagging, to attract the sort of Wikignomes who would enjoy ferreting out the sources? Looking at Category:Articles_with_bare_URLs_for_citations I see there is plenty to work on! PamD 12:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klais Orgelbau

In Klais Orgelbau, I looked in vain for the link rot, - in edit more I found that the ref with a bare url was commented out. I may have done that even, meeting a dead link and commenting it out, rather than deleting. I deleted it now, because I believe that the tag causes more harm for the article than not being able to find some history easily. Can the script perhaps be refined, ignoring bare urls in hidden comments= --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gerda Arendt: tanks for your msg, and sorry for the annoyance.

I am aware of that glitch, but I don't have a neat solution. Excluding comments makes for cumbersome (and processor-intensive) regexes which don't fit neatly into AWB.

For now the best workaround I have found is to tag all the commented-out bare URLs with a inline tag. That excludes them from my citation bot runs, and also from my runs of applying the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner.

I will try to find my tag-the-commented-out-bare-URLs script, and do another run with it on my scans of the 20221001 database dump. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking. I don't remember where I did such things, - I find them just per my watchlist (which I try to reduce). What is an inline tag? Will you do that workaround or is it advice for me to do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Gerda Arendt. I should have been clearer.

By "inline tag" I mean a cleanup tag such as {{citation needed}} or {{when}}, which is placed adjacent to the problem, as in this fictitious example:

British Prime Minister Truss recently^[when?] denied that there was any connection between her appointment and the death two days later of the Queen, or between her government's first mini-budget and the immediate collapse in the UK's pound sterling currency.^{[citation needed]}

For bare URLs the standard inline tag is {{Bare URL inline}}, in contrast to the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner. Here's {{Bare URL inline}} in use:

As markup: Truss denies.<ref>http://dailyscurillous.net/Truss-denial {{Bare URL inline|date=September 2022}}</ref>

... which renders as:

Truss denies.^[1]

References

^ http://dailyscurillous.net/Truss-denial ^{[bare URL]}

I try to do this systematically, but I am also pointing it out to you as a workaround. If you come across a commented-out ref which doesn't look it should be deleted, then tagging it with {{Bare URL inline}} will mean that my tasks ignore it. So my AWB jobs won't add the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner ... and if there are no other bare URLs on the age, my bare-URL-remover job will remove any existing {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner.

Hope this makes sense. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it does, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: A wee update. I found my old code for commented-out bare URLs, and got to work. On my first pass of the ~44K articls with untagged bare URLs in the 20220920 database dump, I found 28 articles with commented-out bare URLs. I tagged all 28.

I then ran all 28 through my remove-redundant-{{Cleanup bare URLs}}-banner script, which removed the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner from 12 of those 28 articles.

Out of ~44K articles with the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner, 12 is a very low error rate.

However, this may not be the full total. Many web browsers accept as HTML comments markup which is invalid, but which is not too far removed from the correct syntax. This fuzziness cause difficulties for a task such as this, because it's hard to know how much to loosen the rules. I will experiment a bit more, and see where I get to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

News and notes: Board vote results, bot's big GET, crat chat gives new mop, WMF seeks "sound logo" and "organizer lab"

In focus: NPP: Still heaven or hell for new users – and for the reviewers

In the media: A few complaints and mild disagreements

Special report: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution

Discussion report: Much ado about Fox News

Interview: ScottishFinnishRadish's Request for Adminship

Opinion: Are we ever going to reach consensus?

Serendipity: Removing watermarks, copyright signs and cigarettes from photos

Recent research: How readers assess Wikipedia's trustworthiness, and how they could in the future

Traffic report: Kings and queens and VIPs

Featured content: Farm-fresh content

Gallery: A Festival Descends on the City: The Edinburgh Fringe, Pt. 2

CommonsComix: CommonsComix 2: Paulus Moreelse

From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 Years ago: September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

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

Administrator changes

ScottishFinnishRadish

Staxringold

Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678

CheckUser changes

GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news

The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous

An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Chico Hernandez article

BrownHairedGirl,Hi and Thank You for Your Reply and I know You are very busy...When You can get a chance, could you take a look at the James Chico Hernandez article and take down the banner you put up...“This article uses bare URLs, which are uninformative and vulnerable to link rot. Please consider converting them to full citations to ensure the article remains verifiable and maintains a consistent citation style. Several templates and tools are available to assist in formatting, such as Reflinks (documentation), reFill (documentation) and Citation bot (documentation). (September 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)” if it meets the Criteria of Wiki statdards...Again Thank You for your time as I tried my best to clean it up. Chico 9 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about linking in citations

Hi! I wanted to thank you for replacing the archive.ph with archive.today links on the MSNBC article. I didn't know that the owner requested links to archive.today instead of the individual domains until today.

I had a bit of a question about linking within citations and the citation process in general. I linked the MSNBC links in the citations on the MSNBC page itself because I sometimes copy the citation and paste it directly in another page and in those pages, the link would be functional. I understand it's normally pointless to self link on the page itself but I figured that it might be useful for those circumstances of reusing a citation. Is that alright or is it better to just not do that and let whoever may copy-paste the reference in the future handle that?

My other question was about references in general since you also seem to do a lot of work on them as well. I sometimes get hooked on a project of fixing up an article's references like I did with the MSNBC page but it is a time consuming process; I was wondering if it is useful work or if there's an automated process that does this efficiently. I use ProveIt and tried ReFill and several other tools and love them for what they do with doi's and ISBNs but have found most of them are more spotty if fed URL's or pdf reports so I end up doing those manually through ProveIt. I only ask because I'd hate to put in all the time to fixing them up if there's a different bot or tool that I don't know about that does it better. Thanks in advance. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jasonkwe, it's great to know that you are working on refs. The foundation of every article, too often neglected.

On your first question, of self-links, you will probably have noticed that a self-link appears as unlinked, bolded text. That is not what you want in a ref, I reckon so best left unlinked. If you copy to another article, linking the work isn't hard.

As to the broader issue of filling refs, there is no magic wand. Instead there is a set of tools with overlapping strengths, and some weaknesses (or horrors). No one tool does everything, not least because webmasters have devised a huge variety of creative ways to avoid supplying structured metadata. The one exception is identifiers such as doi, hdl and isbn: @Citation bot can fill those refs accurately and completely.

Otherwise, it's mostly a matter of choosing which tool is least crap for the task in hand, and doing the rest manually. My notes at User:BrownHairedGirl/No-reflinks websites#Reference-filling_tools may be of some interest.

One wundrkid is InternetArchiveBot. Saves mountains of time on dead links and adding archive links.

Hope that helps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I didn't think about the fact that bolded text within the citation isn't great. Thanks.

sigh, I was afraid of that. I definitely appreciate working on scientific/medical articles because of doi and PMID but most others are a slog. Are those "creative" actions on the part of webmasters intentional to prevent structured metadata? I dunno why they would want to do that (but I don't know too much about hosting).

Thank you for the notes, it's awesome that you compiled all this info. The fixing up that I do is very very slow so it's a drop in the bucket compared to the need in various articles but I'll keep at it if it is helping. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that was of some use, @Jasonkwe.

I think the thing about webmasters is that commercial web design has tended to be dominated by visuals rather than by structure. Some websites do go to great lengths to ensure that their webpages really are properly structured documents, whereas at the other extreme some sites have not really recovered from the dot com bubble era of entirely presentational focus. Others seem to mangle the structure to impede bots from reading their sites, while others are hard to parse because they change structure so many times (e.g. I wrote a tool to fill WaPo refs, and after supporting 3 wholly distinct formats, I gave up trying to support any more). Others are very elegantly coded, but so strapped down with security that they can only be bot-parsed at snails place (e.g. Researchgate), or beautifully coded but completely lock out all tools (e.g. CBC.ca). It's all a right pain.

Anything you can do to improve refs is great. Some of it is inevitably slow, but that doesn't make it any less valuable.

However, given the inevitable slowness of this work, you may want to consider targeting your efforts on topics which you personally regard as important. I find that if I take that sort of focused approach to manual ref improvement, I get much more satisfaction than from scattering my efforts randomly ... and I reckon that satisfaction is a very important factor in being able to sustain this sort of work.

So at one extreme I am likely to put a lot of energy into polishing an Irish history or politics article, 'cos that's my core area of interest. At the other extreme, I will devote very little of my time to polishing an article on sports or pop culture, since those topics don't interest me much and I think that Wikipedia has far too many articles on such topics. Likewise with airlines and airports, where there seems to be a cluster of editors busily adding squillions of inappropriate bare URL refs: someone could work full-time just on those articles, and never even keep with the flood of crap added every day.

Hope that is of some help. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl Oh wow. Did not expect it to go back that far; I was just in elementary school during the dot com bubble. So, if I'm understanding it correctly, a lot of that dot com bubble era mentality was that internet based companies needed users and they would be willing to host information or tools on their sites for free (almost like loss leaders) if it meant users would go to their site. And there's less user retention/return if you could just, say, print out an article and use the hard copy instead of going back to the article whenever you needed it. So the response would be to host the info or tools in an interactive presentational form (like the scrolling window at the bottom of this page) that would ensure user interaction with the website, but would also greatly hinder metadata extraction since things aren't cleanly laid out like in other documents? Those also seem to be the kinds of pages that often don't archive properly with the internet wayback machine and I think that's probably related to the presentation styles. That is a pity about some of the sites like Researchgate and CBC.ca.

Oh good gosh. I get ticked off when I see something rolled back and the contributions of that editor who did the rollback seem to be almost exclusively rollbacks (and am not a huge fan of deletionism), but I forgot that this is a worldwide wiki open to the public and just 'cause the articles I often go to don't have constant activity doesn't mean others don't lol. I get what you mean about particular interests--I usually work on military, history, or medical stuff but sometimes just get stuck in working on a random article where I opened it to fix the CS1 error message in the citation list then end up spending a few hours fixing the other references and find that kinda satisfying in its own way too. Yesterday's was the musical Americana and I don't know squat about theatre lol. It definitely was helpful and reassuring to hear all this so thank you, I really appreciate it. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasonkwe, I just randomly saw this thread, and I'd like to note that my bot, User:Qwerfjkl (bot), is approved to automatically remove self links, though I haven't run it for a while. — Qwerfjkl talk 12:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl Ahh, thanks, that's good to know. I'll take a look at it. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gnoming away

Real life calls and I must stop hunting bare URLs for now: there is now only one left in the "P" section of Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations from June 2021 - about an hour's work to take 12 articles out of the category - see my contributions list. (Couldn't resolve Pomeroy–Mason_Bridge - link to a US newspaper, dead to me and not in Internet Archive, which may or may not be a valid link from the other side of the pond). So at that rate your 95k articles, at 5 minutes each, should take us 7,916 hours of editing. Well, between us we can chip away at it. The ones I fixed were an interesting mix - pdf press release, a pdf of a journal article which I sourced to a better location, pdfs of NHRP inventory forms (there might be a template for those, but I couldn't find one on a quick check), etc. In almost all cases I could turn a bare URL into an informative reference. It's a valid and useful project, and you're doing the encyclopedia a great service.

Presumably some of these articles are on people's watchlists, though I'm beginning to wonder just how many articles are totally unwatched. This week I found an editor who for three years has been making edits which include a mixture of (a) converting inappropriately to US spellings, (b) changing spelling inside quotes, even in one case where it said "[sic]", (c) and generally showing that English isn't their mother tongue and that they are probably using some sort of spell-checker, as in changing "Bibliomemoir" to "Bibliometric" in Elizabeth Gaskell, which is what led me to them (I was reading the article and couldn't understand what "bibliometric" meant in that context!) and "to night" to "tonight" in "changed to night flying..." in Strategic bombing, as well as a lot of clumsy addition of "the" which varied from unnecessary to damaging ("where X owned property" to "where X owned the property", etc). Stuff like changing "Surviving the once in 100 years or once in 1000 years sea state is a normal demand for design of ships and offshore structures." in Sea state to the unintelligible "Surviving the once in 100 years or once in 1000 years, the sea state is a normal demand for the design of ships and offshore structures.". Aaargh. I spent an afternoon cleaning up their mess, but only a tiny proportion of their edits (10%?) had been reverted, although most were made a couple of years ago. Depressing. When people ask "But surely anyone could add rubbish to Wikipedia" I always tell them that there are people watching the article and reverting rubbish edits: I fear there are not enough of us doing so.

Ah well, stay cheerful. At least you're not in the UK with our appalling new PM. PamD 10:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: we in Ireland have had our share of dysfunctional govts, and we currently have a hideous housing crisis and an appalling health service ... but the current regime over your way seems to be chasing and passing new records in horror. The FT published data a fortnight ago (see https://www.ft.com/content/ef265420-45e8-497b-b308-c951baa68945) which includes dynamic charts that show about how poorest 5% of people in Ireland are about 65% better off than the poorest 5% in the UK.

Our comedians are having fun with the UK crisis, but it's mixed emotions for everyone: after 2 centuries of emigration, nearly all Irish people have relatives in the UK, and have friends there too. I am heartbroken for that poorest group in the UK who will be hit so hard by this crisis. Many more people will be hungry and cold in a society which already has far too many hungry and cold people, and many will die, following the tens of thousands who died under the austerity regime. For over a century, a lot of rural Ireland was sustained by remittances from emigrants to the UK and the USA. Now the flow is reversed: I know lots people ending cash support to relatives in the UK. I hope you can all find a way through.

Anyway, back to Wiki.

Thanks for your great work gnoming away through the backlog of bare URLs. It can be depressing to find how badly neglected some articles are, and how poor quality edits persist for years. It's important to remember, tho, that my work of tagging all articles with bare URL finds some of the worst of our 6.5 million articles, so don't be too discouraged into thinking of this as a representative sample.

All the same, some wonderful statistical work was done a few years ago by @Iridescent, comparing number of articles to number of active editors. Basically, editor counts have fallen significantly while article counts have risen significantly; IIRC, the articles:editors ratio had risen from ~600:1 to ~2000:1. My hunch is that this decline is not evenly spread, and that many articles on less popular topics have been effectively unwatched for years.

I fear also that those numbers disguise two other problems: a fall in the quality of editors, and a loss of history. I won't say too much on the first problem, 'cos sadly wikiculture has a depressingly anti-intellectual hostility to comments about lack of skill; but the examples you give illustrate unskilled editors without skilled people to clean up.

The second problem is less controversially observable. It's the loss of editorial history: an article written in say 2007 will have been watched by the editor who wrote it, and maybe by a few other editors over the next few months. However, 15 years later, those editors may no longer be active, so the tally of watchers is misleading, often wildly so.

Staying too long immersed in this long tail of neglected crud can rot the soul, so please be gentle with yourself as you venture into it.

To try to stay sane, I try to tackle the bare URLs backlog from four angles:

various tools to try to fill and/or tag large numbers of articles across the whole set. About 1/3 of this work is programming of various forms, which I find intellectually stimulating when done in modest doses.
Randomly tackling articles from my list of bare URLs, either just 'cos the topic catches my eye or 'cos Citation bot failed on it. That can be fun, and it is mostly how I built my list at User:BrownHairedGirl/No-reflinks websites.
tackling bare URLs to particular websites, from a list I made of which sites have the most bare URLs. That allows fast work, cos there are strings which can be recycled, and they come in nice clumps of a few dozen, so I can see progress: website X done. I tend to be quite ruthless about only tackling the bar URLs, to make progress on that front. Sometimes the state of the article is grim in many other ways, but I can't fix everything.
Using Petscan to find bare URLs in topic areas that interest me. That can be fun, engaging with topics that I care about. Here's an example search for bare URLs in a topic area that might interest you: bare URLs on biogs of people from Lancashire born in the 19th-century. If you would like me to devise any other searches, I'd be happy to help.

Best wishes, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Kentridge bare URL

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I've tried to improve cites on Kentridge. Is the bare URL banner still needed? Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clanup, @Mick gold. Banner removed.[2] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pages with old-style lang-sh invokation

A tag has been placed on Category:Pages with old-style lang-sh invokation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under CSD G8

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI it is

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.UtherSRG (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Referendums in the Philippines has been nominated for renaming

Category:Referendums in the Philippines has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

GeneralNotability (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for all your hard work on Wikipedia! You are appreciated. Bkatcher (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Bkatcher. That is particular welcome after yesterday's dramas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With bar. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @JMF. I have never before had a bar on a barnstar! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never give up. You are a major part of the Wiki and even though the drama comes and goes, at least we will always appreciate what you have done and what you will continue to do. Rlink2 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @Rlink2, for your support and of course for your own excellent ans undervalued good work. I think it was about a year that you were taken to ANI and faced a permaban when the only evidence against you was you were very competent and very prolific. The most interesting thing about that sordid episode was that the pile-on was complete until I came in and deconstructed it all. That's the way it is with these ANI pile-ons: the mob usually get its way unless there is a heavyweight intervention by at least one third-party.

The drama comes and goes, but I think it's very likely that one day one of these people will succeed in having me permabanned for some use of non-sweary, moderate language which they consider a little too harsh in describing misconduct or incompetence which they ignore. That's clearly what some of them want. Strange stuff, but not without precedent elsewhere. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to note your recent strife on the drama-boards. I saw nothing uncivil in what you wrote to anyone and appreciate your tireless contributions. Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Mztourist. It was a bruising few days, and you encouragement is very welcome. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loki

It seems that the Scottish rapper Darren McGarvey, known as Loki, has been watching Wikipedia:

First person punches second person in the face.

Second person: Ouch you c#nt why the f#ck did you do that?

First person: I am now drafting a letter to complain about your language. My punching you is neither here nor there. Words matter.

It's called GASLIGHTING
— https://twitter.com/lokiscottishrap/status/1579923530585886722

BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BrownHairedGirl/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This kompletely Kafkaesque. Tamzin's comment[2] at ANI "nasty", "sneaky", and "anti-intellectual bullying" are all uncivil makes it clear that she is punishing me for describing the bad actions of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block has now expired. The consensus in the AN/I discussion was that it not be lifted prior to its expiration. 28bytes (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocks made under this restriction must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note also that the community is not being sneaky. There is a discussion about this matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil behavior by BrownHairedGirl. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kafkaesque nature of this saga ramps up another level.

I described UtherSRG's actions as "nasty" and "sneaky" because they went behind my back to seek sanctions on me for an issue they had not raised to my face, and they did so two days after I had disengaged.

I stand by that description, unequivocally. I will nor rephrase it, retract it, or withdraw it. This was nasty, sneaky conduct.

But now because I described that nasty, sneaky conduct I am blocked from a discussion about me. And that exclusion of me is somehow not sneaky.

As an exercise in the theatre of victimisation and of bizarre logic, this is quite the show. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to better understand something. What is the difference between a warning and a threat, if any? wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: what is that question about? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On User talk:Wbm1058#State funerals RM you used the term "threat" in some form half a dozen times. I thought I only warned you. Are all warnings threats, by definition? Is there any difference? wbm1058 (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: see my longer reply below. The possible block was not act of nature; it was a human action within your power, and you had explicitly discussed with UtherSRG the possibility of using the power. So it was a threat. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly rocket science. A warning from someone with the power to enforce sanctions is clearly also a threat! Is there some aversion to reality here? The law is a threat of violence. Noting this simple factual reality should not be controversial. Sarah777 (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know the context, but after a quick round of googling, it seems that a common theme is that a threat is when the adverse action will or may be implemented by the speaker; whereas a warning is where the adverse action will come from some source outside the speaker's control.

So, two examples based on that:

Sean tells Roisin: "Get outta here or my team will shoot you". That is a threat.
Padraig tells Maedbh: "Get outta here or the flood will drown you". That's a warning.

Hope this helps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think all of these user warning templates actually are used to threaten editors? "Stop vandalizing Wikipedia or my team will block you?" You must have noted in that "sneaky discussion" that I said I could not block you after closing the RM, as that made me an "involved" editor. I, the speaker, have no control over the administrative actions taken by other administrators. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: yes, of course they are threats, and very clear threats. We usually regard them as justified threat, but the sense of justification does not remove the very clear threat.

Your comments about blocks were a clear invitation to another admin to block me, which is exactly what happened. So that was a clear threat. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On hold having copied this to the AN section, as this block cannot be removed by an individual administrator and only instead by community consensus (which would be done at AN). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz Have corrected the link, as the section is currently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock request as far as I can see? -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 15:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well well

This is turning out to be a very interesting episode. Several editors have commented at WP:ANI#Unblock request about how they regard it as utterly unacceptable to describe another editor's actions as "sneaky", or "nasty". AFAICS, none of those who has expressed that view has made any criticism whatsoever of the admin who had made a series of very bad closes, and who sought revenge for WP:ADMINACCT by trying to get me blocked (the nasty bit) and who actively sought to do so without notifying me (the sneaky bit).

This is absolute textbook victimisation: punishing someone for making a complaint in terms which some feel are excessively blunt, but failing to even properly consider the substantive complaint.

I want to be absolutely and unequivocally clear about where I stand on this. Victimisation is a hallmark characteristic is a dysfunctional institution, aa is using tone-policing to suppress and dismiss complaint against authority.

I will not in any way concede to either of these tactics. I am over 50 years old, and have spent most of my adult life one way or another engaged professionaly in campaigns against injustice, most of them successful. I have worked at all levels of authority, up to meeting ppl at cabinet-level in government, and I have taken campaigns from being untouchable to having their goals legislated as statute law. So I have seen a lot of how those wit power handle dissent. I have also had significant experience in my own personal life of abusive conduct, and of the consequences of various strategies for handling it (I have tried most of them).

Over these decades I have learnt that those who behave badly will often try to deter criticism and to deligitimise their critics. This is a tactic used by institutions, by gangs, by political groups, and by individuals. It is an old tactic, and it often works -- which is why it keeps on being used.

But it is a tactic which is always used to divert attention away from discussion of the substance. And that's what's happening here.

If that is going to how Wikipedia is run, then that is sad. But no matter how big the pile-on in support of victimisation, I will not in any way bend to the victimisation.

I am aware that we are now into the re-victimisation phase. My objections to the sneaky actions of UtherSRG have been explicitly treated at ANI as being extra problematic because they follow me accurately describing as sneaky the actions of another editor more than two years ago.

Again, that is part of the pattern. The critic of bad conduct can be treated more harshly now because they had previously described bad conduct.

And of course, this pattern is common to many organisations, most of which start out with noble goals, but which in time ossify, and lose the ability to self-critique. So no surprise; just sadness. Wikipedia had a chance of being better, but seems to be choosing a culture of polite mediocrity which supresses debate and dissent. It's a old story. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS @Premeditated Chaos: false assertion. Arbcom did not impose a civility restriction on me.
@Giraffer: I understand very clearly why I was blocked. And equally clearly, I have explained why I deplore that sort of constraint. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know, people can make mistakes without it being a "false assertion". You do have a civility restriction, and you have been sanctioned by arbcom previously. I conflated the two, and I apologize for erring in attributing the source. But the point stands that you have a civility restriction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BHG is under a "behavior probation" from this ANI from August 2021 fwiw (and is logged at WP:EDR). ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 18:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, JCW, I did say that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The classic novel "Lord of the Flies" seems to anticipate Wikipedia's juvenile administration by nearly 70 years. Sarah777 (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I read this and I think it can both be true that the community has chosen to not allow "nasty" and "sneaky" and that the criticism of UtherSRG's close was legitimate. A 12 hour block will expire and then I think there is a civil conversation to have about the closes or not, while understanding the community doesn't tolerate personal or emotional characterizations when such a restriction has been imposed. So I hope that when the block expires, there will still be a place on Wikipedia for BHG's work and her feedback. Andre🚐 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Andrevan.

The crucial point here is that UtherSRG's cloe was not longer an issue. My discussion with UtherSRG was over.

They had self-reverted their RM close, and had accepted my suggested change to their note about the re-opening. I had thanked UtherSRG, and disengaged: so far as I was concerned, the RM issue was over, and had been resolved to our mutual satisfaction. I had raised no issues with UtherSRG other than the RM close, and UtherSRG had raised no concerns about me.

But a few days later I found that almost two days after that, UtherSRG had gone behind my back to try to get me blocked, in apparent revenge for our WP:ADMINACCT discussion. I regard it as very poor conduct that UtherSRG failed to first raise any concerns with me. And I regard it as as very poor conduct that UtherSRG failed to notify me that they were treating this as a dispute. This is not just my personal view: WP:NEGOTIATE is very clear that the first step in ay disagreement is to discuss with the other person. I used two words to describe this policy-breaching conduct, which are not in any sense swearwords. They are common terms of reproach.

But editor who blocked me, decided that my use of those two terms to describe a policy breach was the only wrong to be considered. That was then endorsed by the mob at ANI.

It remains my view that the community's approach to this matter is deeply dysfunctional, to point of being toxic. In any context, a focus solely on the complainant's terminology rather than the substance of their complaint is a recipe for injustice. It is particularly problematic when the group is dominated by one culture and the person being sanctioned is from another culture, and it is even more problematic when the ajudication process is basically mob rule.
On top of that, the sanctions imposed on me last year are basically a wiki version of the pre-modern legal concept of outlawry: they amount to placing a target on me, with a licence to shoot first and ask questions later. Strange world. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used two words to describe this policy-breaching conduct, which are not in any sense swearwords. They are common terms of reproach. But editor who blocked me, decided that my use of those two terms to describe a policy breach was the only wrong to be considered. While I agree Wiki drama can often be toxic and may have been in this case, if I can offer a nuanced reinterpretation here, and I apologize in advance, and please correct me if I'm not interpreting this all correctly: the community and the blocking admin saw this as a bright line and easy to ascertain wrong, and that's because of your history and past sanction, of which I don't know about the specifics, but it means the bar is low to treat minor infractions a certain way (whether that is fair or not, I cannot say, but that was a given and the status quo going in). It was not the only wrong: I believe UtherSRG's unwillingness to reopen his close was wrong, but then you responded to him in a way that came off as slightly snippy and miffed (probably unintentional, but that was the effect it had). His infraction is more complex given he agreed to step back from closes to revisit his approach, and as you say, the discussion had been closed before he sought to sanction you for the incivility, so it's hard to see a path forward on that since he is already agreeing to slow down and revisit. Unfortunately, his idea to sanction you had the effect of provoking you: you then responded with the curtailed "terms of reproach" as you say. The reason why "sneaky" and "nasty" are on the list, but "cruddy" might not be so clearly bad even, is because sneaky and nasty both imply some mental state by the actor, and some motivation and characterization of the origination of the activity. It's a side effect of Wikipedia's value system. It has nothing to do with etiquette or vulgarity, and everything to do with not assuming good faith. Had you simply continued to engage and point out concerns in an unemotional way without going so far to call the mental state of the opponent any specific thing, there would be no grounds to block you. Only offering this to try to be helpful. I have also noticed a phenomenon a few users that were watching you, and took an opportunity to opine against you when you came up on a noticeboard: something to be aware of, and certainly perhaps part of the toxic environment. Andre🚐 21:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that thoughtful reply, @Andrevan.

However, it seems to me that you may not have scrunitinised UtherSRG's opening msg[3] to Wbm1058: Would you mind taking a look at U:BrownHairedGirl's activity on my talk and on this RM, and see if it violates the terms of her listing on WP:EDRC? I'm trying to avoid taking this directly to ANI, so if you agree the actions are in violation, would you either take the required action or bring it up on ANI yourself? Much obliged! - UtherSRG

Two factors in it were crucial to my interpretation:
Note that while there plenty of links, my user name was written in a way I have never seen it written before: as U:BrownHairedGirl. This is is very odd, and it looks to me to be a form which would arise from someone starting to link my name, but backing off to avoid pinging me. In other word, not just the omission of a ping, but what is probably the intentional avoidance of a ping.

Secondly, UtherSRG writes I'm trying to avoid taking this directly to ANI, and invites Wbm1058 to apply sanction on me without any further discussion. In other words, UtherSRG, wanted me to be sanctioned without warning and without a prior discussion.

I stand by view that this was a clear violation of WP:NEGOTIATE, and that it was an appalling violation of WP:ADMINACCT. When an admin serially fails to do quality work, and when the community puts a lot of effort into undoing the damage done, it is procedurally terrible for that admin to the follow up by making undisclosed efforts to have one of the complainants sanctioned. That's a direct attack on the workings of the 'pedia, because if the price of challenging admin error is to be secretly targeted like that, then editors will be deterred from challenging admin error.

Consider a parallel from the non-virtual world. All the same steps as happened on Wiki.
Cop SR returns to duty after an 8 year absence

Returne cop SR makes a series of very bad judgements. SR tickets people who should not have been ticketed, arrests and jails people who should not have been arrested.

One woman B goes to plead with SR to reverse one of his tickets. He refuses. She gives up in despair.

Separately, a bunch of SR's actions are overturned in court. Woman B is is unaware of this.

A bunch of people involved in those overturned cases go to the station to ask cop SR to stop doing cop stuff, cos his actions are way too far out of line.

One of those people conducts a review of AX's last 2,000 actions, and concludes[4] that there is "a clear case for a ban from issuing tickets with a slightly less strong case for a lack of competence"

Cop SR agrees to stop doing cop stuff. By doing that, SR avoids an immediate formal review of their suitability to be a cop.

Woman B reads of events 3 to 5, and again asks SR for a reversal of the actions of which she complained in step 2.

Discussion follows between SR and Woman B, in which woman B points out that if the matter escalates to a formal review, then that "lack of competence" will be an issue, and unpleasant episode for all

Officer SR dithers a bit, but eventually agrees to withdraw.

Woman B thanks SR, and considers the matter closed.

SR expresses no concern to Woman B. The matter appears to be closed.

However, cop SR approaches cop WM. SR makes the approach outside the usual formal channels, and does so in a way which appears to have deigned to avoid attracting the attention of Woman B.

Having made that un-notified approach, SR asks WM to try to find some way of punishing Woman B without any hearing.

Can you see how utterly outrageous Cop SR's conduct is? Clearly seeking revenge for a yet another successful challenge to their string of very poorly-judged actions. That sort of vindictive policing is blatantly corrupt and dysfunctional.

But it don't stop at that. Having tried this non-transparent revenge, Officer SR now tries a direct public revenge on Woman B for having dared challenge his underhand revenge tactics, by placing the "attack" label on her complaints. Then another cop appears, and tickets Woman B for the language with which she described the SR's attempted revenge for being held accountable.

And the vengeful, non-transparent cop gets off without so much as a rap on the knuckle. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BHG apologies for jumping in here but I have a question that will hopefully be of value. You wrote so far as I was concerned, the RM issue was over, and had been resolved to our mutual satisfaction. It seems to me that it had been resolved to your satisifcation but not UtherSRG's. Namely he was dissatisfied with the way you had addressed him during the interaction. Does that seem right to you as well? Assuming that the answer is yes, how would you like Uther to have raised this with you? Clearly the answer is directly but I'm actually curious about what specific words he could have used to help productively resolve that element of the issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: AFAICS, at no point in any of this did UtherSRG express what, if anything, he considered unsatisfactory about how I had addressed him. Maybe I missed some specific, but AFAICS all he did was to label several of my posts as "attack", without identifying what exactly he considered to be a personal attack rather criticism of conduct. If I have missed something, pls correct me.

The decent, collegiate approach would have been that after all the RM issues had been resolved[5] on 5 Oct, UtherSRG should then have followed up with a message to me setting out their concerns. That could have been in a followup post on their own talk, or in a post to my talk.

As to what words to use, that seems simple. "Hi BHG, Glad we settled the substance of the RM issue. However, I am uncomfortable/annoyed/hurt/puzzled/delete-as-appropriate about your msg[diff] in which you wrote 'quotewords'. I find that to be [describe feelings]."

Surely any admin should be capable of writing a calm complaint that? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem facing Wikipedia today is the need for others to "nab" someone as if its a politicial race or a sport game. The outcomes of these activites are "winners" and "losers", however this is counter to what Wikipedia is about, since it is a collaboative encylopedia. We must work togther to solve the issues facing the Wiki.

Spreading a narrative about something or someone, and refusing to hear what the other person even has to say, is something that is against the core tenants of Wikipedia. It is even worse when this narrative, which may have multiple falsehoods and half truths, is taken by gospel as the mob, and used as a "case for the persecution". Even when the original narrative is dissected by the accused, the accusers and sometimes the mob refuse to listen, until a third party comes and argues the same or similar case as the accused. Even after the incident dies down, some may continue to spread their narrative about a specific editor to unbenkowing editors, so that their first impression of an editor or an aspect of Wikipedia is automatically negative. This widens a disconnect and makes it harder for people to realize that they should just reach out and share their concerns directly.

Wikipedia is not Democrat vs Republican. It is not Fianna Fáil vs Fine Gael vs the Green Party. And it certainly isn't any KSI vs Logan Paul, or Brandy vs Monica.

We have to work together. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is communication: Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise.

Backstreet and backalley discussions, without involving the parties in question, is counterproductive to an collaborative encylopedia. Spreading rumors about someone without asking the source directly is also counterprodctive. The lack of communication can turn a simple issue into a complex large one.

What BrownHairedGirl said above: (The decent, collegiate approach would have been that after all the RM issues had been resolved[14] on 5 Oct, UtherSRG should then have followed up with a message to me setting out their concerns. That could have been in a followup post on their own talk, or in a post to my talk.) is exactly what should have been done. If that approach was followed then there would be less drama. Aditionally BHG should have been pinged in the discussion with WBM. If there was a problem, they should have taken a stand against BHG there and then, not follow what she said and then engage in a backstreet conversation. Or even if they wanted the opinion of another editor, they should have had the courtesy to tag BHG in so she is not taken in by suprise. Regardless of what anyone thinks of BHG and her supposed incivility, this would indisuptably have been the right path to take. Rlink2 (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that everyone stop posting here for now. It is unfair to continue to comment in a talk page discussion where the editor whose talk page it is can not respond. BD2412 T 21:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfires

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:2022 North American wildfires etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Hugo999. That seems like a good move: other similar categories do not use the adjectival form of the geographical area. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Chitinsky District has been nominated for merging

Category:People from Chitinsky District has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American Samoan male archers

A tag has been placed on Category:American Samoan male archers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reflinks

I'm curious if you of anything stopping anyone from maintaining Reflinks. The code seems to be at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/sources/. — Qwerfjkl talk 11:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: I guess skill and inclination are two big hurdles. Sadly, the community places a very low priority on decent referencing, so those who have the skills are unlikely to apply them here.

And even if a good update was written, the updater would have no access to http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/ ... so the result would have to be forked to a new host. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe licensing is the main problem. — Qwerfjkl talk 07:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about that. But why do you believe that?

If you knew something about it, why not mention that when you asked me? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know when I started this section. I later read Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Dabsolver is down, which mentions it. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Qwerfjkl. That link was helpful.

I believe is a phrase best reserved for religious faith. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:believe #4. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) reFill appears to be a maintained fork of Reflinks. Is there something missing from it, or bugs in it that make using Reflinks preferable? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: see User:BrownHairedGirl/No-reflinks websites#Reference-filling_tools. WP:reFill is wildly buggy, and repeatdly wreaks devastation in the hands of editors who don't check its output. There is a significant lobby of editors who would like reFill to be banned. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red November 2022

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247

Online events:

New: Alphabet run: I and J | Women in Education | Geofocus Central & Southern Asia
Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman

See also:

Wikipedia Asian Month November Contest

Other ways to participate:

Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications.
Join the conversations on our talkpage.
Help us plan future events.
Follow us on social media:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Question about archive url references wording

Hi, I apologize if I should be asking elsewhere - and if there's a better place, I will welcome redirection! An experienced editor recently removed a particular cite from a dozen or so articles, on the mistaken belief that the destination site of an archived url was a spam site. He posted a request to have the site blacklisted here - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#arlingtoncemetery.org .

The problem I believe is how archive cites are worded/displayed "ArlingtonCemetary.org". an unofficial website. Archived from the original on June 19, 2010. Retrieved March 5, 2015

The first hyperlink to arlingtoncemetary.org goes to the actual original archived content, but the hyperlink in the text "Archived from the original" takes the reader to the current cite - which is indeed a site with no content supporting the reference. I've clicked on the original a fair number of times myself over the years, which always causes a flicker of confusion because it's not 'the original'.

Is there a way to format the cite so that it either has the original link go to the archived url, or change the wording so it's less ambiguous?

Again, absolutely - if there's a better place to ask this please just point me there. Thank you. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher), @Anastrophe, when using |url-status=unfit or usurped in the cite, the original is not linked at all. Maybe that accomplishes what you are hoping to achieve? – Archer1234 (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous! I'm guilty of avoiding the thousands of pages of WP 'backend' stuff, so I would probably have found that...eventually...if I weren't a lazy ass. Thank you so much! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is to say, I'm not a totally lazy ass, I read through WP:WAYBACK, but it doesn't mention 'usurped' or 'unfit'. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

From the team: A new goose on the roost

News and notes: Wikipedians question Wikimedia fundraising ethics after "somewhat-viral" tweet

News from the WMF: Governance updates from, and for, the Wikimedia Endowment

In the media: Scribing, searching, soliciting, spying, and systemic bias

Disinformation report: From Russia with WikiLove

Recent research: Disinformatsiya: Much research, but what will actually help Wikipedia editors?

Interview: Isabelle Belato on their Request for Adminship

Featured content: Topics, lists, submarines and Gurl.com

Serendipity: We all make mistakes – don’t we?

Traffic report: Mama, they're in love with a criminal

From the archives: Paid advocacy, a lawsuit over spelling mistakes, deleting Jimbo's article, and the death of Toolserver

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

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

Administrator changes

- Isabelle Belato
- Whpq

Interface administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

DGG

Guideline and policy news

The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Zimbabwean Queen's Counsel

A tag has been placed on Category:Zimbabwean Queen's Counsel indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Arms Park

You have previously edited Cardiff Arms Park. An editor has decided to split the article (yet again). I would like to know your view on the new edit....see Talk:Cardiff_Arms_Park#Article_Split_(again). SethWhales^talk 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Seth Whales

My two edits to Cardiff Arms Park were both drive-by technical edits. I have no substantive interest in the topic. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Joseph Osei-Owusu

An article that you have been involved in editing—Joseph Osei-Owusu—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red December 2022

Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250

Online events:

New: Alphabet run K & L | Geofocus Southeast Asia | Women who died in 2022
Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman

See also:

Women in Climate Change collaboration runs 1 December 2022 - 31 January 2023

Tip of the month:

Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name,
like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.

Other ways to participate:

Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications.
Join the conversations on our talkpage.
Help us plan future events.
Follow us on social media:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Category:Singlechart usages for Swiss Romandy has been nominated for renaming

Category:Singlechart usages for Swiss Romandy has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

News and notes: English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking banners"

In the media: "The most beautiful story on the Internet"

Interview: Lisa Seitz-Gruwell on WMF fundraising in the wake of big banner ad RfC

Opinion: Privacy on Wikipedia in the cyberpunk future

Disinformation report: Missed and Dissed

Op-Ed: Diminishing returns for article quality

Book review: Writing the Revolution

Technology report: Galactic dreams, encyclopedic reality

Essay: The Six Million FP Man

Tips and tricks: (Wiki)break stuff

Recent research: Study deems COVID-19 editors smart and cool, questions of clarity and utility for WMF's proposed "Knowledge Integrity Risk Observatory"

Featured content: A great month for featured articles

Obituary: A tribute to Michael Gäbler

Concept: The relevance of legal certainty to the English Wikipedia

Traffic report: Musical deaths, murders, Princess Di's nominative determinism, and sports

From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

CommonsComix: Joker's trick

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Franke - maintenance template

Dear

I think the problem of bare link on the page Ivana Franke has been fixed. Can you please remove the maintenance template? Thank you, Rupert4471 (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupert4471: There are still several bare url refs on that page. See my recent edit there, and make similar edits for the rest of the bare urls and the tag can come off. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

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

Administrator changes

Interface administrator changes

TheresNoTime

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2017 Bolivarian Games event navigational boxes

A tag has been placed on Category:2017 Bolivarian Games event navigational boxes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Henry Douglas Shawcross for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Henry Douglas Shawcross is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Douglas Shawcross until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

Banks Irk (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC) ==[reply]

afd Banks Irk (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars - can you help?

User ‎90.241.173.177 continually changes the status of Balfron to 'town' from 'village'. The community is referred to as a village in Local Authority documentation, and by the local Community Council. Although it is well provided for, it is still a 'village'. There is an explanation on the talk page but User 90.241.173.177 seems unable to accept that. It is a minor issue, but in my view worth dealing with. Can you help? Shipsview (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shipsview

The IP seems to change, so the only technical measure I can see is WP:SEMI-protection. But the disruption seems to be too infrequent to merit that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look Shipsview (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irish house (typical)

Irish actors (Colin Farrell) and writers (Francis McCourt) have described what they have called a typical house structure, but are somewhat vague. I think it was described as two up and two down and front door at sidewalk level. You describe yourself as living in Ireland and you seem to be familiar with wikipedia, so I was wondering if such an article exists or you could start one 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bare URLs chart for May 2022

Template:Bare URLs chart for May 2022 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. X5163x (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Cheers! For putting in 2 cents on my first-ever created page. I'm American, but my mother was born of two Irish parents from Limerick. So, cheers, again. Chaimon 02:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Chaimon. Not sure what page you are referring to, but Happy Christmas to you and yours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Hello BrownHairedGirl: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thank you! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Rlink2 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Rlink2 (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Rlink2! Merry Christmas to you too, and best wishes for the new year. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2023

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254

Online events:

New: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run M & N | Geofocus East Asia
Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2022

See also:

Editing For Effie collaboration with the Smithsonian, January 8 & 9 (global event)

Tip of the month:

De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool

Other ways to participate:

Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications.
Join the conversations on our talkpage.
Help us plan future events.
Follow us on social media:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Happy New Year, BrownHairedGirl! In 2022, other editors thanked you 1110 times using the thanks tool. This places you in the top 6 most thanked Wikipedians of 2022. Congratulations and, well, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Here's to 2023! Mz7 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation ousts, bans quarter of Arabic Wikipedia admins

In the media: Odd bedfellows, Elon and Jimbo, reliable sources for divorces, and more

Interview: ComplexRational's RfA debrief

Technology report: Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at substantial risk of failure"

Essay: Mobile editing

Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee Election 2022

Recent research: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in talk page disputes

Serendipity: Wikipedia about FIFA World Cup 2022: quick, factual and critical

Featured content: Would you like to swing on a star?

Traffic report: Football, football, football! Wikipedia Football Club!

CommonsComix: #4: The Course of WikiEmpire

From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, BrownHairedGirl!

Happy New Year!

BrownHairedGirl,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Col. Hauler

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Col. Hauler indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 01:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Axeman12

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Axeman12 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 01:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Morethan3words

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Morethan3words indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 01:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://dailyscurillous.net/Truss-denial ^{[bare URL]}

[1]