Jump to content

User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch118

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2023

[edit]

Happy Kalends of January

[edit]
Happy New Year!
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, SandyGeorgia!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

SandyGeorgia,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ealdgyth and Moops; may 2023 be a kind and peaceful year for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year

[edit]

Wishing you the best. Gimmetrow 23:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow and a Happy New Year to you as well; it so lifts my spirits to see your name gracing my talk page. All the bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation help

[edit]

Hey Sandy. I have been trying to work on a new article related to films and unfortunately, I'm a bit stuck on working on it due to a language barrier. It's called "The Devil Never Sleeps" and there are some pieces written about it in Spanish. If you're available, would it be possible to help me with some of the sources that are in Spanish? I have the draft started here but so far, it's a bit barebones at the moment. GamerPro64 06:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, but my time is extremely limited at the moment ... I can probably get to it within two weeks, if you can be patient ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, could you list the Spanish-language sources in Further reading ? Do you want me to just work in text I find from them, or do you want me to suggest text on talk ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can wait two weeks. Haven't seen the movie yet anyways. Here is one source I have here. Expecting more later so ill put them in further reading. GamerPro64 18:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandy. Just following up on the request from last month. GamerPro64 07:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GamerPro64; I sprained my wrist last week, and on top of that, my hard drive failed. And that's quite a long source, so I will need to dedicate ample time to it as soon as I'm better able to type for longer stretches. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear. I can wait for the translation. GamerPro64 02:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem; computer is fixed and wrist is slowly healing, but I have to start slow (pick one or two things a day to edit) so as not to re-aggravate the injury-- especially on top of snow shoveling! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro64, I speak Spanish, but this English-language abstract of the article leaves me wondering if I speak English! I have no idea what this BS/gibberish means, so I hope the Spanish is more intelligible.

In her documentary The Devil Never Sleeps/El diablo nunca duerme (1994), Lourdes Portillo interrogates, from a transnational Chicana political framework, the sexist cultural traditions inherent in the Mexican family as a social institution. Such transgression takes place within the interstices of two interrelated national borders since the beginning of the 20th century. By questioning said traditions, Portillo creates transnational links that deconstruct family histories and oppressive positionalities. Thus, she reconfigures and negotiates new liberating possibilities about subjects living on a dual location. Founded on counter-hegemonic discourses, Portillo reconfigures a US transnational imaginary. I argue that the Chicana cinema director confronts intimate discourses and, based on historical documentation deconstructs the Mexican imaginary unfolding hegemonic Mexican social and cultural heteronormativities. I propose that Portillo positively re-writes herself into the collective memory of the Mexican border imaginary by refusing to propagate the stereotype of the passive Chicana. In other words, through the filmic text Portillo forges a new transnational imaginary of the Chicana: exploring contradictions within the family unit rejecting the ideology of patriarchal hegemony.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word pretentious is appropriate here. GamerPro64 03:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The writing is similar; it's gonna be a chore to get through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think its not worth using as a source let me know. Don't want to waste your time. GamerPro64 04:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a good source, and should be used, but because the writing is so ridiculous, I may just pop it all in to Google translate rather than trying to just read it, and then doublecheck that Google translate didn't mess something up. Would it be OK if I email you a google translation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. GamerPro64 04:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on it tomorrow then ... could you email me through the interface, so I can email you back the translation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of unnecessary jargon there. Probably not writing for a broad audience like Wikipedia is. (t · c) buidhe 05:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the technical term is a "doozie". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure I did it right, did you get an email from me? GamerPro64 06:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro64, 15 pages done, 10 more to go ... another day, will be done. What a pretentious and repetitive writer, but there is some useful content in there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro64 all done, check your email. Notes:

  1. If you feel like I may have translated the same passage over and over multiple times, her writing is just that repetitive.
  2. If you feel like the translation/english is stilted, that's her writing style. Ugh.
  3. I basically did a machine (google) translation but then eyeballed every single word for accuracy. It's still possible that I missed something, so please don't hesitate to query anything that doesn't make sense.
  4. I lost one bit, which is not worth looking for. There are two footnotes at the end of the article. I am fairly certain I mistakenly edited out the location of footnote 1 in the text, but as you can see from the contents of Note 1, it's precise location isn't needed, and it probably would take me an hour to re-read the article trying to find the placement of that Note.

Let me know if there's something else you want me to look at. In spite of the repetitive and tedious writing style, the article is well sourced, has some interesting content (albeit stated over and over and over and over), and I am assuming you will have located already all of the sources she cited. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much with the translation. Finally got a copy of the movie so I'll have to find the time to watch it then finally make a presentable article. GamerPro64 23:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A heads-up

[edit]

So I basically created a mess for myself with a FAR and don't intend on nominating anything for FAR until I can get that cleared up - Wikipedia:Featured article review/M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)/archive1. As backstory, with no intention to re-litigate, I'd left concerns about OR/unsupported referencing in Dec. 2021, and eventually took the thing to FAR on Jan. 1. Between COVID and a dead childhood pet, I was in a dubious mood and left a snarky edit summary, which has haywired the FAR to some extent, some of which has spilled onto the talk page of the FAR. The worst issues I had have been or are being resolved, but it does leave a form of referencing that is generally accepted by the Roads WikiProject but has been challenged by other parts of the enwiki community at Talk:M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway)/GA2 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/U.S. Route 1A (Wake Forest–Youngsville, North Carolina)/1. Also relevant is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway).

This is not something that I would ask anyone to jump into because it's going to be a wreck. Just wanted to explain why I won't be adding new FARs for awhile and why this one may last a bit of time. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Thanks for the heads up ... and I am so sorry that you lost your pet. [2] I hope I am in better shape now to keep an eye on things, so give yourself a rest if it will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least the poor kitty got to live a pretty full life for a barn cat. I would've taken him with me when I moved out, but he would have hated living in an apartment. With work, I'll be out of town an average of three of four days a week into April, so my activity will probably be down for that. Hog Farm Talk 04:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lung cancer, part 1?

[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia. My goodness I can't believe how long it's taking me to get through lung cancer. I suppose I'm used to topics for which there are very few sources; now I've got the opposite problem. Anyway, any chance you'd be willing to do a readthrough of part 1 (Signs & Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment) and let me know what you think is unclear to the educated layperson? Those sections have a lot of the same sources, so I'll have an easier time dealing with feedback on them now while the memories are fresh. In the meantime, I'll keep plugging away at completing first drafts of the other sections. I've reached out to fellow traveler Spicy, and with any luck they may be willing to take a look as well. Will wait a moment on the others with the hopes that they'll be able to see the article with fresh eyes once its ready for more feedback. Thanks for any time you can spare! I hope all is well on your end! Ajpolino (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me. The first para of "treatment" does need a citation per FAC rules.
I also see a coverage issue in that the discovery and denial of a link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer should be covered. (t · c) buidhe 06:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, Buidhe. I'd be happy to look, Ajpolino, but I don't want to get crossed up with Spicy. Spicy, should I go first or you? I should have time in the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the read Buidhe! I haven't started on the lead yet, so no need to pick over its current state (though you're more than welcome to). Looking forward to up-sizing the History section a bit. Lung cancer certainly has a rich one. Just haven't gotten to it yet, since it's mostly a distinct set of sources from the clinical stuff. Ajpolino (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ajpolino it sounds like, then, we may need History of lung cancer, so you don't get lost in the weeds. See History of Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved

[edit]

Hello, I moved your page to User:SandyGeorgia/MMStargets as it had been incorrectly moved to the user space of a non-existent user: User:SandyGeorgia MMStargets. Thanks. Uhai (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, Uhai thanks so much. I was following the example for myself of the name format that Xaosflux had set up for the WP:DCGAR, and failed to account for the fact that those were Wikipedia-space pages, while mine for personal MMS was in user space. And here I was thinking I had successfully trialed how to use WP:MMS without a goof. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're almost there! — xaosflux Talk 17:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the encouragement, Xaosflux but this is exactly the sort of thing that scares me re when it comes time to implement WP:DCGAR. In such a high-profile issue, affecting so many articles and users, I can't afford to goof. When it comes time, would it be an imposition if I asked you to send that MMS, or do you think my three trials mean I've now got it ? I'm also concerned, with the two AN threads, that an MMS initiated by me might raise hackles. If you can't do it, can you suggest someone else to do the sending? As someone who has never even participated in the GA process, it's hard to believe it's been only three days since the DC ban, and I'm exhausted. The second AN/issue coming up in the middle of this didn't help, and right now, my back is screaming at me to stop trying to do this work from an iPad and stop sitting at a real computer for the harder parts. If there's a week or so delay before we decide on timing vis-a-vis the GAR merge, I will have used my personal MMS to send FAR notifications, but some editors may still view me as too involved to do the DCGAR MMSing. It's also unclear if there will be a GAR Coord in place in time to take over some of the DCGAR matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can put a request for a mailing up at WT:MMS, one of the uninvolved mass message senders or patrolling admins will get to it. — xaosflux Talk 18:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thx; unless a GAR Coord is in place in time to handle it, I will likely do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Discord

[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if you'd like to join the Wikipedia:Discord. There's even a CCI channel there where you can find me, Moneytrees and other users who work in CCI. If you're interested, feel free to stop by :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old dog, new tricks ... I never even did IRC, and I don't know what a "channel" is. Must I learn? I just like to write content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A channel is a specific section of Discord. If you're not interested, no worries! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the social element of Discord. Makes Wikipedia feel a little less like a business and more like a group of friends. Might be worth the learning curve. To each their own though :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae that's precisely the part that worries me ... I've got a block log as explanation for why, and even though the didn't stand long at all (was corrected while I was out merrily shopping), it's still a painful reminder of what sorts of things got cooked up on IRC. I never did figure out what IRC was-- just knew it was where bad non-transparency reigned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

May I ask whether a ban from “gender-related disputes” relates to sexual violence or anything concerning sex – for instance, information on a trafficker. I thought not as the first is about culture wars whereas the second is not, but just thought to check… Scientelensia (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scientelensia; I am not an admin, so you should not take my word for it on this; until you get an answer, you should err on the side of caution. It would be helpful if you were to put an example of here of a specific article you are thinking of working on; then I can ping some admins who might be able to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will. The article in question was about someone not so good (to say the least), Andrew Tate. I added some details about recent news concerning his trafficking but it was reverted to err on the side of caution. The information has been added by someone else now but I thought to add it as it was not to do with a gender related dispute.
Also, to buidhe, I’m asking SandyGeorgia because they seem to be very experienced and have helped me before on the lines of this matter. Scientelensia (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scientelensia you could post to Callanecc's talk page; as Buidhe points out, they will know better than I do. But remember that admins are quite busy and can't remember all editors, so when you post to them, you should mention the article and link to it, and also include a link to your talk page from the topic they enacted, or remind them exactly of what topic ban you have (gender-related). They'll answer you more quickly if they don't have to go look all that up. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask some random editor, ask the admin who put on the ban. (t · c) buidhe 06:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about IP editor

[edit]

Hello. Apologies for the random message. An IP editor has been putting in uncited information into the 3 of Hearts (album) article. I have reverted them three times already (although I fully admit the third time was an accident as I know reverting three times or more is inappropriate) and I have left a message on the IP's talk page. Any advice for what I should do in this situation? Sorry again and thank you. Hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this and blocked them, let me know if they get back to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and apologies for the third revert. Aoba47 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're okay, it's only after #3 that they start bringing out out the dogs ;) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Premeditated Chaos thank you SO much for helping Aoba while I fretted over finishing those blooming Lunar display CCIs. Almost 18 hours in, and I only have the US articles to go ... another six hours probably ... so 24 hours to clean up one DYK that was an abuse of all things good faith. Now to catch up on my talk page ... thx again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sandy, with my experience in CCI I recommend taking it easy and not stressing about it too hard. We have dozens of open CCIs. Many are enormous, bigger than Coldwell's, and carry the same load of problematic content. We work on it the best we can but we can't drive ourselves crazy trying to fix it immediately when that isn't realistically possible. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Premeditated Chaos the issue is that one DYK had 30 articles replete with copyright issues, but all similar and using the same sources and needing the same templates, yada yada, so it's easier to complete them all at once ... once I got a system, I had to keep it going ... while keeping track of where I was in the list and what was left to do and all that ... almost home, and I hope not to hit another one like that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, just don't want you to stress yourself out trying to carry the whole thing :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm committed to the Ludington-related (little by little-- same thing, now I know the sources, so can do all of them), finishing up the Lunar displays, and getting the WP:DCGAR launched. After that, it's whatever I have free time for ... but I have my kiddos flying in for a visit this weekend through next week, so at least want to get the loony lunars out of the way before they arrive. Thx for the thoughts :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the delisting process & possible COIs...

[edit]

I put Ramsdell Theatre on the separate GAR list but duh just realized that I helped write it so I would probably be considered to have a COI doing a GAR... Should I take it off the list? I am willing to do a Review but maybe I shouldn't?
Also...I did the initial GA assessment on Thomas Johnston (engraver). Can I do a GAR on that or am I considered to have a COI... Don't want to cause more problems... Need advice here, either from Sandy or a friendly talkpage stalker - Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shearonink; I'm iPad editing from a car hotspot right now, and am desperately hoping that some of the GAR regulars will begin fielding the questions. Would you mind helping me out by transferring this question to a new talk page section on the talk page where you posted the intent ? Let's see if some of the GAR folks will start taking some of this load off my plate :) :) My personal suggestion is to first contemplate what the article would look like after you (eventually) WP:PDEL any content you can't personally verify to offline sources, and then see what's left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, there are no more individual GARS ... they are all community GARs now -- so it seems to me that a COI is not an issue as long as you declare it and let someone else close the review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll copy/paste this section to that page. Ok, if the consensus agrees I'm happy to do some Reviews & someone else can close. Thanks for everything, Shearonink (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article history question

[edit]

I'm looking into cleaning up some of the more bizarre GA subpage messes. Here's one I can't figure out what to do with: Talk:Ondine (ballet)/GA1. It's been moved around; that page has been a dab page and the ballet has also been at Ondine (Ashton), which is where it was when the GA was done. The GA has been moved (correctly, I think) to the new title, but the revision of Ondine (ballet) at the time of the review was a dab. I can add this to the talk page: 

{{article history

|action1 = GAN
|action1date=22:22, 24 November 2008
|action1link=Talk:Ondine (ballet)/GA1
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=252133164

|currentstatus=FGAN
}}

but that old id points at the Ashton version of the article. Is there a better way to handle this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to this later today, Mike ... swamped, and my son is coming for a week-long visit ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry -- there are scores of these weird pages and most have been screwed up for a decade or more, so they can wait. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know ... I have to regularly repair them as they come to my attention via subsequent FACs or FARs ... that's why I asked them to stop the ridiculous transclusions to talk, but I gave up on that ... too much to do elsewhere to solve GA problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime I've added the ah template without the oldid. If we end up not moving any page history around that's probably the best that can be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to it later today ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie iPad editing, but I was able to have a look. There is so much of this throughout GAs that once you start looking, you'll understand why I wish they would change this ridiculous system. Here are my thoughts on the best way to handle this (exactly what you did). That was a 15-year-old failed GAN; the oldid is fairly irrelevant and not worth looking for. I leave them off in cases like that (either very old or the article has changed so much that it's no longer relevant). If we were looking at a GA, I'd want to point to the oldid even if the article was at another name. In this case, doesn't matter, it's not a GA, move on, there's so much of this sort of thing to be fixed that it's not worth it.  :) :) Your efforts are better spent in getting the GA process to change that ridiculous method of cluttering talk pages with GA nominations, and move to a real subpage. Hope that helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does help; thanks. I agree and will start a conversation about changing the subpage approach at some time in the future. In the meantime I think I am getting sufficiently clear on how these messes can happen that I can clean them up myself without needing to call you in, though I may still do so for truly weird ones. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, whenever I come across a GA transcluded to talk that has already been built in to article history, I delete the duplicate transclusion. Why, oh why, oh why does the GA process think it's the only content review process that has to clutter talk pages, when the link is available in AH, and neither PR nor FAC nor FAR do that ? And then, when you try to section edit, you end up editing the GAN instead of the talk page ... it's a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke: who also seems to get it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On PANDAS

[edit]
Moved to Talk:PANDAS § On PANDAS
 – SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

[edit]

You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, thanks for all your work on this. I noted, looking at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023/reviewer list, that the dates for articles with more than one review are all the same, taking the date of the final review. However, the results (P or F) appears correct, so this may not have any practical effect (thought it worth noting just in case). Best, CMD (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say it has been a pleasure :( Yep, that's explained in the column heading ... Mike couldn't get his script to sort the dates, so I added the P/F and the note to the heading. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See #DC GA reviewers above for Mike's description ... it wasn't worth fixing, so I just added the note at the top ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, there I go being banner blind (so to speak). CMD (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recording nominators in a template

[edit]

Sandy, I know you have house guests; this is low priority, but I want to get your thoughts on this before starting a conversation elsewhere, as you're expert on talk page templates. There are cases where as far as I can tell there is no way for a bot to determine who the nominator of a given GAN is. For many problems I find, I can fix or add article history and that provides the record the bot needs to answer the question. However, that won't work for nominator and nomination timestamp. There's no nominator or nomination timestamp parameter in article history, nor in the GA or FailedGA templates. There's a nominator parameter in {{GA nominee}}, but (particularly a long time ago) it was often not filled out. I can't find any template I can add to a talk page that answers the question "who nominated this article for GA1?". Do you know of a way to do it?

If there's no way, then my first thought was to add nominator and nomination timestamp parameters to the talk page templates {{GA}} and {{FailedGA}}. Those get rolled into article history, though, so they can't be relied on to be there. Adding nominator and nomination timestamp parameters to article history strikes me as overkill, though if they're optional parameters I suppose they'd be harmless. Any thoughts?

If you're curious about a case where it's not possible to algorithmically determine who a nominator was: I ran into one where the original GA nomination had no nominator parameter, and when I searched article history there had been vandalism that removed the nomination template, so the most recent user to "add" the nomination appeared to be the editor who reverted the vandal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike I don't know of anything and the only way I know of to look is to step back through the talk page diffs to find when the GA was launched ... sorry I can't help more ... it's been a frustration, and is why Gimme, Maralia and I literally spent months of 2007 building the article history on every FFA and FA ... there were messes everywhere, and unfortunately, trying to sort that on GAs seems insurmountable ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POV in Applied Behavior Analysis article

[edit]

Hi Sandy,

There seems to be a lot of bias and POV with the ABA article (especially biased newsources/magazines and invalid journal articles). Many within the Wiki community are arguing that it's not evidenced based or a scientific discipline (and discussing the research design limitations on EIBI and DTT is very specific to autism and doesn't even take into account that the broad field of ABA has other sub-disciplines, i.e., substance abuse, organizational behavior management, etc., which are empirically validated). And I'm not quite sure that the lack of RCTs in EIBI, and the fact that there is now more high functioning forms of ASD (which is why the research shows varying responses to differing early ABA interventions and Lovaas' 1987 study not being reproduced as the amount of children that made progress in language and adaptive behavior was half of what was reported -- other than the high IQ scores associated with Lovaas therapy being "well established" and that part being replicated), is a reason to mention why some (but not all) in the neurodiversity movement are against ABA in the treatment of autism.

I was wondering if you could take a look and remove any bias and make any suggestions, especially since there is a lot of bias and misconception of the aims and goals of ABA (which is also apparent among the Wiki community).

Thanks, and take care!

ATC . Talk 22:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ATC; it is so good to hear from you and I hope you are well. It's hard to believe we've "known each other" for more than 15 years now, and I'm always so proud of the editor you have become. So I regret to have to say no in this case. I had a look at the article, and it is just too bad, and would take too much time, for me to even start in. Back in 2007 to 2008, when we had Eubulides and a vibrant group of medical editors and the main autism articles at Featured standard, with all the sub-articles accurate and reliable, it was worth the effort. With Eubulides gone and the medicine project going, it's an insurmountable task to try to bring that article in to line with WP:MEDRS, and I have to "pick my battles" so as not to despair. I am so sorry to let you down; I just don't think we have enough resources to fix that mess, and have to prioritize my time here so I don't just give up. It makes me too sad to see what has happened to all of the autism suite of articles, after the massive effort Eubulides and I made to clean the entire suite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understand, Sandy! Too bad we weren't able to find someone like Eubuildes to fill in his place, considering the Autism spectrum and Classic autism articles no longer meet FAC criteria as well. ATC . Talk 18:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know...

[edit]

I'm no longer watching or shepherding Middle Ages due to just not wanting to waste that much time, so if folks feel the need to FAR or whatever, no skin off my nose. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth gotcha, so sorry, feel the burn. Would you mind if I update your comment at WP:URFA/2020B to conform with the sort order on that column per instructions? That is, I would remove your "watchlisting and shepharding" and list your "Update" as a Note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Oh, do you have a link/directions/etc to the "who wrote this" thing you're using for DC? It looks like I'm going to need it... Ealdgyth (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth you can track it down via Wikipedia:Who Wrote That?. It's pretty awesome, except that the developers stopped short of what I really needed to pursue my copyright claim at Dementia with Lewy bodies, since what I'd really like is to be able to export a PDF that highlights *all* the text I wrote in one file (WhatamIdoing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

[edit]

Re: The Banner at the admin noticeboard. I agree with your concern about editor inactivity resulting in no punishment for problematic behavior. I hope this discussion will not die down just because of a pause in activity. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping an eye on it ... it's surprising how long misbehavior can go on before it comes to attention, and that I happened upon it only because of following up on pre-FAR activity. I had more or less been watching Minneapolis just to make sure it was progressing as needed for a FAR, but had not focused on the extreme level of disruptive editing there soon enough. I am so sorry you had to endure that for so long. If that editor doesn't surface, then either a cban, multiple topic bans, or indeff need to be on the table ... but I do understand waiting for them to show up again. I wonder how many other editors they hounded, but don't have time to look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I just want to make sure the discussion isn't archived and things go back to the way they were before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will unarchive it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat aware of Doug C's GA/copyright issues. And

[edit]
Pages for
February 2023
GAR reassessment
and Copyright
contributor investigation
Main pages

Lists

Notices

Scripts and bots

I missed the recent ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Doug Coldwell
A couple of questions:

So, if I understand the consensus at ANI, all of the DC articles that received a GA designation are to be stripped of their GA status and ...possibly...maybe...someday... get a new GA Review. Is that correct? Had to be done, it's just that the fallout-damage is so enormous... Shearonink (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - I didn't follow the AN discussion closely, but I think there was a method to claim a limited number of articles for a more close look and an GAR of its own. From a quick look at Ludington family, I think it needs some work. Dickson is self-published, I don't know that being published by a local printing company makes Dunathan 1963 much better than self-published, per the copyright pages Miller is self-classified as "juvenile fiction", and I believe modern sources such as Hunt have raised serious concerns about the reliability of Johnson 1907. Hog Farm Talk 03:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok...thanks for your thoughts on those Ludingtons...appreciate it. I figured any article with that family name was probably on the metaphorical chopping block - no problems if it gets axed, just wanted to know people's opinions and how to move forward. Shearonink (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Shearonink (and thanks HF). I'll put together today a sub-page at GA, as you won't be the only one with these questions.
HF explained it right, but there remains some confusion. At one DC GA I've been working on as a sample, one editor is quite convinced the issues are fixed, but three-fourths of the content is cited to offline sources that newspapers.com doesn't have, and the few I have been able to check don't even verify the claims made. The editor thinks that rewriting the content (without accessing the sources) means too close paraphrasing is addressed and the article is fixed: it's not. That could be an example of an individual GAR where community consensus may be needed, and I hope we don't encounter a lot of that kind of digging in, considering the evidence already presented about the dodgy sourcing. The AN consensus is that text from all offline sources is to be stripped from the articles (Z1720 suggested leaving them as Further reading, but the talk page might be better, as some of the sources are so archaic as to be useless). Something that emerged during the AN commentary is that there is probably COI-based POV lurking in all the Ludington-related articles. So, what is going on now at the list started by Iazyges (people indicating "fixed") isn't very useful. I know we will have some individual GARS that will be challenged, because any offline source is suspect. All we need is the list to be separated into those that claim an individual GAR ... but that can be done after I start a subpage laying out all of this and with Novem's stuff in the section below this.
So, with all that said, from the list (see post below this one), we only need to know which ones will claim an individual GAR (not included in the mass delisting, rather re-assessed individually) as editors believe they are "fixed" (in some cases, doubtful, which will lead to discussion at the GAR). In your case, all things Ludington are a mess, so I'm guessing you won't want to claim a GAR, and yes, those will go to the mass delisting. When we declare we're ready to proceed at GAR, then we can begin the process of stubbing articles (removing all content cited to offline sources and parking those in Further reading or on talk), checking what's left, and then Novem (see below) does the automated part.
It will take me the better part of today to lay all of this out in a GA subpage ... today's project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, here's where DC pinged you (and the world): User talk:Doug Coldwell#October 2022. (Permalink) Enjoy :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Yeah, I tried to find it but gave up after a cursory search. What an awful time with all this mess and the ongoing/subsequent cleanup...so much time and effort that now has to be devoted to this Wiki-disaster... Shearonink (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it continues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought in the back of my mind, but for AFTER I get the explanatory subpage going. Buidhe you have mass sender. Is is permissible/adviseable to use mass sender to send an explanatory post to every GA talk page on the list? If so, once we get the text developed, might you be willing to do that ? Is 233 pages excessive for mass sender and likely to cause problems? We can explore this on the subpage after I get it going today. Should also make sure Premeditated Chaos is reading this thread, although I'll get a subpage set up today for better centralized coordination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, we're working on the GAR process now so hopefully that will be settled soon. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to help, but also any admin can send mass messages. (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe could you point me to where I can learn if this would be an appropriate use of mass sender? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only one I know of is Wikipedia:Mass message senders#Guidance for use. I expect you could get the perm yourself since you have use for it. It seems like an appropriate use of MMS to me. (t · c) buidhe 20:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Tony Ballioni talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GARCloser and mass delisting

[edit]
See user:SandyGeorgia/sandbox9. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandy. Long time no chat. I hope you've been well. Let me know if you need technical assistance with mass delisting GAs. GARCloser has the code to do this individually. With some programming and maybe a BRFA, I could probably feed it a list of GAs to mass delist, perhaps creating pro forma individual reassessment pages with a quick explanation of what's going on and a link to the ANI. I'm very busy with work this month so I may be a bit slow, but figured I'd offer. Also, as of Oct 31, 2022, GARCloser now includes the oldid. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome ... great to hear from you! You were going to be my next order of business today.
There is no hurry on this, as people at GA have asked that we hold off until the GAR community v. Individual process is merged, in case there are some individual GARs. Tomorrow (oops, just looked at my clock-- it is tomorrow!) I'll start a sub-page at GA where we can begin to sort through the technicalities. Depending on the technical issues with GARcloser, it might not be necessary to hold off, but we can discuss all that over there. For now ... in terms of getting you thinking about the coding ...
I'm thrilled to hear you can feed it a list, as that will be the way to go. Also glad we've now got oldids, but one other thing: most of Coldwell's GAs also have DYKs, and when I checked Henry Ludington, GARcloser had not rolled in the DYK. Is that something you might add meanwhile? In that case, I had to add the oldid and merge the DYK.
The scheme you propose is what I had in mind. User:Iazyges/Doug GA Rewrite Claims needs to be converted to number points (Iazyges), so we can be sure we have all 233 in alpha order, the questions like Shearonink's above need to be sorted (there seems to be some variation in understanding of what "fixed" means, so that's not a helpful grouping, I'll work on that next), then an automated GAR page is created for each one left on the list (after a period where editors can claim an individual GAR) with a link to the ANI and explanatory text we will work on, and then GAR closes it. That's the general scheme to be working on. I'll point you at a DC GA subpage once I get this rolling ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, very old DYKs don't have a nompage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Writing code to fold in DYK stuff adds complexity. I'll look into it, but might not have time. There's a whole class of templates that could/should be folded into article history ({{DYK talk}}, {{Old peer review}}, {{OnThisDay}}, {{FailedGA}}, {{Old XfD multi}}), but it's quite a task to do that bug-free. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that; I wonder if you could steal the code from FACbot ? Hawkeye7? Except that's a bot rather than a script, and I don't know if they have a shared programming language. In the Coldwell case, it is almost always only DYK. But on the other hand, if there are some loose templates on the talk page that belong in articlehistory, it is not worth taking everyone's time on that ... unless it's an easy fix ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bot paperwork filed. While that's marinating, may want to start thinking about things like 1) what text do we want to put on the pro forma GAR pages, 2) do we want to do individual or community reassessment GARs? (They'd be open and closed immediately, this is just deciding where to put the pro forma pages.) I'm thinking individual would be best, to avoid spamming the community reassessment page and log. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well aren't you speedy!
  1. Working on that in User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox9. The most significant hold up right now is how to name the GA subpage; see WT:GAN discussion re sensitivity that Coldwell/Caldwell is a living person. Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Coldwell GAs: Implementation. I want to let that percolate for a bit before moving my sandbox content and continuing to work. We have time, per ... see next point ...
  2. The question of individual or community has already been answered for us and is contemplated in the AN discussion. Those processes are being merged to one, which is why we have to hold off until that merger is completed. Premeditated Chaos is on top of that one, and is aware of our work here. See the discussion at WT:GAN re this approved proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae, will Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Douglas Coldwell GA list work in that form, or should it be converted to a list of talk pages? See also query at VPT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That form works fine. I can easily convert it if I end up using a different format. Thanks for checking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe does that list have to be in the form of a talk page for mass sender to work for article page notices? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like User:Buidhe/test, or can the mass sender convert article pages to talk pages before sending? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it has to be in the same format as User:Buidhe/test—a MassMessage delivery list. (t · c) buidhe 18:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found the page and inquired there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Guerillero! Now I'm a mass murderer ... or something :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE review my sandbox

[edit]

I have not had a breather all morning ... could others please review User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox9 so I can keep working on it later today? I don't want to move it to a GA subpage until it has fresh eyes. Please use the talk page at the sandbox, as I'm gettin' spread pretty thin now ... got mass message sender, got the master list done, got a procedure for checking the master list, worked on an AN and issues at two DC articles, got the sandbox advanced, answered questions at WT:GAN, and lost track of everything on my own talk page ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's ready, but could really use more eyes before moving to GA space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, looks good to me. A couple of very minor comments:
That's everything. I think I was the reviewer for at least eight or ten of his GAs. I remember running into him at GA years ago and thinking he was a terrible writer, but of course GA only requires prose to be grammatical, not well-written. I did a burst of GA reviewing last summer, and reviewed several of his, and it was in the middle of that burst that I realized (or was told, rather) that I couldn't assume sourcing quality, as we do at FAC for experienced editors. Before that I had been only checking sources where they looked suspicious to me. After the first ANI thread I went back and checked sources for a hundred or more of my reviews, which turned out to be an educational experience and an unintentional way to get some statistics about sourcing accuracy in random GANs. I checked 103 articles I'd passed (not including 6 of Doug's) and 76 were completely fine with no issues at all, of which a handful had nothing I could check online. The rest had issues that I posted to the article talk pages. All but one were fixed; I ended up delisting one. I did fail one of Doug's that was in an area I am expert in (magazine history) and perhaps that should have alerted me sooner -- he fought hard to persuade me I was wrong, but it's an area I know a lot about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a horrible experience for everyone involved. I really appreciate the time you took, Mike Christie, as I know you've got your head into generating data and are very busy. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any major issues. There will be a number that I reviewed on the list - I reviewed his regularly (although I did fail a few) before I started to catch on that some of these had comprehensiveness issues. When things first blew up, I tried to reach out to him to suggest some sort of mentoring (he'd been willing to make major changes when I'd requested it a few times), but the response I got at User talk:Hog Farm/Archive 13#Flexible barge was profoundly disappointing and sort of a second wake-up call for me. So I guess I'm fairly involved here. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What an awful conversation. It is amazing this has gone on for as many years as it has. And to think of how I stumbled into all of it (a ridiculous post about Sybil Ludington on Facebook for the Fourth of July) ... and here we are, thank you Facebook, on the brink of two community bans <eeeeeek> Thanks for your help reviewing it, HF ... I know how swamped you are as well ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DC GA reviewers

[edit]
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 1/reviewer list
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 1/GA reviewer MMStargets (mailing list)

OK, I whipped up something but it'll need review. This is the result of looking up his GA article titles in the list I pulled of creators of pages with names ending in "/GAn". So the first one in the list is 1836 U.S. Patent Office fire; it was promoted on 2020-09-15 and there is one review in the list for that article, by The Most Comfortable Chair, with a review page started on 2020-09-12. The "age" column is just the difference of the two dates. However, there are 27 articles for which two records came up. The first is Albert Kahn (architect), which was reviewed by Sahaib on 2021-08-07 and also by Dugan Murphy on 2021-10-22. The "promoted date" is 2021-10-25 for both; this doesn't mean both promoted it -- the date is repeated on both lines because I don't know who promoted it. Two records have no valid values for reviewer because my search didn't find them; I'll have to look into why. I hope this is helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, Mike ... helpful ? You are amazing !!! (Hog Farm, hide your eyes :). Others will be hiding their eyes more than you, though :) All we need is a list of names for the MMS, so I'll condense this down to just a list. Do you consider it good enough for those purposes ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stand by what it says (i.e. there really is a GA review created by that editor if the table says so) but you should probably scan for the duplicate records and delete the ones that did not promote. Some are obvious (hundreds of days old) but some you may have to go read the GA reviews. And the two nulls need to be looked up. If you do that, yes, I think this is good enough. And by the way, thanks for organizing all this. It needed to be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do ... thanks, Mike, you're awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last post for tonight; just realized the titles should be links. I can easily make that happen and will try to do so tomorrow morning before I go to work, if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need, Mike. I haven't stopped all day, and tomorrow I have a Dr. Appt ... but some time tomorrow, I will check the few items you indicated need checking, and then reduce it to just a straight list of DC GA reviewers. Don't think it's my job to point out how many or which ones, as that could cause red faces ... I don't need the articles linked, as I'll only be listing editors. Then the MMS will have some wording like ... "you may have reviewed one or more of the articles on this list" ... we'll leave it to them. Those in the know will probably pop over here to inquire, and in that case, we can point them to this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up the table. Mike, I'm not removing the duplicates, as they show early fails with later passes. I have to check the talk pages to figure out which was the pass vs fails.

One of the NULLs (Robert Grace) was a dab issue that I had already discovered as faulty in the bot report. I can't decipher why Electric fire engine glitched, but what a solid review (not).

Sorting out the duplicates is slow going because BlueMoonset had been removing {{FailedGA}} templates from talk pages, so I have to dig back and find them-- they are needed for building articlehistory. What sad shape talk pages are with the absence of GimmeBot, who kept all this stuff in order when converting ALL process templates to article history. Part of the time consuming issue here would not be a problem if we still had Gimme. Still working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/James L. Buie/1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SUMMARY: There are 10 editors on the list who had only fails (never passed a DC GA). If we notify those who passed even one, and leave out all failed one or more, we are potentially biasing the sample of who shows up to GARs. We need to notify everyone who ever reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad GimmeBot doesn't appear to have posted its source code. I don't see a link to the source code at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GimmeBot 2. I agree that the scale of that task could really use a dedicated bot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure BlueMoonset removed the FailedGA templates because of a bug in Legobot that caused it to report a passed GA as a fail if a FailedGA template for an earlier nomination was still present on the page. That should no longer be necessary. Some numbers, FYI: there are 11,479 article history templates with a GAN, GAR, or DGA. There are at least 51,510 pages with a name of the form ".../GAn". There are also 3055 pages with FailedGA and 323 pages with DelistedGA. Formatting and layout errors are so frequent that the only way I could see a bot working would be to add a category named something like ArticleHistoryConversionError to everything it found errors with, and leave those for gnomes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When we originally set up Articlehistory (which was initially FAs only, "we" being Gimmetrow, Maralia, and me), that is exactly how we worked. Maralia and I were Gimmetrow's gnomes. And I stil follow Category:Article history templates with errors daily. No one has yet replaced what GimmeBot did, and talk pages are again a mess. See Taming talk page clutter. I still attempt to keep FA talk pages in order, and regularly see that significant editors don't tend "their" talk pages ... but the Doug Coldwell talk pages are a level I am not used to seeing. I've said many times: no one yet has done for any individual process what Gimme rolled into article history for every process.
Having read through some of these reviews, I am coming around to the idea that this chart should probably be posted to the subpage of the GA page that my sandbox will become. The AN/ANI/GARs reveal there has been some intimidation and battleground behavior, and we have this data now ... why expect people to ask one of us for it or to have to come to my talk page? Thoughts ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting tidbit: Once templates are converted to articlehistory, page moves don't cause errors. Gimmetrow designed articlehistory to work that way. The faulty bot report at Robert Grace (manufacturer) is coming from unconverted templates after a move from Robert Grace. Apparently leaving unconverted GA templates on talk pages causes problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A belated confirmation that I only removed FailedGAs from article talk pages to prevent that Legobot error, but I made a policy of only doing so when hand-entering (and sometimes hand-creating) the information into an {{Article history}} template, either pre-existing, or newly created. If you're looking to reconstruct history, every piece of data in a FailedGA would have been added to Article history before the former was deleted. This shouldn't be unusual; FailedGA and GA templates alike typically disappear into a newly created Article history template. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for letting us know, BlueMoonset ... I actually have found many FailedGAs on DC article talk pages that just went away and did not go into Articlehistory ... I recovered any that I found, but I'm pretty (based on how many I found) that there are still lots out there. A lot of people were just removing them and not building AH ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I've seen it too often myself. Some new GA nominators would delete any previous FailedGA templates—I'm not sure whether they saw it as a badge of shame or just didn't bother to learn the proper way to nominate, but I'd always be sure to restore such deletions, since article history is important, and typically moved the information from them into an Article history template so it was less likely to be removed again. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming my recollection that i did one GAN for DC and no others. I didn't find it a particularly pleasant experience, so I decided to just not do any more. There wasn't anything that stood out, it just wasn't very much fun, and I got a decidely un-warm feeling from DC, so I moved on to other editors' works and to other subjects. I suppose I should go back and check that over, but I'm still swamped with weather here (it was actual temp of −23 °F (−31 °C) BEFORE wind chills) and just not sure I care enough to keep that article from just being delisted....Ealdgyth (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, while simply looking for duplicates and errors last night, I had to read many of these reviews. The picture that is emerging, between this effort and what has been posted to the ANs and ANIs, is one of intimidation, battleground, and QPQ defense from "friends". And reviewers either were afraid to speak up or didn't know where to speak up or didn't care to speak up. And when they did speak up, DC's friends swarmed. Reading through a sampling of the fails before passes reveals a considerable amount of copyvio, poor sourcing, and poor writing. A very ugly picture is starting to emerge, and I suspect many GA reviewers were actually chased off by DC. It's rather shocking this went on for so long. I have NO doubt this would not have happened under Geometry guy's watch, and that the GAN process desperately needs a Coordinator (Gguy acted as a defacto Coord). The solution at DYK is not so easy ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading the single GAN I did of his, I mostly just remember his badgering. In isolation, it's annoying, and the article certainly had referencing issues (though a spot-check didn't reveal stuff to the extent that I felt going through the entire thing was necessary or it should be quick failed) but in aggregate the troubling conduct is much more apparent. Probably this is something that should have gotten brought up at GAN earlier so reviewers could pool their impressions and have caught on to it earlier. More communication would have saved us a lot of issues. I'll definitely go back through Merkel Landis this coming month and vet every statement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, Electric fire engine was missed because the reviewer picked it up and passed it between Legobot runs, so the reviewer's name was never added to GA bot's stats list. That means I had no way to find them and search for their reviews. I can fix that over the next day or so so I'm glad it came up.

Nominations of Doug's that were not subsequently passed are not in the table above. I'll think about ways to produce that list and will let you know if I can come up with something. One example is Talk:Four-Track News/GA1. I failed it, and Doug reluctantly merged it into Travel Holiday, as I had suggested, and that led to this conversation on my talk page. After my first reply, saying I had more sources, Doug nominated Travel Holiday for GAN without waiting for the additional material; BlueMoonset removed it twice before Doug gave up. BlueMoonset also posted this to Doug's talk page. In the conversation on my talk page I said I'd look at the article again but that was when the ANI blew up so I gave up on it. You can also see on Doug's talk, a couple of sections below BlueMoonset's comment, the section I started asking him to verify the sources in his GAs before I checked them again (this was during the ANI). This was when I decided it was a CIR issue more than malfeasance -- how could anyone read my comments and think that work like Doug's could pass muster unless they truly did not understand copyright and paraphrasing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very sad. Mike Christie I have decided to trim the DC GA reviewer table and use it; we just can't expect that info to be hidden on my talk page. I'll ping you to the page after I set it up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that. FYI, in case you're not aware and don't use VE, VE makes editing tables far easier if you want to do things like delete or move columns or rows. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interim Coldwell GARs

[edit]
Will it affect the list-sending out if one is delisted between now and when the list is sent? I opened Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Appomattox Court House National Historical Park/1 on January 26, and the content has already been verified, removed, or replaced by me, so the PDEL won't be a factor there. I have more than half a mind to go ahead and close the Appomattox Court House NHP GAR today. Hog Farm Talk 18:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the answer is yes. If a GAR is already open, we need to remove that from the bot processing list. I'm glad to have an example of that, as I'm trying to figure out how I will know if there are others ... what you should do depends on what you want to have happen. If you would rather see it in the mass delist, yes, close the GAR now ... if you want it to be saved, we'll remove it from the mass list. But how can I find other instances of same ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to check the list that I can think of would be to compare against CAT:GAR, which the last few weeks has seemed to mainly consist of a purge of old geography GAs. I'm going to go ahead and delist Appomattox NHP now - with the failed verification and copyvio gone, it still has major comprehensiveness and weighting issues that would disqualify it from GA without a lot of work, and I'd rather the delisting reflect the special issues there rather than the more generic ones. Hog Farm Talk 18:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good ... when I get caught up (at Dr appt now), I'll remove it from the bot list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm Did you mark it cleaned at the CCI? I'd check that myself if I were home ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just did the delisting process, so it can be removed. Maybe I'll get to re-working it someday, but the national park history is horribly incomplete as it is. I did mark it on the CCI as cleaned - I only caught one sentence of copyvio, although there were several points that I suspected a violation, but couldn't find the source to confirm. Anything I couldn't verify to the source I removed or rewrote. Hog Farm Talk 18:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at it ... heading for delisting ??? If that is so, we can just remove it from the bot list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae will your bot be able to detect whether there is an already open individual GAR on the talk page, and if so, skip that article? Or do I need an automated means of checking for that before we do the mass delisting run? What's our plan for situations like the one above ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS this and this picked up Hog Farm's delisting of the Court House, so I can use that to doublecheck the list just before your bot run, so it's only already-open GARs that we would need to detect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can add that to the algorithm. I wrote up User:Novem Linguae/Work instructions/DougColdwellGARs real quick. Feel free to check it/make edits/make suggestions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responded there (and am working on a template to consolidate all pages I've developed so far). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae and Hog Farm: for now, I am leaving Appomattox Court House National Historical Park on the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Doug Coldwell GA list, as it give me a sample to make sure that the Petscan query picks up any delists after we started the process. When Novem is ready to process the list, then we will remove those along with the ones indicated at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/February 2023 1#Intent to open an independent GAR. Since we don't know how long the delay will be until the GAR merger, I think it safest to keep the original 223 article list intact, to avoid getting crosswise, and only edit down the final bot processing list when we are ready to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page entries

[edit]

I am working at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox9. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Just wanted to say thank you Sandy and to everyone pitching in on cleaning up this lingering mess of sourcing/COI/copyright problems. What a massive workload...smdfh. Just an idea...I think that someone has already mentioned this but if a link or links could be provided within the Talk page header/Article Milestones of all of the affected articles that would be helpful for editors & readers who happen upon these articles in the future. Linkage to someplace central that won't get archived with an explanatory intro. People come and go around WP all the time, signposts left behind on what happened are useful and also needful in terms of attribution. Shearonink (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Working on that in sandbox9. The idea is to first mass send a message to talk (which would get eventually lost in archives), but we will make sure that the GAR delistings contain a permalink to a subpage where all is documented. Everthing useful I learned on Wikipedia ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink here is one piece just pointed out to me. Once the articles have been cleared, we should be putting

  • {{subst:CCI|name=20210315}}

on the talk pages. See Talk:Willis Fletcher Johnson SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

Is 7&6=thirteen actually Doug Caldwell? Doug's Flickr has very recent images of recent articles edited heavily by 7&6=thirteen and I saw other similarities on there userpage setup when i went there looking for some other reason for them to have taken recent images of the pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.156.254 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even have time or space in my head to contemplate that, but I imagine that the CUs would have picked that up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no....just the possibility... Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the archived SPI from earlier this month, there is mention of notes on cuwiki. Whether or not those blocks were purely behavioural, or a mixture of behavioural and technical, is not clear from the archive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, kind of hate to ask, but what is cuwiki? Shearonink (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a private wiki that only the Checkusers (CUs) can access. Sharing everything one knows about a sockmaster is not advised, because if they know how they are detected, they can better evade detection. So information about sockmasters is kept where only CUs can see it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok...I kind of thought so but WP is such a sprawling place I was thinking maybe I had missed something I was supposed to know... Shearonink (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope :) WP:LTA pages kept on Wikipedia (like Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse) turned out to be a mistake because we used to give too much information, that only helped the sockmaster by telling them everything we knew about them so they could adapt and evade. We need to give the others just info to know how to recognize the sock, while holding back that which would help them evade. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make a convincing case, that would be at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doug Coldwell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's proxying for a banned user ... to be watching for across the board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy

[edit]

Sandy, you are an incredible editor. What you and so many others do in regards to copyright investigations and cleanups is nothing short of miraculous. Your efforts are most appreciated. I don't want you to conflate anything I have said as supporting 7&6's actions in interfering with Doug's copyvio cleanup nor should you apologize for protecting the encyclopedia by bringing forward the discussion at AN the way you did. I want to encourage you to keep doing your work. It is very impactful in keeping Wikipedia, an encyclopedia and community we both love, safe and secure from being damaged by copyrighted content. I know that's not all you do but it is a huge task with grave consequences and serious responsibility and I appreciate that you step forward to take action. I support you 100% and I respect you even more. --ARoseWolf 19:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. I have greatly appreciated your measured tone and obvious intent to help at 7/6. And compassion is an attribute I admire. I have avoided posting to 7/6's talk, as that would probably only irritate them, but there are two things that would sway me towards taking a position against the CBAN, in case you are able to have any influence there:
  1. I don't appreciate the reference to "shame" considering the sole IP that posted here to my talk, inquiring whether 7/6 was a Coldwell sock. I can't control who posts to my talk. But it's still unclear whether 7/6 is heaping shame on my head or the IP. And if he's heaping that at me, it's not at all funny, considering I have a gratuitous and undeserved block log wrt sock puppets, and I indeed take great care in that area.
  2. Considering the considerable Wikifriendship between Coldwell and 7/6-- in conjunction with the socking relationships to the library-- the possibility that Coldwell and 7/6 are in communication, and 7/6 is proxying for a banned user, is real. It's clear why the socks went after Willis Fletcher Johnson. What brought 7/6 to Ludington Public Library, after the block of Thomas Trahey? If there were some alternate explanation for what brought 7/6 to that particular article, I would re-evaluate whether to take a position on the Cban proposal.
I also want to encourage you to keep up the compassion, and respect you for the way in which you have reached across a difficult divide to 7/6. I would have structured the AN much more carefully had I realized there was more background here; I worked on the Doug Coldwell AN in sandbox for days before launching it at AN, but in the case of 7/6, I thought it was an isolated problem, and just wanted the WP:DCGAR interferences to end. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy, you are an incredible editor. What you and so many others do in regards to copyright investigations and cleanups is nothing short of miraculous. Your efforts are most appreciated *raises whisky glass in support* ... Hope you're doing well Sandy. I know we haven't talk much since the Hamlet fire article and I've only tangentially been involved in the Coldwell cleanup, but do know that you're work is appreciated (along with the work of User:Hog Farm, User:Mike Christie, and others). I'd like to keep the GA process around (and with a few dozen GAs myself you could say I have a vested interest) and the cleanup and integrity checking is vital to making it a functional, meaningful process. Also happy we're going to merge community with individual GARs, don't know why we ever had two separate things for that. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for stopping by with such kind words, Indy beetle! The whisky will be most appreciated by dear hubby, who quips that he is "drinking for two" since my doctor declared me acutely allergic to all forms of alcohol, along with aspirin, NSAIDs and antibiotics. He does enjoy a nice whisky, while I drink my flavored fizzy water :/.
    If everyone checked one diff a day at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315, we could clean up the Coldwell mess sooner. Disappointingly, I just discovered that spot checking on new nominators has fallen by the wayside at FAC, so I hope it doesn't go the way of GAN.
    It's always a pleasure to "see" you, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you do it

[edit]

I don't understand how it's possible for you to put as much work in copyright clearing on the DC situation as you do. I just applied nuking (and revision deleting a sizable chunk of the article history) to Sweeney Prizery, and that pretty much ended my desire for wikipedia work this evening. It just sucks the life out of me to take a hatchet to content, knowing that I'll probably never get the time to flesh things back out with needed levels of detail. But it has to happen, and I guess it's better that I try to save a couple paragraphs than it end up at WP:CP down the road and have nothing remaining. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm you are always too hard on yourself: I don't know how YOU do it !!! Remember, I don't also have a job (although I am going back to volunteer Treasurer at church starting next week, so that'll take away half of my Wikitime).
That 30-article DYK was such an abuse of the process that I really wanted to get through all of them to find out just how bad it was ... and it's really bad in every way possible. I needed to see that, to feel OK about nuking where needed going forward, and since all articles are repetitive and use the same sources, it made sense to just do them all (with eight windows open). And some were Spanish sources so I wanted to see if those had cut-and-paste google translates (yep). It's not only the copyvio; it's the misrepresentation of sources, spreading wrong info throughout the internet, putting personal email correspondence in to mainspace, but worse, the complicity of DYK reviewers in contributing to padding up the article with repetitive and meaningless text just to meet the DYK limits. The Who Wrote That? tool shows that DYK reviewers helped pad up the articles, making already bad writing worse. That kind of DYK processing is a) not encouraging source-to text integrity, and b) not teaching good writing. The exercise in getting through all 30 in the lunar display series has really shown me how DC became the poor editor he was; DYK furthered and worsened his editing. And then there's the GA process, with zero accountability. Gguy kept an eye on everything; no such thing now. It's not at all surprising that DC never showed his face around FAC.
So, now that I've seen how bad it is, I won't mind at all nuking DC content going forward. I did all that work on the lunar series on articles that never should have been created (whole thing coulda been a list), and each gets maybe 5 pageviews a day.
And the kids are coming to visit, so I've got to make hay while the sun shines! Take care, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a list, and at present the separate articles generally have a paragraph or so of history. Think there would be opposition to merging that into the list and redirecting/deleting the separate articles? Gimmetrow 16:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done enough work on that mess, and we should forget it for now :) I can hardly believe the places I have gone since the Fourth of July when I came across a ridiculous claim on Facebook about Sybil Ludington, and how revealing that has been to me about the level of crap that DYK-editing imposes on Wikipedia so it can spread throughout the internet.
In the midst of the CCI mess, Gimme, is me also desperately trying to get editors to pay attention to the messes in {{article history}} templates since your absence, and realizing that no one really understands or follows. Not sure why I worried; I only try to keep AH clean on FA content and if GA templates go missing, 'tis not for me to worry. At least a bot to roll in DYK, OTD and ITN is in the works. Not sure what will happen with the GA template mess. I tried. Miss you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, what a miserable page that list is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re Sybil Ludington, even Doug was capable of building articles on notable women that also revolve around questionable claims - Talk:Mary F. Hoyt#This article possibly rests largely on a falsehood? A GA and the root of a DYK claim, no less. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's here, so as soon as the GAR people get finished, it can be stubbed. I have now found three instances of personal email revealed on Wikipedia, and used to cite content (sigh). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Indy beetle add it here; SchroCat is offering to increase your salary for such finds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~sigh~ I’ve never had much regard for DYK. It’s too much of a factory conveyor belt for me, with too many aiming for the lowest common denominator to pass a low bar, rather than a mark on the way to something else. It may have been a good idea earlier on to get new subject written, but that’s an old target now.
Anyway, yes, I’m offering a 5 five per cent pay rise to the finders of the more egregious problems. - SchroCat (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't filed my own DYKs since my first year of editing. The quid-pro-quo, while perhaps necessary to maintain a steady stream of nominations for the main page, really seems to encourage a lack of due diligence. Combine that with the desire for self promotion and this is what you get. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've uncovered something else by using Wikipedia:Who Wrote That? (WWT) before nuking content, to make sure I'm not nuking someone else's good content. The lunar display sample articles are horribly written and full of redundancies and terrible repetition. When you hover with WWT, you can see who introduced a lot of the unnecessary repetition, and it turns out in most of the lunar sample articles, it was a DYK reviewer who was, apparently, trying to pad up already bad writing so the 30 tiny articles would meet the word limit at DYK. So DYK is not only teaching sloppy sourcing, it's encouraging bad writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at the Hoyt article reminds me of another developing pet peeve I have about some of the recent "scholarship" Wikipedia is spreading by those accessing any random local no-name newspaper via newspapers.com, and citing claims to them, without going to better sourcing. This sort of thing is all over Coldwell's work. People digging up the obscure, and not checking modern scholarship. We should really be on the lookout for, and question, sourcing to old no-name newspapers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was somewhat overzealous in prosecuting the perceived mistake on the Hoyt article, as David Epstein has pointed out to me. How embarrassing! At any rate Sandy, I've added several paragraphs to the Cone Mills Corporation about the company's paternalism and labor relations. There's still outstanding issues with that article and my contributions are by no means perfect. Is there anything else you'd like me to dig into? Also if there's any more Doug articles that have a North Carolina connection (aside from Southern Railway's Spencer Shops)? -Indy beetle (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry; happens to the best of us! Does Cone Mills still need CCI examination? If I come across any more North Carolina, will ping you. Thanks for the fixing so far! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having used Earwig's tool and surveyed some of the web sources and the newspaper clips, I don't think copyright violations are an issue for this particular article. I've revised a few areas where certain vocab was borrowed from the source when it did not need to be, but in my mind this is nothing unusually copyright-violating about this article. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indy, the problem is Earwig completely bombs on picking up DC's typical too-close-paraphrasing, and he almost always did that, along with copy-paste from offline sources (which Earwig can't detect). Another thing he did is take text from one source, while indicating it came from another source-- so there's often copyvio from a different source than the one indicated. If the offline sources can't be checked, we need to presumptively delete that content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
For taking point on the contentious and complicated DCGAR situation, involving a huge amount of effort on your part, I award you this barnstar. Let us hope your efforts set a guideline for future events. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, Iazyges; let us hope there is no similar future event (I know that may be wishful thinking :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The serpent always eats its tail... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!!!

[edit]
The Teamwork Barnstar
For your participation and help at Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023. It wouldn't have been such a success without you. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 23:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On snow...

[edit]

We are at 14 inches and counting... I put out extra hay before this started so I don't have to plow fast.. I can take it in steps, thankfully. We skipped the ice and high winds, at least. The goats are NOT happy, nor are the rabbits. I think the weasel/ermine that's taken up residence is happy as can be though... I caught sight of one of them running and jumping in the snow and diving through it... so cute! Ealdgyth (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sucks. I wish dear hubby would stop being Mr Macho and just let me hire a plow, 'cuz when he's out there, I have to be out there, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a tractor so plowing isn't that bad, and if I don't have to rush to it, it's better. I did get hefty snow pants to work in this year so I don't even freeze as much! But yeah, I'll plow tomorrow or Saturday... Ealdgyth (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

My apologies, I recognise I got a bit too cynical there, which I've taken as my cue to un-watchlist ANI and return to my native habitat of WP:GEOLOGY. I'll strike my comment. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Licks-rocks thanks for the magnanimous response to criticism! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisting ANI?? I'd go insane if I tried that. (t · c) buidhe 00:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, rookie mistake on my part. :P --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little WP:CPN tip:

[edit]

A lot of the time, one person saying delete will almost surely mean it will be deleted or heavily stubbed; only a couple admins check the board regularly, and it's all dependent on their availability and timezones unfortunately. It's better to look at other listings and help assess or find sources, or clean them up. Concerning your notes on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 February 16; those don't even get touched until a week after they're listed, due to some old community thing about potential rewrites (hasn't been used at all since Moviesandtelevisionfan...), so I wouldn't worry too much about them getting deleted. Some may not even get deleted and just reduced to a 1 sentence stub if there's stuff like in-wikicopying (I hope not!).

Lastly, thank you for your saint-like work on the DC situation and cleanup effort. I burnt out badly right before, and coming back to such a supportive community response and effort in this cleanup is a breath of fresh air after an incredibly busy and stressful time both on and off-wiki. I don't think it would have been possible without your careful and dedicated eye on the situation. Bit by bit, everything will be cleaned eventually. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Sennecaster; it's quite a tough area to work, and the extent of the damage left by DC requires more hands on deck. I'm happy to hear this effort has provided a boost for you; I wonder how any of you keep going, while DYK keeps churning out editors like Hathron, DC, and quite a few others. Keep up the good work you do ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, some of it is spite at this point. These old cases won't close themselves! Sennecaster (Chat) 02:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little time

[edit]

Anything fairly quick-ish with FAR that could use another look this weekend? Mrs. HF is traveling with the in-laws this weekend, so I'll have more time than I know what to do with for a few days. Hog Farm Talk 00:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on ... looking now to refresh my memory ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm I think the best bet at this stage is to look through Belton House. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look over the weekend. I still need to reply to MONGO, but I don't know what's the best thing to reply there. IMO Yellowstone will take some work, but a skim of Redwoods suggests that it's in much better shape. The 1988 fires FAR was a bad situation all around. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had not seen that. I understand how frustrating it must be for MONGO, but those FAs are 2006 to 2007, and we've been asking people to update their old FAs for over two years now. It's not like the process has been unreasonable. :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article history out of sequence

[edit]

The article history action numbering at Talk:1924 Rose Bowl is not in the same order as the action dates. Is this a problem in any way? My code handles it, but it popped up as an error when I was parsing that talk page and as I haven't seen one like that before I thought I'd ask. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie the template can handle it, but I clean those up when I encounter them anyway, in the hopes it helps other editors understand better how to use AH. Fixed that one up, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, Mike, any time you want an AH cleaned up, just pop a note here or ping me to the article ... I try to keep them straight in honor of Gimmetrow, who did it all before being chased out by socks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. The code I'm writing doesn't fully parse every type of AH entry, but it's a good start, so maybe one day the bot will be able to help with AH cleanup. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting GA transclusions

[edit]

Hey Sandy. I notice you're deleting {{Talk:Anthony Harkness/GA1}} style transclusions from talk pages. Was just wondering if maybe we should keep those? They seem to be an official part of the GAN process (Legobot places them), and they seem useful. Just checking. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will leave (what a pain they are, for all the reasons I've laid out many times elsewhere). It's talk page clutter, and duplicates what is already in AH, and on active talk pages, they'd go to archives anyway, but not fussed to leave them ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae I followed the bot's first 17 articles, which is enough to see that everything's working right. I'm going to stop there, since Ox's bot will continue merging DYKs. Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae:Whenever I've nominated articles for GA, I delete them off the talk page. The nomination page is linked from the nomination template, and it will be linked from the Article History. As Sandy says, it's just clutter, and I don't see any utility to leaving them.
I suspect that the bot puts them there because before the days of GA subpages, the reviews were done on the talk pages themselves. For other processes, ike AfD, FAC, etc., we don't transclude the nomination on the talk page, so this needless practice should be terminated. Imzadi 1979 → 23:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's gross :) Besides that when you try to section edit, you end up on the GA page. And why do we need to clutter talk pages with what is already in AH? PR doesn't, FAC doesn't, FAR doesn't. But not my concern ... I was just checking that the bot was working correctly, and cleaning talk pages while in there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you guys :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NL, I'm not fussed one way or another. Why am I cleaning up talk pages on articles that no one is likely to ever look at again anyway? I am so relieved that after the bot run is complete, I can go back to working on the CCI without concern for keeping everything and everyone on the same page, which is all I've been doing for a month now ... just happy the end of that part is in sight!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TPS, the WP:GA started at 37,712, decreased as the bot ran, but is now stuck at 36,693. I switched computers to see if it was a caching issue-- not. Why is the GA tally not decreasing?

Me, going out to a celebratory dinner to finally have this task Off My Plate! yea, Novem. And all who helped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably WP:PURGE related. Purging updated the tally for me. Enjoy your dinner :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did the trick ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

[edit]

Hi. I don’t appreciate your edit summary “why do GA reviewers les r the oldid off” it’s a very public dig and I have no way to reply in turn.

Replying ‘offline’ here: I didn’t add it because I wasn’t aware I had to. Because it’s not in the instructions. Mark83 (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies (including for the iPad typos); it is not a dig, it was a question, which was revealed to be a real artefact of faulty instructions in the GA process. I'm sorry for the careless edit summary (due to my frustration at fixing hundreds of faulty GA entries in articlehistory), and sorry for how I made you feel. At least now your attention has been called to the faulty instructions, so you'll know going forward that they caused you to miss a step. Perhaps they will adjust the instructions there (we have now quite a few bots running around correcting GA issues, but a lot of it just has to be done manually). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ah ha ... for once the typos were not mine! The edit summary was Why do GA reviwers leave off oldid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the typo was mine. Thanks for this. The oldid issue noted by me going forward. But I agree the instructions need to change. It’s not acceptable that a step is omitted from these. Adding the oldid parameter is not hard and I would have been happy to do it if it was in the template text. Mark83 (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark83 you may not be aware of how famous I am for typos :) I was surprised to realize it was not me! Well, at least now over at WT:GAN people are understanding the instructions need help (as does the entire templating process in the GA system). So sorry I made you feel bad; carry on with the good work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot (album)/Slipknot Demo/Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat.

[edit]

Can I take you up on your offer to look at screwed up article history? I am getting confused at Slipknot (album), Slipknot Demo and Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat.. There are subpages Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA2, Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA3, and Talk:Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat./GA1. (Ignore the deleted Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA1, which got copied to the talk page as it wasn't a real review.) Talk:Slipknot Demo redirects to Talk:Slipknot (album), so the article and talk page redirects disagree about the target. I'm about to go to work so am out of time for the moment, but will have another look this evening if you don't get a chance to look at this. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List form: Talk:Slipknot Demo was redirected to Talk:Slipknot (album) 12:03, January 2, 2010

  1. Slipknot (album)
    10:56 March 1, 2008 GAN initiated
    22:03 March 6, Gguy failed to subst that GAN
    06:17 March 9, Giggy fails GA but there is never really a subpage or a talk discussion other than 2nd request entered by Yintan earlier and a later note (April 21) from Giggy
    04:10 May 8, Blackngold29 new GAN
    Reviewed on talk (gad, this is why I hate GA messes, no subpage)
    May 16, passed by Indopug
    The action link would be Talk:Slipknot_(album)/Archive_2#Good_article_review.
    Conclusion appears the article history is all correct in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Slipknot Demo :
    Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA1 got copied to talk page, Mike says ignore
    Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA2 August 29, 2008 failed
    Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA3 December 26, 2008 failed
    Conclusion appears that the articlehistory at the old talk page before the redirect is correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat.
    Talk:Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat./GA1
    Conclusion appears to be in order.

Mike Christie everything looks good from here, which makes me worry that I may be missing the question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that confused me because I only noticed it just before I left you the query is that Talk:Slipknot Demo redirects to Talk:Slipknot (album), but Slipknot Demo redirects to Talk:Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat.. Surely one of those is wrong? Or are all three really supposed to be the same article? Assuming the answer to that doesn't move anything around, the other question would be should this version be restored, as the container for that article history, which is orphaned otherwise? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ack. Out of time to look at that, and have a mid-day meeting. More in the pm, unless someone else weighs in first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie see this IP edit (questionable). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does look questionable. I'll have a look after work this evening. If it turns out that the right target is Slipknot (album), then since Slipknot Demo was just redirected to a section, the article histories shouldn't be combined, as this is a merge, not a rename, and the only problem is the incorrect redirect (and reverting the redirect of the talk page to put the article history back on Talk:Slipknot Demo). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the end the only things that needed to be fixed were the incorrect redirect and reverting the talk page change to a redirect. That IP edit confused the hell out of me; I'm glad you spotted that. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to have another set of eyes when you're at your wit's end ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclone track maps

[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to inform you that the Weather Project has finally reached a consensus on a new, accessible scale to use for its track maps after several hundred thousand bytes of discussion spanning the past year and a half. We have already implemented the new scheme within our infoboxes and templates (waiting a bot job to do the timeline graphics). We are working to get this implemented for the track maps as soon as possible, however, it will take quite some time considering the sheer number of maps and the fact that a bot will be required for part of the work. NoahTalk 18:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question?

[edit]

Dear SandyGeorgia, Seeing as you are an experienced and respected figure on this site, I was wondering whether I could come to you with a query.

After editing Roberto Firmino with information similar to that on other football pages, I received this message on my talk page from User:Mattythewhite: “Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Roberto Firmino, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Per MOS:LEAD.”

I was irritated and asked another user why they had also reverted me. They then sent me this: ”As a heads up, competence is required to edit Wikipedia. You asking why content was "mindlessly" removed (the EFL Cup honours), when you yourself removed it 15 minutes previously https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Roberto_Firmino&diff=1142673759&oldid=1142672399, does not inspire confidence. GiantSnowman”. However, I believe I am right in showing that these diffs showed me adding and not reverting my own information.

Thus, feeling this to be slightly unfair, I replied to him and this second user who had reverted me as I had been reverted in the past. I sent this message:

“Dear User:MattytheWhite and User:GiantSnowman, I am sorry to have offended you in any way, shape or form. I am just very confused about the nature of your reverts. Perhaps you could explain to me – I would be very appreciative if you read this.. I edited the article Roberto Firmino, adding with references that “Regarded at his peak as one of the greatest strikers in world football, Firmino is known for his clinical finishing, proficient technical ability and impressive workrate.” I had seen such comments added to the top (and not just the Style of Play sections) to several notable footballers such as Cafu, Philippe Coutinho and Fernando Torres. Thus, I thought that adding a widely-held view to the top of an article fitted with the Manual of Style policies as it was consistent. Please correct me if there is something about Firmino which means he is not designated such a comment as I am so far unaware of this. Notably, the two other players in ‘the Fab Three’ attacking trident, Sadio Mané and Mohamed Salah are allowed descriptive comments at their top and if you look at Firmino’s stats I feel like he merits the descriptive comment I added. Moreover, the article previously linked for Fernando Torres includes his nickname, as does the article for Salah, but me adding “also known as Bobby Firmino” was removed for a reason I am not currently aware of. Furthermore, I updated his honours, mentioning that he had won a trophy (the EFL Cup) but this was reverted as he had not played in the final. However, him being unavailable for the final/not having played in the final has no impact on whether he won the trophy or not. A recent example of this is Martin Dúbravka, who won the latest tournament of the EFL Cup without having played in the finals. I also updated his honours in the top description as this information only went up to 2020 or so, yet this was removed, along with the fact that Firmino was in an attacking trio with Mané and Salah which picked up many trophies. Again, I am not sure why this was reverted. If the reason is that you seem my edits have been disruptive in the past, I would bed you to look past this and focus on the quality and factuality of the edits, not on what you think of me for any incorrect statements that I may have made. Finally, User:GiantSnowman mentioned that I did not “inspire confidence” as they believed I removed my own edit. However, I hope I am not wrong in pointing out that the evidence provided (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Roberto_Firmino&diff=1142673759&oldid=1142672399) in fact shows that I added the information, whereas this information: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Roberto_Firmino&diff=next&oldid=1142674094 shows that User:GiantSnowman actually deleted it as I had been “reverted” in the past. I am sorry to have cause offence to you or your edits and hope that you will consider what I have written here. With warm regards, Scientelensia.”

Neither User directly responded though they were both editing Roberto Firmino. Then, I was sent a message saying “https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Roberto_Firmino&oldid=1142673759 is following your edit - no mention of EFL Cup in the honours. If you cannot even read a basic diff, my concerns are amplified. GiantSnowman”. On the other hand, I believe that the user is wrong as this is not what the diffs show and I would have no intention of reverting my edits. In the case that I did, it would have been to add something else.

The whole discussion can be found here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scientelensia?markasread=274802904&markasreadwiki=enwiki#March_2023. If possible, may you give me an opinion on my reasoning and whether I am right about the diffs? I think that the users did not directly respond because they realised that what I was saying was true.

Thank you so much, Scientelensia (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scientlensia; I will be happy to look through, but that's quite a wall of text, so give me some time :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Sorry for the volume of text but I felt I could trust you due to your editing brilliance and reliability :D Scientelensia (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your response, I am aware I am to blame for changing edits too often and not discussing in talk but was a little confused as the claim that my changes were not in conformity with other articles seemed to be untrue in my opinion. Scientelensia (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, take care always not to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as reasons; it's always weak. In your shoes, I'd move on to a whole 'nother editing area for a while-- if not for the least, so that your own editing can be pleasurable! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, agreed. I was just confused as my edits had never been called out as un-uniform before (I don’t think that’s a word lol…) as I had picked up the technique from other pages.
Again, a bid thank you for what you did and continue to do :D Scientelensia (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
A gilded saber
A goofy and perhaps ill-advised commendation I used to present to other editors for substantial contributions to CCI. Please accept this token of respect, and brandish it mightily against copyright violations and copyright violators. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty in a ironic sort of way; thanks Vami! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: (→‎History: "here" ?)

[edit]

Yes "here". At Ramsdell Theatre...I was trying not to use the word "theatre" over and over and over and over again. "here" in this case was referring to the article's subject. That's all. Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see the problem. What would you think about ... (I don't have access to the book, so unsure what can be supported about the whole "starting his career" based on his autobiography and the other sources), but I notice now that is mentioned in the lead but left out of the body):
  • Actor James Earl Jones was a stage carpenter at Ramsdell in 1953; he began his acting career there during the 1955–1957 summer seasons, when he also served as stage manager. His first appearance as Shakespeare’s Othello was there in 1956.
Do feel free to revert any changes I make (that always applies during content review processes)-- note the question mark. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, have you ever seen him as Thurgood Marshall ? Amazing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Wanted to let you know I am taking a Wiki-break. Nothing to do with the 2 GARs I am doing. It's all just become too much...stressful dealing with recalcitrant collaborator and Real Life off-wiki just needs to take precedence right now. I might be able to come roaring back after maybe mid-April or so. Thanks for all your help, Shearonink (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take care there ... in such circumstances, even a few days can make a difference! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYWITHIN

[edit]

Is this sufficient attribution, or do I need to put something on the talk page as well? Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just fine. If you're inclined to go overboard, see User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5#PATT samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll probably go overboard to be safe. The article is some of my older work, and I'm hoping to overhaul and get it to FAC at some point down the road. I figure it's best to have copyright things overdocumented than underdocumented at FAC. Hog Farm Talk 00:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Big thanks for your help in the FARC process of Heian Palace and in particular in finding FFF to join in the work! Stca74 (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure! Isn't FFF a gem? We need to badger them into WP:RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel request on Alexander Bain (inventor)

[edit]

Hi,

I am reviewing your revdel request at Alexander Bain (inventor) and want to confirm the revision range before applying the revdel. I believe the end range is off by one revision. Your requested end would include the edit where you restored the pre-DC material which would presumably clear of an DC induced copyright issues. I think it should be the preceding revision. Your edit comment indicated restoring pre-DC, but the starting revision is preceded by many DC edits. Is that because those edits were identified as okay? Just want to be sure before hiding a large swath of edits. -- Whpq (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in Whpq.
Yes, some of edits preceding my range were OK; I went from the point of the first copy-paste.
On the end point, I am endlessly frustrated by the revdel script, and simply cannot figure out how to get it to come out right. I may give up on using the script and try to learn to do it manually. Yes, it would probably be the preceding revision; that is, revdeling through here. I sure wish I could understand how to check the boxes on the script to get it to come out right. I'm sorry for the trouble, and thanks for the work.
By the way, do you think I should avoid requesting revdel when there are so many revisions, or is that one OK? The concern, of course, is that someone will come along and just revert it back in after I unwatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never used the revdel script so I cannot provide any advice there. I have always manually applied the revdel tagging. As for the amount to revdel, I am generally of the opinion that it is usually okay. The attribution is still in the history and visible which is the essential part of license compliance. -- Whpq (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV request

[edit]

This page of yours is staggering. Clearly you do not need more to do. I need some input and its clear you are vastly more experienced at Wikipedia than I am. I am a member of the Military History Project. A member of the Minnesota Project contacted me to look at the Dakota War of 1862. I did and responded it was in need of a complete rewrite. The existing article lacks balance, neutrality, content, and basic format. The lead does not define the War correctly or lead to a proper summation. I did a rewrite only to have it reverted immediately. It was not reverted for POV, CI, accuracy, or vandalism. The revert was for "too much at one time". Since then I learned the article has two primary editors. Both appear to have NPOV issues while lacking the understanding the basic requirements of a Military History article and Military terminology. One has taken ownership of the current article. The upside to that revert was I continued to work on the balance of the rewrite [3]. There is historically important content missing from the current article, i.e. all the War Crimes, the Chippewa offers, and General Order 100. I have reached the point where I need outside input. The rewrite is large, however a other posted "War" articles shows that they all are way over the Wiki preferred standard. Thank you for your time and thoughts.Mcb133aco (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)mcb133Mcb133aco (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how helpful this will be, but here are some random thoughts, no particular priority.
  1. Please tell me it's not true that Wikipedia has no stand-alone article on the largest mass execution in US history.
  2. WP:MINN once had the largest and most helpful group of editors for any state, and all Minnesota articles were in great shape, to the point of almost having a Featured topic. That is no longer the case. Cleaning up a basic Minnesota article these days is a rough go. Cleaning up a tough topic like Dakota War of 1862 is not something you should expect to be able to accomplish without a lot of concerted effort over a very long period. Trying to do it one rewrite was unlikely to succeed.
  3. Have you contacted User:CJLippert?
  4. I see no post at WT:MINN.
  5. It isn't helpful to claim ownership even in those cases where it might be true; you've got a tough topic here that will require boatloads of collaboration, meaning it's always best to WP:FOC and avoid personalizing issues.
  6. The talk page discussions are very short on discussions of sourcing and very long on opinion. You can't claim POV in the absence of strong sourcing arguments. You would be better served to reboot everything done so far, and start with coming to agreement on what sources are to be used, and then have strictly source-based discussions about how to reflect those sources.
Else, you're going to have a very hard time here. I looked at the current version, and the reverted version, and it's not clear to me one way or another which is better, and the talk page does not inspire hope that a deliberative approach to the article is underway. I think it will be helpful to remember there is more than the MILHIST usual going on here; the topic is fraught, and in ways that engage contemporary concerns about the treatment of Indigenous peoples. You can't expect this to be easy, nor should you have expected a one-person rewrite from sandbox to be accepted. It will take much harder and coordinated and collaborative work to bring this article up to snuff. Please start by creating an article about the Mankato executions, if it is honestly true that does not even exist yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mcb133aco on the talk page you note that the article subject happened many years before the Geneva Conventions, yet here you are arguing for coverage of "war crimes" which was not a concept that existed in 1862, certainly not from the Native American pov. (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading your draft I see it is peppered with POV language like "unsuspecting settlers", "murdered", and "go on the warpath", as well as unsourced + incorrect statements like "War Crime convictions today have two possible sentences: hanging or life imprisonment." (t · c) buidhe 03:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, that is what I was looking for. Actually thank you very much.Mcb133aco (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)mcb133aco!Mcb133aco (talk)[reply]
  • An editor of new articles would not allow a stand alone article on the hangings because the topic is included in the Dakota War. You should add that there is no article for the largest "Mass Commutation" either.Mcb133aco (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mcb133aco, the mass commutation (Whipple and Lincoln) would be part of the mass execution. To work on a tough topic like this, you have to lead people by the hand rather than expect them to do the work of digging up the pieces. Where is the diff to the discussion of someone objecting to a stand-alone article on the Mankato hangings? We have pieces all over the place: History of Minnesota, Minnesota, Dakota War of 1812, Bishop Whipple. Where was the discussion. Don't spell out issues and make general statements when working on a tough topic. Get used to always providing diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punishment for War Crimes[1] "Unsuspecting" needs to go and "go to war" can suffice for "warpath". "Murder" has a legal definition that is not POV based.Mcb133aco (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)mcb133Mcb133aco (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mcb133aco to work on this topic, you will need to adjust your style. Personal opinions don't count; discussions should be based on sources. For example, if you want to use the word murder, you need to be showing that the best most recent and highest quality sources do that. As one example. Else you are only filling talk pages with opinions that no one will read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Crimemuseum.org is not a source I'l be considering for a discussion of this nature. There are plenty of scholarly articles and books on the Dakota War and the Mankato executions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue for "murder" in this case is that for Plains Indians in the nineteenth century it was not considered illegal or morally wrong to kill "civilians" belonging to a different tribal group as part of warfare. Using this terminology is already taking a side (even otherwise, WP strongly discourages "murder" unless there was a conviction for murder, and otherwise use other words like "killing" or "homicide"). See also WP:WTW (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chippewa letter to Lincoln states that they do not want to use "American" Rules of War, that they want to use "Indigenous" Rules of War indicating an understanding that what was considered acceptable to them was not acceptable to the Americans. It indicates that they did not want to set foot on a battlefield with two sets of rules The Chippewa/Ojibwa could not have been unique in this understanding that there were two sets on Rules of War at play, but that is speculation. Since General Order 100 was issued during the war it's Geneva convention legacy is legitimate suggested reading.Mcb133aco (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)mcb133Mcb133aco (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mcb133aco everything you just typed, without providing sources, amounts to original research. We're not working on this article on my talk page, but you will need to adjust your style to avoid opinion, conjecture, and original research, and instead put forward the best most recent and highest quality sources and then state what they say, rather than what you want to deduce from them. Your working style is not conducive to working on an article of this nature; you will need to adjust. People don't have to just take your word for it. I say this based on my experience as part of a collaborative team that kept a very contentious article at the Featured level (J. K. Rowling). That was a months-long very deliberative, slow and steady effort, focused on sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would probably also be useful here to get some feedback on this discussion from Ealdgyth and Victoriaearle-- particularly as relates to sourcing and work style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are a great number of problems with the sandbox. For example - "History of Sioux Indians, Chapter XXXI, South Dakota Genealogy Trails" (current citation #7) is actually a transcription of 1904 book on the Sioux - see here, so it's not a good source at all. All sources using this site are actually from the Minnesota Historical Society. Citations to "Fond Du Lac letter The Cleveland Morning 20 September 1862" are to primary sources and should not be used to source such a contentious topic. That leaves aside such POV language as "In 1862, years before the Geneva Conventions were written and the Nuremberg trials were held, Minnesota held war trials for what settlers called crimess."... or "The Minnesota Valley Historical Society erected a 50' monument to six Loyal Dacotah." (I'd say that Little Crow would likely have considered those six "traitors" rather than "loyal"). The talk page discussion at Talk:Dakota War of 1862#Issues of the Dakota War of 1862 article doesn't bring any reliable sources to the discussion towards changing the article, just makes assertions without sourcing. Frankly, the discussions on the article talk page are very paitently attempting to engage and educate you about what Wikipedia is and is not. Please try to take them on board. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Punishment for WarCrimes, Janine Vaccarello, Crimemuseum.org, 2023 [1]
  • Thank you again for the prompt response. I apologize for having mucked up your page. I have copied your suggestions so you can revert this entire thread. I fail to share your POV that new is better than old as that qualifies as ageism in my book. I have read too much "new" that reflects a agenda. Once again, thank you. There is no need to reply.Mcb133aco (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry about my page; it's made for messy :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, thanks for the ping. The first random sentence I looked at, mid-article is this one:In July, 1863 the Senators, united in their dislike for Pope, went to Secretary of War Stanton with a request that he authorize an independent Hatch's Cavalry Battalion aka Indian Battalion of Minnesota Volunteers to be comprised of the 1000 Chippewa "auxiliaries" and "white" officers, with multiple refs, all to primary sources. So that's an issue. I'll take a longer look, but basically, yeah, agree with Ealdgyth.
On a separate subject, do by chance remember setting up a sandbox for ILT GAs and FAs (probably the ones Suzanne2009, or what name she was using then) worked on? I believe when I was scrubbing those articles I worked from a list you'd compiled; now the scrubs are apparently copyvio. Which is ok, because they were in fact plagiarism but all these many years later it annoys to have spent time scrubbing to have it all deleted in 2023. Victoria (tk) 23:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Victoriaearle would it be User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's it. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 01:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An update on ArticleHistory and DYK/ITN/OTD

[edit]

I have gone through the list of talk pages and manually fixed them and moved the templates to the Article history template. At the time of writing, the page that lists the talk pages is empty. I plan to run the bot periodically in the future. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA issue...

[edit]

In working on the new ArbCom case, I'm ... documenting issues with Treblinka extermination camp that I'm finding - User:Ealdgyth/Treblinka audit. Figured you'd adore the heads up. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, yes, but specifically ... up to my eyeballs in a troubling IRL volunteer project and unable to think about anything else. If you need me to clue in on something specific, I will need very concrete instructions until I get the other IRL under control, which could be a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, no rush. Just figured I'd vent over here a bit... heh. Good luck with the IRL stuff - I'm still digging out from snow...Ealdgyth (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch!!! Totally unacceptable, especially on that article. (t · c) buidhe 19:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: - would it be advisable for me to send that one to GAR, or is that unadvisable at the moment given the arbcase? Given the situation, the new GAR coords may allow an expedited process. Having the green plus sign on that one is highly problematic. Hog Farm Talk 20:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to take a LOT of work to get back - as long as I can still access the errors (I'm only halfway done with checking it) I can't see how whether it's listed as a GA or not makes any difference to the arbcase. I just don't have the time to devote to getting it through GAR right now... Ealdgyth (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I am pretty sure GAR would have a consensus for delisting, unless someone volunteers to do a major rewrite right now. Simply scrolling through current references, my reliable sources script is picking like ~5 "generally unreliable sources" (although ~two may be reliable sources hosted/mirrored in unreliable repositories). And it's probably a tip of an iceberg (from glancing at Ealdgyth's linked list of problems, certainly there's much much more to fix). Btw, another related GA was speedily delisted recently (Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Polish Righteous Among the Nations/1 - I assume this is what User:Hog Farm means by an expedited process?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to look into this whole matter, but two things:
  1. I agree with Ealdgyth that whether or not it has a little icon in the upper right corner is meaningless relative to getting the issues fixed.
  2. Ealdgyth, take great care in how much time you spend generating evidence for an arbcase, as you may end up feeling burned when you realize how little of it is read, and that remedies aim at the easiest solution for behavioral issues, even when you take considerable time to document egregious behaviors. Recall the remedy applied in the ARBMED case had very little to do with either the behavioral issues or the actual problems, and the remedy applied has been enacted exactly zero times, as it did not target the true problems. We only got lucky in that case in that the problems moved elsewhere, unfortunately after the Medicine WikiProject had already seen damage that it has never recovered from. Target your evidence specifically to the easiest possible remedy, as that is what the final decision will probably look like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Hi,

I am learning Wikipedia editing and found your page and edit history helpful. Thanks

Drew Cryptohydrate (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Hello again. Apologies for this random message. Just wanted to check in and see how you are doing. I know that you have been quite busy on Wikipedia, and I just wanted to say that I respect all the time and energy you have put into the site as that kind of work while necessary is rarely if ever fun or enjoyable in the moment (at least from my perspective). I hope you are having a solid week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 hi there and thanks for checking up on me :). I'm doing OK, and always appreciate your kind words; I hope everything is well with you, too ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to hear that you are doing well! Thank you for the kind words. I am doing well myself. Just having an annoying, but incredibly minor ear issue at the moment, but it should clear up in no time. The community aspect of Wikipedia is one of my favorite parts of this site so I like to reach out to see how everyone is doing. Best of luck with your work on here and everything off-Wiki as well! Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are always just the kindest person, and it is always appreciated :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Linda Finch

[edit]

I just saw your comment about taking a break and ensuring "you've lost all DC content, as he had serious paraphrasing issues."

I think I get your point, but I did not rewrite the article by checking to see what DC wrote and make sure I didn't so the same thing. This article has a lot of cases where there are minimal facts that can only be paraphrased so many ways.

To be honest, I am hurt and discouraged. I truly wrote every single sentence from scratch, but after reviewing each source I checked the LF article to see if I missed facts from the article. Often I ended up putting more content in the article than had been attributed to the source. Half a dozen times I updated a sentence because it was word-smithed better. I had no idea who the word-smither was, but I didn't think it was DC, who often had cut-and-paste content from the source.

Anyway. Taking a break sounds great because I feel sadder at this moment than I should. It will probably take a bit to resolve the cwi tag on the article. I would be happy to go to duplicate detector and check there where I can. I know that types of places where there were minimal paraphrasing opportunities and will check those out, too, particularly if they are in newspapers. I am happy to provide the links to the comparison, so that you can check them out with a click of the mouse.

For future comments, would you mind please not bring up DC in comparison to my work. I think my goal is to write the best content that I can - and I am very happy to be addressed in terms of things I need to fix.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be sad, Carole; perhaps the "take a break" was more of a reflection of my own state of mind after spending so much time in DC content, which is truly demoralizing. I was quite impressed by how fast you did that work! The WP:CP process takes seven days, so I just didn't want you to be pushing too hard; things always look better in a new day. My sincere apologies for making you sad, best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will come back with a renewed spirit tomorrow to do a thorough review. Trust me, my key motiving factor is to do good work... and keep working on it until it is good.
In the meantime, please consider Scènes à faire (article) – Sometimes there are only so many ways to say something. You are right to ensure that there is proper paraphrasing, like the accounting education sentence. But some sentenses like re: Howland Island no longer having an airstrip is one of those only-so-many-ways-to-say-it circumstances.
Thank you for all of have done on this investigation - it's very important work and must be overwhelming.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's tiring. But I hope you'll take your rewrite back to GAN when done!! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lovely thought!
I've gotten through four sources so far and noted the talk page here. There is no hurry, but when you have a chance do you mind letting me know 1) if this is a helpful exercise and 2) if the way I have noted the process is a workable approach? (I am going to take a little break and finish up another article I was working on.) Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, CaroleHenson; I don't think duplication detector is effective for the same reasons as Earwig is not. In the two examples I gave on talk, the problems are related to structure and changing a few words, and none of the online tools will pick those up. You just have to manually examine every source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for hanging in there with me. I appreciate it. I am glad I checked in with you before spending more time.
I am stumbling on how to change my approach. It seems to make sense now not to look by source, but go top down through the article and run queries — in google books, archive.org books, newspapers.com, and google news — how facts are worded in multiple sources to ensure that there are no copyright issues from multiple sources (i.e., check each fact by each type of source). I at least have to make sure that I have looked at each and every source already in the article for each and every way that facts are written. Does that make sense? Or, do you have a better approach?
For instance, this morning I found that there are a couple, but limited number of ways to word "Earhart tried (attempted) to become the first pilot to circumnavigate (fly around) the world (globe)." I fixed it for one source and made an issue for another. Perhaps I am thick, but I have tried to think of a new way of writing this sentence and have a hard time figuring out a new approach. This sentence makes my head pound.
Much harder than the fix for political unrest and airstrip sentence your 2nd query. way it is worded in the article now). I hope that works for you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson there's some very good advice above at #Close paraphrasing issues; I'm not saying you have that problem, but some of the advice and discussion may help in terms of working with DC content. Think less about how to change a word here and there, more about how to change the structure so that you can get further away from the source.
I'm still here, but after two months of dealing with DC content (which is truly some of the worst material I've ever seen, and I've been immersed in it), I'm starting to run out of steam. I'll peak in to your draft in a day or two after a get a second wind! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me, there are two issues 1) how are the facts written in all the sources, not just the cited sources and 2) how to paraphrase properly so that there are not copyright issues.
That said, I think that there are two options:
I could go in with my Good Article reviewer hat on and do my damn best to paraphrase, using the tools I am comfortable with.
Wait until you (or someone else) are ready to engage and then figure out the best approach and get feedback on my edits like the political unrest / Howland Island sentence to ensure that I am on track.
I am happy with either.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry, I accidentally removed my first sentence. I wanted to say that I totally honor your need to take a break from a stressful effort ... and take good care of yourself. I am glad for you that you are doing that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you will get it right and get it done; I'm not worried :). I did want to make sure we had done all our due diligence before the copyvio admins move in the rewrite ... again, I'm amazed at how fast you work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate that!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help

[edit]

I know that you're busy and all, but I need your help. My name is Jorco and Elcobbola banned my backup account "Jorco2" thinking it's a LTA person named "Jermboy27". Can you talk to him to unblock my Wikimedia commons account? Thanks. Jorco2 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User has now been blocked on enWiki with glock requested. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blaze Wolf; thanks so much. Elcobbola is one of Wikipedia's finest, most diligent, most honest, most trustworthy, most conscientious, and most knowledgeable editors I had the pleasure of knowing, so no response beyond "No" was called for here. I appreciate the intervention, and hope many admins have Ec's talk page watchlisted, as this is a frequent issue (to the point of being a behavioral indication worthy of SPI). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, shucks--I'm not sure I deserve that. And truly sorry for this spillover. The interest in me is utterly bizarre; in an at least twelve-year tenure, I had the misfortune of taking up a request in 2021. Эlcobbola talk 20:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you do :) What a pain in the neck ... don't worry about the spillover. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to stop

[edit]

I'm not allowed to post there, to ping, or to even attempt a good faith correction of a script error (16–17 Feb) without being excoriated, and yet this unsolicited aspersion can continue unabated (24 Feb) even when I disengage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd offer to help, but I suspect I'm not in any better odor. Any clue what the heck got them started? Ealdgyth (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No idea ... I am sometimes curious to know when and how and why and over what I "drove them from the project"; I don't seem to have done a very good job at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually a doubling down (21 Feb); in other words, the third time in a week he's cast unprovoked aspersions at me to completely uninvolved parties. Dweller are you about ? And this edit summary (Feb 18). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm: 13 Jan "do just piss off" 12 Jan "arseholes" 13 Jan something about ITN and scroll down (13 Jan) "pile on hate for TRM brigade". Looks like the WP:DCGAR notification came in the midst of something else going on, so I get the brunt of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the DCGAR stuff seems to have antagonised TRM recently, I don't think this is what "drove them from the project". Looking at his monthly activity history on xtools, it looks like he was active until the end of 2021. Looking at the Editor interaction analyser for that time, if I was to guess it was something to do with the discussions surrounding this WT:FAC discussion and/or maybe some of the other discussions in that archive, but I might be totally off the mark with that guess. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to see anything there that would provoke anyone to get their knickers in a twist. Anyway. If Dweller is around, he might have a word with his friend. TRM can come to my talk page to talk about what's bugging him, or he can ignore me, but tossing darts that I'm unable to respond to, and particularly involving third parties with zero provocation, isn't on. A year-and-a-half is a long time to carry around heavy baggage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whatever it is that's made him so angry at you, it looks like he's held onto it for seemingly a long time. Hopefully Dweller is about and can have a chat, cause that sniping over something that happened isn't helpful in any way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Had a skim of the two archives prior to that. While I don't see a "smoking gun", I do see what could charitably be described as dissatisfaction and frustration with how the FAR/C process worked around that time. The handful of comments up to September 2021 seem fine, but something happened around October 2021 that seemed to lead to more frustration and anger in TRM's replies. Alas what that something was I can't gleam from these archives, maybe it happened somewhere else? I dunno. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to guess that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Football League First Division play-off Final/archive1 was/is part of the issue. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was January 2021 (I agreed it shouldn't have been closed, as Amakuru and I were working through it). I'm thinking more like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Longstreet/archive1, which was around the same time (October 2021), and where TRM was so upset that he edit warred with all three Coords over a FAC promotion. Again, looks like I'm getting the brunt.
Anyway, enough speculation. Whatever it is, the throwing of unprovoked lobs to uninvolved parties however long after the fact from where I have no right to response, and when my talk page is open, is a behavioral problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you do amazing work with FAs and especially copyvios/cleanups, where the latter is a thankless and highly contentious but necessary task to do. But what makes you amazing is not what you have done or continue to do here. What makes you amazing is the human being that you are. And that is more appreciated than any edit you could make. --ARoseWolf 14:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is filled with "colorful" personalities that clash. TRM has been a particularly strident and combative person the entire time I've seen him on Wikipedia. It is what it is. Frankly, trying to spend the time figuring out why they are the way they are seems like a waste. If he's not regularly editing, that's at least most of the problem resolved. I think most people who see "I'm not editing because of this person!" realize the likely source of the problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TRM has been a particularly strident and combative person the entire time I've seen him on Wikipedia. Good thing I didn't say that. The aspersions still need to stop, as he has now spread them to three unrelated parties without provocation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is, TRM specifically spread his aspersions to SD0001, Shearonink and Trevdna (two on a page where I can't respond). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you and David/DWF, Sandy. In a decade and a half of editing Wikipedia, in my experience TRM has been a relentlessly hostile and agressive presence. After numerous blocks, ArbCom actions, interaction bans, appeals, etc. etc. when does the Wikipedia community finally officially pull the plug on this disruptive bully? So now, this latest needless poke. Wow, really? TRM needs to be banned permanently, in my view, and the first step would be another indef block to prevent his ongoing personal attacks. In blaming you for his "retirement" he has crossed the line, yet again. Enough is enough. Jusdafax (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care so much who he blames, but SD0001 was an innocent bystander. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
News to me. What's going on and what have I been pulled into? Trevdna (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trevdna, a reference to this; nothing of your doing, and nothing for you to worry about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru no response from Dweller, who is barely active; would you be willing to keep an eye on this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone needs to keep an eye on anything. TRM is not coming back to Wikipedia any time soon, for the reasons he has expressed. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 17:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, every time he does come back, he gets to poke at me, unexplained? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't pay attention to what random editors say about me on their own talk page. (t · c) buidhe 17:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't only on his own talk page (it continued at SD0001's page because of a script error (now fixed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, thanks for the ping. I have been watching this situation from afar over the past week or two and all I can say is that it makes me very sad. Both yourself and TRM are people I massively respect and consider friends, plus you both have our readers and article quality as your foremost priority, so I assume it's just some differences of opinion such as those alluded to in the links above that have led to this. I hope whatever this is it will be resolved in due course, because I really miss having TRM around and there's no reason for you and him to be enemies, but as Dweller says there's not too much I can do beyond that. I do hope we can avoid a trip to WP:AN/I given that TRM is quasi-retired at the moment, but let's see what the future holds. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you, Amakuru. I pinged both you and Dweller because User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned. Let's not have an AN/I; let's rein in the behavior. Whatever TRM's issue is, I hope you all can convince him to move on, because I'm not throwing barbs at him, or casting aspersions, or involving third parties, or spreading an undetermined dispute to other pages without even trying to address whatever it is. And I have to say, as Friends who don't let friends get sanctioned, I'm surprised to see no one remove those posts from his talk page. Whatever his issue is, my talk page is open, and he can't keep logging in only to lob barbs at me (even when I'm trying to solve a problem with a broken script) when I have no right of response and he's done nothing to specify or try to clear up whatever has him bothered. Looking at his history, it appears I'm taking the brunt of the cumulative effects of what David Fuchs describes as what has been a long-standing pattern. I hope I can count on his friends to get it to stop, so it need not go further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, dear SandyGeorgia - How aggravating this is for you. Re removal from their talk page, as I read WP:TPNO, his talk page meanderings look more like pouting than anything. You and I both have been part of an ArbCom case involving him. Let him pout. Your body of work speaks for itself. One Christmas Day when I was a fairly new admin, I was the only admin monitoring DYK. Guess who showed up to crank and complain and etc. Christmas Day just seems like a day to set that stuff aside. I've dealt with him at FLC, DYK and other places. It isn't his behavior that bothers me. It's the others who show up to defend something or other that didn't need defending. And it isn't just TRM who has such followers. Stiff upper lip and all that, Sandy. — Maile (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You and I both have been part of an ArbCom case involving him. We have ? Clue me in ... perhaps I need to work harder on hanging on to grudges or some such, as I have no recollection ... too many years in here to hang on to every memory. The most I remember is Raul and me working to get TRM set up as director at WP:FL a bazillion years ago, and according to the issues above, Amakuru and me trying to work on one of his FACs that got closed down as we were working (but I don't think that was our fault ... ). Meanwhile, I was excoriated for a script error as I was trying to get that error addressed (success). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go back and see if I can find the ArbCom case archive. I ran across it yesterday - both you and I were participants, as well as many others - but he's had more than one. So let me see if I can dig it up again. If I'm not lucky, it may not be today I can retrack it. So ... the dawn comes out on who helped him get set up at WP:FL. My experiences over there with him have been frustrating. Which might be a reflection on his perspective of me ... or anything else. Not dragging into boring details on that. Later, gator, if I can find the link to the ArbCom case again. — Maile (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Raul654 and I worked hard to make it happen; no good deed goes unpunished ? I would be curious to know what the arbcase was when you can find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The editor interaction tool turns up no arbcase? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Might be tomorrow. I turn up nothing right now, but I swear I saw it on the same arbcom case I was on re him. — Maile (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank heavens, I'm not crazy. This happened Dec 2020. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 117 Looks like my statement is at 1.10, and yours is at 1.12. In his statements, his responses to you are below his to me. — Maile (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... gee, how harsh of me ... still no indication of what the new problem is. All seemed fine as of December 2022 at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Norwich City F.C./archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really still discussing this? It would be much better to just stop. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, to whom is that question directed? Is less than 24 hours after you responded and Amakuru responded here to my request for help really "flogging a dead horse"? Isn't "flogging a dead horse" more like repeatedly bringing up an undefined something that at best appears to be several years old? Would it not make sense to lodge a similar message to your friend who is apparently doing that ?
Further, if there is something that I did between the December 2022 successful FAR and less than two months later, when the (TRM) flogging started, might you encourage your friend to either say what that was so I can respond, or leave it alone? Once again, my talk page is open.
And several others (above) seem to disagree with the position that one can't discuss on their own talk page, as they excuse TRM's statements as being on their own talk page (they weren't). Are there different rules for my talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, take the high road on this one, and know when to let it go. If you don't, other editors have long memories when it serves their purpose. In that lengthy Arbcom case I linked above, I agreed to a lessening of TRM's restrictions - not because he changed at DYK, but because so many DYK editors evaded it. They just went over to his user "Errors" subpage, read his comments, and acted accordingly at DYK. People believe whatever they believe about him. There are editors out there who have such a loyal group of followers, that they just automatically go with the direction of least resistance. Your best bet here is to rise above it. Good luck with that. — Maile (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What else have I done ? I'd like for TRM's friends to remind him to stop involving third parties in whatever the issue is, and should he return to editing, stop casting aspersions, and remind him that my talk page is open where he can excoriate all he wants-- just stop involving other people in an ill-defined whatever. Meanwhile, it would also be nice if he would stop interfering with my work (as he did at Talk:SD0001). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you stated your case well. I have no problem with that. I was just thinking that comments like those from Dweller don't need a rehashing of the details. In cases like that, brevity is good in a response. TRM's friends, whoever they might be, generally go with his flow of things. — Maile (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true of most people; in this case, I consider Amakuru and Dweller to be, or to have been, my friends as well. Hence, my surprise at Dweller's last response here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. My error. — Maile (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It continues

[edit]

March 11; is this intended to provoke? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, to state the obvious, this type of harassing, baiting personal attack will continue until an admin blocks the perpetrator and includes Talk page access. In the absence of such preventative action, only other options I can think of are the Foundation's T&S (of which I know nothing) or ArbCom, which I suggest a private email to. Otherwise, it's a timesink, which may well be the core tactic here. This person's lengthy WP history shows clearly, in my view, that the personal attacks will continue until strong sanctions are applied. My best wishes to you. Jusdafax (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, dandy SandyGeorgia, for reasons so many years ago that I no longer remember who or why, I bookmarked WP:HARASS, and more importantly WP:ASPERSIONS. The above-mentioned editor is definitely casting aspersions on you with no evidence. I implore you to take this case, with diffs, to WP:ANI. It may not be the direction you want to go, but it needs to be done. Please don't just be a victim. The harasser is looking for attention, like a naughty child. Give it to him ... at ANI where it belongs. — Maile (talk)
FYI SandyGeorgia not meaning to sound callous above here. I understand the overall situation and stuff. It's just that at some point you have to take it to ANI, because given your situation no one else should do it for you. Even if someone else started the complaint at ANI, they would expect a response from you. So, like it or not, it's in your lap. Of course, there's always the option of you and everyone else just archiving this subject, and getting on with editing without giving a flying Fig about the other nonsense. — Maile (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda in agreement with Maile here. If TRM's friends don't want to have a quiet word with him, to ask him politely to lay off the aspersions, then going to ANI and requesting a 1-way IBAN between TRM and yourself seems like the most appropriate option to me. It would prevent TRM from continuing cast aspersions like this, while also leaving the door open for him to return to editing should he ever feel like it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General comment on blocking consensus at ANI. Unrelated to editors here. ANI would be a record of consensus for such a block. Without that consensus, sometimes the blocked editor has one or more admin friends willing to immediately unblock. So, ANI definitely should be part of the process. — Maile (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both, but I am much more interested in seeing User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned function, than I am getting this resolved via ANI. As long as it stays on TRM's talk page, he is generally casting the aspersions to his friends anyway, and if they're OK with that, it says more about them than me. My initial curiosity as to how I did this dastardly deed is gone, and replaced more with curiosity that TRM's friends don't seem to want to help figure out a way to work out <whatever it is>. And <whatever it is>, my talk page is still open. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TPS alert/rant: CCI work

[edit]

Because of the User:Doug Coldwell situation that I happened across by pure chance, I am back trying to help out at CCI. After giving up in dejection the last time I tried that. And the time before. And so on.

This is demoralizing work; not a hobby, not fun, not relaxing, should not be done by anyone for free. Most of my TPS are used to working with fine content. When working CCI, you deal with pure crap; while trying to sort out if something is a copyvio, you have to do that with content that is poorly written and not even based on reliable sources often, and it's nothing but miserable unpaid grunt work and drudgery. And when working on one CCI, I discovered a whole 'nother serial copyviolator! Just makes one want to quit.

I have checked WP:PEREN and don't know where else to look, but I can't understand why the WMF doesn't hire people to clean copyvio. Why should any volunteer be doing such crap work for free? How does "hire people to clean up copyvio" not make it on to those wish lists thingies the WMF puts out? WhatamIdoing? Hats off to any CCI worker and copyvio admin who deals with this demoralizing content day in and day out.

And I just reread through all of the 2010 Grace Sherwood debacle, where FAC did do something about it, but why has nothing changed in two decades with DYK feeding the copyvio pile, and GA promoting more up the line. Who's checking besides Nikkimaria? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that MER-C and Diannaa do a lot of copyvio-related work. If memory serves, Wizardman used to, but I don't know if he's still active in that area.
I'd like to see law schools, especially those that pride themselves on intellectual property, start summer internships (or similar programs) to evaluate copyright questions. Just reading the Commons discussions can be an education. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We Need More Help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a couple less-busy days due to a winter storm, so I'll try to take a look at some of the Appomattox ones. Hog Farm Talk 22:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, I think you went through Battle of Ridgefield once? While looking at Ludington/Coldwell stuff, I happened across another unrelated big mess there, and waiting for the experts to tell me, what next. I hate how often I have to ping them when I don't know what to do next. It is such specialized work ... and they must be so sick of pings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked through Ridgefield, I was mainly looking for patently unreliable sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 00:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, I know Hog Farm. I hope that didn't come across as me saying you missed something. I only happened upon it because of trying to sort the Coldwell stuff. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
100% right, sadly. That's why I tend to go in spurts on CCI, sometimes I can close out 2 or 3 relatively quickly and other times I don't even want to look at it. Honestly the only thing that helps me get through it sometimes is spite; these serial violators wasted enough of the site's time so torching said content helps a little bit. Perhaps once I'm in another spurt I can get Hathorn resolved once and for all (yes, that's still being addressed a decade later...) Wizardman 23:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hathorn came to my mind recently, when I was contemplating how many times we've been down this road ... but I held back, thinking it wiser not to start naming them all and all of the various debacles. But. What have we changed in content review processes to get it to stop, and what are we doing that encourages it ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That anyone can edit, while it doesn't encourage it, it does to a degree enable it. A lot of people just flat out don't understand copyright and/or how to determine if something is public domain or not. And for those that do, there's a strong possibility they don't live in the US, so are only familiar with sometimes radically different copyright laws in their country/region.
I know I struggle particularly with images, partially because of the differing legal systems between the UK and US, and partially because the US system seems so counter-intuitive with respect to who owns the copyright of derivative works. I'm better with text based stuff, as there is similarities between the two jurisdictions, so I try to keep an eye out for copyvios on my watchlist, as getting them early (I hope) prevents long term problems arising.
Alas short of running every edit through a service like Turnitin, which is not without its own host of problems, I don't know of a way that we could solve it without fundamentally changing how the site operates as a whole. If there's a lot of copyvios coming from article creation, then having some sort of copyright detection training for new page patrollers might help, but it would still require editors to engage with a rather thankless task. However for editors who maybe just add a paragraph here to one article, and a paragraph there to another, that goes undetected and adds up over time, I dunno if there is a way we could handle that beyond what we already do, short of the Foundation hiring dedicated CCI people. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Npp/afc editors actually look for copyvio although they are always in danger of missing more subtle cases involving foreign language, offline sources, or a paywall. The highest risk of copyvio are adding content to existing pages, because it is often not checked at all. (t · c) buidhe 00:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, a fairly well known NPPer had an article deleted this week for copyvio. And I was told today by an experienced editor that "the tools" at DYK and GAN pick up copyvio. No understanding that Earwig is useless when all sources are offline, and even when they are online, not very good at picking up too-close-paraphrasing. Look at the date on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. And then re-read the Grace Sherwood debacle. What reform has there been, outside of FAC?
Sideswipe9th, I was hoping someone would pop up here to explain to me why the WMF is not paying for this to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alas the Foundation's actions are as much a mystery to me as to most other editors I'm afraid. It might be worth starting a discussion at one of the Village Pumps though? Like if enough people recognise this is a problem, then we can at least as a community ask them to pull their purse out for some actual support on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very surprising to me. I first checked WP:PEREN, expecting to find it there. How is it possible it hasn't already been raised and repeatedly? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How many editors actively think about copyvios? I suspect the number is quite small. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sideswipe9th maybe we should list those who should be thinking about it!
  1. New page patrollers (one who had been through NPP school had an article copyvio-deleted this week).
  2. All DYK reviewers and admins who promote DYK queues. (The speed to get an article to a certain size is a driving factor for some whose motivation is the reward culture.)
  3. All FAC, FAR and GAN reviewers. Never mind whether you must spotcheck sources; if you're suppporting an article, you should.
  4. Anyone doing WikiProject assessments. I just saw a B-class assessment assigned to a brand new article with a four-sentence lead, two of which contained copyright issues.
What else ? Awareness needs to be raised about the miserable extent of this problem. Someone should rewrite and udpate the old Plagiarism update and ask the Signpost to run it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on yours in order:
  1. NPP and AfC reviewers definitely. I know checking for copyvios is on the NPP flowchart, but I do have to query how many editors actually do it, especially when we have a backlog drive on and reviewers are reviewing articles pretty quickly.
  2. I don't know enough about how DYK works to comment, but definitely seems sensible.
  3. Yeah absolutely. Any editor doing a FA or GA review should be checking for copyvios as part of that process. I wonder if this could be more formalised into the structure of the review process, like some sort of requirement for the reviewer to say "I checked/I've not checked for copyvios", and for the FA/GA confirmation to be held until someone has done it.
  4. This is a tough one, occasionally I'll use WP:RATER when sticking WikiProject banners onto talk pages, and it uses some sort of prediction when adding the banners. I wonder how many editors are just using that versus actually assessing it? For the later, actual assessments yeah that should have a copyvio check done as part of it.
And possible additions:
  1. Any editor actively cleaning up the recent contributions of a blocked or banned editor should do a copyvio check on those contributions as part of determining whether or not they should be reverted. Like if the content is obviously disruptive, just revert it, but if it looks plausibly good, run a copyvio check on it.
  2. Editors doing recent change patrolling should probably be checking for copyvios when reviewing the diffs, at least for the new contributions.
  3. I'm tempted to say that WikiProjects should have dedicated members/teams for this as well, on a per project basis, whom are active beyond the assessment level. When dealing with specialist content, it helps to be familiar with the topic when determining if something is likely a copyvio. This would also fit in nicely with your #4, as there could/should be some overlap there.
The biggest blind spot though, at least with this sort of active encouragement, is the low traffic/low watchlisted article. The sort of article that someone creates, and then no-one really pays attention to until there's some sort of problem, either vandalism or with the original author of the article. While AfC/NPP should catch some of that, if the author has the autopatrolled flag and is inserting copyvios, who is checking their edits before they get hauled up to ANI and CCI? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think the biggest blind spot is DYK, because that is the specific area where almost every long-term serial copyvio abuser was born. That would be the place to initiate reform, and catch stuff early on. Most of the historical serial offenders are not the first-time editors or the non-English speaking, rather those seeking icons and rewards-- working too fast, not getting seriously reviewed, racking up rewards. Re #3 (FA or GA reviewers), I started pushing on this problem at WT:FAC several years ago, and got so far as to get 1f added to WP:WIAFA, but my proposals for more active source work were rejected. In theory, anyone entering a Support at FAC should be stating whether the article meets 1f. The weakness at NPP seems to be in the area of detecting too-close-paraphrasing, which is why I think the old Signpost dispatch pushed by the then-FAC regulars via the WP:FCDW should be updated and published broadly. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches.
5. Oops, one I forgot; add copyvio spotchecks to anything claiming WP:WIKICUP points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only other thing I can think of right now (tis late, my brain is derping and words are hard) would be to maybe have a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations asking all of the regulars who investigate and clean up cases where they think the majority of problematic editors are coming from, and what process changes in those areas could catch this sort of thing early before multi-year long cleanup cases are needed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe after more general brainstorming here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: Late, sorry, I think the biggest problem atm is Autopatrolled users, either grandfathered in from 2011 or recently granted with a less-than-ideal amount of history review of articles. We can catch everyone else fairly quickly. AP users with cv issues tend to only show up when taken to DYK/GAN/FAC and a reviewer finds it there, or at copypatrol. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WikiProject assessments should be especially concerned about copyvios. Every editor should, but this group only at the usual level.
CSD, especially for copyvios, is the primary purpose of NPP. I am concerned that every time we add some extra "little" thing to NPP's workload, their primary purpose gets more and more obscured. The NPP folks are talking with the WMF's Growth team about fixing up Special:NewPagesFeed. I'm not involved, but it's not unusual for this sort of thing to be a round of "give me more bells and whistles" instead of "strip this workflow to the most efficient, effective minimum". I gently suggest that we need less NPP attention on things like adding maintenance tags and tagging for WikiProjects, or even trying to determine notability, so that we can have them focused on speedy deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that Barkeep is saying more or less the same ... WhatamIdoing have you looked at MER-C's suggestions below? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EranBot and CopyPatrol do something similar to the "running every edit through Turnitin" thing, although they don't catch copyvios that are short, minimally paraphrased, translated, and so on. It's fundamentally easier to copy and paste random stuff from the internet than it is to detect and remove it, which means that the CCI backlog is unlikely to ever be resolved. I have to wonder about some of our current approach to copyright and how it would be viewed outside of Wikipedia. I've seen a few complaints on VRT from writers who alleged that Wikipedia had plagiarized their books. In these cases the content was appropriately paraphrased and no informed editor would conceivably argue that it constituted a copyright violation. But the authors were concerned that the Wikipedia page summarized every important point of their book, meaning that no one would have any need to purchase it anymore. That sort of thing strikes me as posing more risk to an author's livelihood than, say, someone copying and pasting a plot summary from IMDB. I'm not proposing that we rework our copyright policies because of this - I just think it's an interesting perspective. Spicy (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting ... a whole 'nother problem. And then there's the guy out there on the lecture circuit profiting unscrupulously by using a page written 90+% by me, and nothing the WMF can offer in the way of tools to help me deal with it. So it works both ways ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spicy 45.6.2.15 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Ok, have a clearer head now. What have we changed in content review processes to get it to stop, and what are we doing that encourages it? I think this is close to the right question we should be asking. While investing in and attracting more people would solve the current workload problems with CCI, it doesn't tackle the root cause.
For me right now, the question is What aren't we doing to catch this problem early? So there's two examples that spring to mind here that I'm surface level familiar with; Doug Caldwell, and Martinevans. Both are users with very high edit counts (70,556 and 206,311 respectively). Checking and cleaning up each of these editors will take a substantial time and editorial energy investment. While that needs to be done, the pertinent question from a prevention perspective is why didn't we catch this sooner?
So yeah, what is causing us to be unable to detect this sort of problem until we have editors with tens or hundreds of thousands of edits? What can we do to catch this earlier, so that a CCI case only has to check say hundreds of edits, instead of thousands? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great start. Some partial answers/ideas.
The GA process at least has a major drive underway right now for GA reform: Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023. I don't know if they're doing enough, but at least they're trying, and the new data that Mike Christie is working on should help uncover what reviewers may be pushing faulty GAs up the line without rigorous review.
To my knowledge, nothing has changed at DYK, it has been promoting copyvio for as long as I've been editing, and that isn't going to change unless the community takes a strong stand.
It might be worthwhile to ask Barkeep49 what might be helpful to get NPP or AFC more on board with too-close paraphrasing.
FAC has never been a source of extreme instances of copyvio as have GAN and DYK. I'd like to see stronger sourcing checks there, as in my proposals of a year or so ago, but it's just not a place where this problem needs more focus. The Rlevse/PumpkinSky situation was an oddity that was obscured because of a competent copyedit by another editor.
WikiCup has been at times a problem, but that can be solved by fixing whatever ails GAN and DYK (although It still would be nice if they contemplated adding copyright spot checks).
In summary, change needs to happen at DYK. Looking beyond that at individual cases (which I've been doing lately):
  1. When trying to address the Coldwell CCI, one gets unpleasant pushback from DC associates. I'll be bringing forward some proposals when I get a freer moment. Of interest there is that an experienced editor told me that content review processes vetted for copyright, so someone somewhere needs to write up a good description of all the things that Earwig etc cannot detect. I continue to believe we should update and expand the Plagiarism dispatch written by our best IP people in 2009.
  2. We should be catching new editor mistakes sooner. I'm up to my eyeballs right now on a situation like that (stop them early) and getting No Help From Anyone, and I'm sure that editor is beginning to feel hounded by me. Do we need a mechanism for getting more eyes on new editors sooner and helping them out? I am to the point of contemplating an ANI post just so I can back out and let someone else take that one on, as it's exhausting.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think close paraphrasing is always going to be some level of difficulty to uncover. I think some forms of close paraphrasing are reasonable for a NPP/AfC reviewer to uncover. However, truthfully I think a lot of the kinds of issues we saw with Doug Caldwell require a more thorough version of a review than is reasonable to expect from an NPP/AfC reviewer. I do think it reasonable to expect a GA reviewer to be able to uncover such issues and for the DYK process (whether at the reviewer or at the prep builder level) to uncover. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Barkeep, the main wall that GA reviewers hit with editors like Coldwell is the one of WP:AGF on offline sources. Perhaps the review should require them to ask to be sent some offline sources, but I don't think stronger sourcing checks is passing their proposal drive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the Caldwell paraphrasing would require a more thorough review than is reasonable from NPP/AfC then how do we detect it early? Not every article is going to be nominated for DYK, GA, or FA, and so that leaves a huge area for that sort of content to be left unnoticed until we have a ten/hundred thousand edit count CCI, which is a different kind of unreasonable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are trade-offs to be made between the time a patroller spends on an article and the number of articles they are able to patrol. Copyright investigating and cleanup is a specialized skill for a reason. I think the NPP tutorial discusses the expectations in a reasonable manner. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would revisiting WP:AGFC be useful? How long must we AGF once copyright issues have surfaced ? Why do we have to have an open CCI before WP:PDEL can kick in ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the page name of that place where one can request access to sources (Nikkimaria)? Who are the regulars there; that is, are there editors who can be enlisted to help spotcheck sources in the other processes we're discussing above (DYK, GAN, AFC, NPP etc)? The reason I ask is that I just saw Ucucha popping back in to address an article at URFA/2020, and if Ucucha were still actively editing, I'd have someone I could enlist to help with the editor I'm now frustrated with. That Is. We've lost too many top content editors who have the ability and resources to deal with a growing problem. Another example is the loss of Geometry guy, a sorta kinds defacto GA process Coordinator in the older days, who would have put forward some sort of proposal to deal with this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REREQ is the place where you can request access to sources. There's a list of editors at WP:REREQ#Reference resources, but I dunno how up to date it is. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RX (it feels wrong to me to call it REREQ) is a great place, and people are jumping over each other trying to fulfill resource requests. That said, I don't think it's common to request that someone do spotchecks, rather than just cough up the source for the requester to then put in the work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So looking at WP:DYK, it seems like there's two strands to it; new articles, and significantly expanded articles. It'd be useful to find out if the copyvios coming out of DYK are predominantly from one of those two strands, or an even split from both strands. For example, if the copyvios are predominently from new DYK articles, then that could imply a problem with the copyvio detection at the NPP and AFC level, because new DYKs should also have gone through that review and clearly they missed something, unless the copyvio content was added after the NPP/AFC review but before the DYK review. However if it's predominantly from expanded articles, which are generally already NPP/AFC reviewed, then clearly that's where we should put more focus on the prevention side.
Looking at the DYK requirements, 4c states that Articles should be free of copyright violations, including close paraphrasing and image copyright violations. So at the very least, it is formally part of their workflow. The DYK checklist that gets attached to every nomination has a yes/no/? field for copyvios and plagarism. Looking at WP:DYKN, there are definitely some editors there running the articles through Earwigs. For example this nomination has been held pending since November due to some plagarism issues with public domain text/block quotes.
So I think I'd need some more data from approved copyvio DYKs before I could speculate more. Is there a specific DYK strand where copyvios are more or less likely? For DYKs that contained copyvios and were approved, was there a copyvio detected and handled during the nomination process? Or was the copyvio undetected for some reason? Or was a copyvio check said to have been done, but no check was actually done? Or is this not a DYK review problem, but instead a DYK effect? Is the review clear, and the copyvio text only being inserted after the DYK hook appears on the main page?
Do we need a mechanism for getting more eyes on new editors sooner and helping them out? Good question. I'd say yes on the principles alone. It might be worth looping Diannaa into this conversation? I know she does a lot of copyright cleanup, and issues a great many {{uw-copyright}} warnings every day. At the very least she may also be able to help you handle the hounding feeling. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am hesitant to ping Diannaa because she (and all of the CCI people) are so overburdened already. Not sure if we should ping them or not. A few of them have already been pinged in this discussion, so they may be following anyway. I'll leave it to someone to decide whether to ping Diannaa only because I hesitate to wear out my welcome with the blooming pingie thingie. Maybe instead a post at the copyright talk page?
An educational writeup of the shortcomings of Earwig could help.
I'm not sure it matters if a DYK is new or expanded, because what drives the problems that come out of DYK is the reward culture -- the quick and easy "get my work on the mainpage" gratification. Efforts might be better placed to get the throughput at DYK to slow down. Featuring new content on the mainpage made sense in the early days, when growing the 'pedia was a goal. Does it still make sense to have so many editors working to populate DYK, and then so many more editors having to engage the problems at WP:ERRORS? Why are we still doing this? How many of those seeking rewards would stop committing copyvio if they couldn't get that gratification? One interesting bit of data I'd like to see is how many DYKs move on to FAs ... those are the editors who are adding substantial value. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At some point in this, I think we'll need to get Diannaa, and all of the major CCI people involved, at the very least to hear where they think the major problem area(s) are for undetected copyvios. They may agree with you that it's DYK or some other reward driven process, or they may be seeing it from somewhere else that we've not considered. I wonder if brainstorming a brief set of questions to be asked on the CCI and/or CP talk pages would be a worthwhile exercise here?
I dunno if reward culture is just a DYK and WikiCup problem. I know when we run a NPP backlog, there's a similar leaderboard + rewards for contributing setup that if mishandled could encourage speed over accuracy.
As for the new versus expansion thing, I think it would be helpful to at quantify where the problematic articles are coming from. Those that are new should have had at least two reviews (NPP + DYK), so two sets of eyes looking at the same or similar content. If both of those sets of editors are missing something, beyond the close paraphrasing of offline sources problem, then that might help us track down why two different groups of editors are missing this. If it's primarily the expansion side, then that limits the pool of reviewers to just those involved in DYK, which might help us figure out if this is a process, tooling, or training problem specific to the DYK expansion side.
At the moment there's too many questions like "is DYK too speedy?", "is there a lack of training for DYK reviewers?", "does DYK's process encourage hooks over accuracy?", "is there template or process blindness behind the DKY review causing editors to skip over this step?", or "is this something else entirely?" to try and workshop possible solutions. More data from the underlying DYK process would help us pre-filter out some of these questions when figuring out solutions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SS, I just re-read and saw that Diaanna has already been pinged to this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed with the format of Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023. If we were to start a list as you suggest in a new section below, would we head that direction? Or too soon? Need data first ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, too many conversation tangents here. Is this a list of questions for the CCI/CP talk pages? Or data gathering questions to more thoroughly figure out the problem spots in the DYK process? Or both? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you :) :) Do you think we can put together questions before we have data, or data comes first? And where would we get the DYK data ? Or should we not even be assuming that DYK is a big driver of the problem, as the CCI people may disagree? My sample could be biased, as I tend to notice the big CCIs that come from frequent DYKers (including some too frequent close paraphrasing that never resulted in a CCI on one frequent DYKer who basically closely paraphrased NYT obits into DYKs years ago). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah, following now. For the CCI/CP talk pages, I think the questions are pretty generic, we don't need data to ask questions like "Where do you find the most problematic copyvio edits coming from?". A brainstorm for this would be to figure out the 3-6 important questions that the answers of would help direct us for further investigations. Ideally this would be a short set of questions that would only take maybe 5 minutes to answer.
For the DYK data, we'd be gathering it ourselves. I'd recommend workshopping a series of investigative questions that we could then apply to both the recent known historical problem editors (the "big CCIs that come from frequent DYKers" as you put it from 2022 or a 3/6/9 month period of 2022 if that's too many editors), as well as a snapshot of all DYK nominations over a short fixed period (eg 7 days). We should be looking at things like when was the copyvio detected in relation to the article being drafted/DYK nominated & reviewed/DYK live/post-DYK, were any red flags raised during the DYK review and if so how were these handled at the time, when was the offending text inserted into the article (pre-nom during article drafting, post-nom but pre-hook, during the hook, post hook), were there any DYK process steps skipped or glanced over because the editor in question was a regular, who was involved in the review (is there a specific subset of DYK reviewers that are operating in good faith but are just bad at copyvio detection?). Anything relevant that we can structure into something that we can then use comparatively across the dataset to figure out what (if any) patterns there are. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. On the first, how about a new section below on this page to begin gathering samples which we can whittle down before going to the next step? On the second, I hesitate to over-involve myself in the DYK data gathering, as I have been closely involved in past efforts at DYK reform, and feathers could be ruffled. Leaving that to others :) And separately, I was seriously exposed to active COVID a day and a half ago, so I might fall ill any day now ... just saying ! Gonna go get a ton of work in another area done right now as in making hay while the sun shines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think feathers have the chance to be ruffled regardless of how we handle this. But as long as we're clear and open about how we gathered the data, and the process used to analyse it, then I think we can keep that at a minimum.
Yeah sections below to work on the questions would be ideal. Or we could move this off to a subpage if you want to stop getting emails/notification pings every time someone replies or edits here. I've got other off-wiki stuff to do now though so won't be able to look at this for a while.
Oh no! Here's hoping that you get lucky and didn't get infected, or that if you did it passes swiftly and mildly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of badly-needed DYK reform, I think efforts will be more productive if I am less involved.
For now, I think enough knowledgeable editors are following here that we might get the beginnings of a list here. I fear if we move off to a subpage already, we may lose a few.
Thanks, not so worried about me with COVID, as my 94-year-old dear friend who exposed me :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the challenges with this work is that one person's "close paraphrasing" is another person's WP:STICKTOSOURCES. There are editors who think that if a sentence can't be credibly accused of a copyvio, then it should be banned as original research.
One of the general areas that I wish we were stronger in is briefly summarizing long passages. I'd love to see more editors summarizing whole book chapters into a single short paragraph. Doing that eliminates all concerns about copyright violations. But some RecentChanges patrollers and watchlist inhabitants, when/if they check an addition, have been known to object to anything that requires them to read more than a paragraph, and if it's the least bit contentious, they want to see close paraphrasing, and their actions put pressure on editors to engage in close paraphrasing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. It's funny, I think there's definitely a subset of editors who see the ALLCAPS shortcut for that, and use it almost as a thought terminating cliche, conveniently ignoring the start of the second sentence that tells us to summarise in our own words. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sideswipe9th, you'd think someone might write some essays about that kind of WP:UPPERCASE mistake leading to myths that we can't use WP:OUROWNWORDS. (I know WAID is perfectly aware of this mistake and was illustrating flawed thinking with a common example of flawed policy citation).
I agree with WAIDs comment about books, and wish it was easier for us to get hold of (and encourage using) professional textbooks like it is for some editors to get hold of papers. The worst example of plagiarism citing a single sentence in a single source came when I looked at student assignments many years ago. The students, who were taking a first-year university course (and so therefore knew nothing) were asked to find a research paper and insert its findings into Wikipedia. The lack of subject knowledge, the lack of variety of sources and authors, and the inability to summarise what is already just a sentence, meant it was nearly impossible for them to paraphrase, and those who tried often importantly mischaracterised their source. -- Colin°Talk 20:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Ugh. I just spent two hours of my life rewriting Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, although I couldn't fix all the failed verification and have listed it at GAR for that and comprehensiveness/weighting issues. That one's at least partially my fault, because I performed a bad GA review back in 2020 when I was still newer to the process. The fact that those two hours will constitute most of my wiki time for this week is fairly frustrating, too. Between burnout from complex Yellow Book audits at work, some RL mental health stuff, and the knowledge that I'm at least partially responsible for the Coldwell situation, I feel heavily discouraged. Will probably return to my normal level of activity in mid-February, but at this point I can make no guarantees. Hog Farm Talk 02:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Stop That (stern finger wagging). By the time you came along, the Coldwell Phenom (which is a culture) was already very well established. Hundreds of DYKs and a slew of GAs and people assume the editor is sourcing soundly. Not just you. More than a handful of very good editors. I have no use for blaming individual editors when there is an entire culture built around counting notches in belts. It's the culture that needs to be addressed. And WMF needs to pay people to deal with copyvio. Talk:Battle of Ridgefield-- editor rams through boatloads of cut-and-paste on 20 to 22 May, and it's on the mainpage at DYK in less than a week (28 May 2008). I don't see that anything has changed since Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, and remember, DC used offline sources, so policy forced reviewers to AGF. (That's why a stern FAC copyvio check asks the nominator to supply random bits from offline sources.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Please don't beat yourself up over the Doug situation. You aren't responsible for his actions, or his choice to plagiarise offline sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, I mentioned above that I hesitated to name all the past exact situations, but one old-time DYK serial problem is very much still active. That's a rub. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spent my entire morning on yet another one that I came across by happenstance. This is 13 years after we published the Plagiarism dispatch, pulling together all of our best IP people to "get serious". The culture needs to change and something needs to be done. This (no one looking closely) is how the DCs and Billy Hathorns (and over a half a dozen more I can name but won't) come to leave behind big messes that we don't enough resources to clean up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Could it be that the reason WMF won't employ someone to find and remove copyright violations is that that would break the claim that they are not responsible for it. They handle formal takedown requests and nothing more. Doing more could be a trap? -- Colin°Talk 10:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if the logic was something along those lines (and I notice that WAID didn't answer my query :) Of course, assuming there is some logic may be a stretch here. There must be info out there somewhere on this that we're just not aware of. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) This would be my assumption too. WMF has never been responsible for the content on the servers aside from their legal liabilities under the DMCA. Any more moderation, and they'd run into additional responsibilities under Section 230. Given that Section 230 is being litigated in front of the Supreme Court this term, and WMF has filed an amicus brief in the case, I would assume that they won't comment any further until the litigation has concluded. In short, this is something that the community will have to resolve. Imzadi 1979 → 20:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha ... very interesting info ... thx, Imzadi ... now it all makes more sense.
There must be some sort of workaround involving grants or some funding to editors, not limited only to copyright, and as long as WMF isn't in a position to control edits ... ???? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, sorry I've been a bit slow on the DC related stuff, I've been pretty busy recently but should be able to get back to helping with that soon. I just finished reading this mega thread, I'm very happy that you've bringing these issues up and that there's an ongoing conversation about this here. Tomorrow I'll try and answer some more questions, but on the topic of the WMF, I think Colin has it right--employing people to take care of copyvios might make it more of an "issue" for them. Grants and funding are the way to go. But that has me thinking, it'd be nice if we had an advisor or community liaison for copyvio related issues, I don't think that's asking for too much.... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 08:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's an idea we can run with. Thanks for popping in, Moneytrees. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More copyvio burnout.

A little good news: I had these software tweaks done: [4][5]. Hopefully temporary blocks for copyvios are less frequent. But that's only one problem fixed. There are the amateurs that just point and click at Earwig and say everything is OK. Our tools currently have too many false negatives, and this creates CCIs that can really only be dealt with using PDEL. There are also the plot summary copyvios, the subcontinental copyvios, and worst of all - the persistent copyvio sockpuppeteers, like Dante8. MER-C 19:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is truly bad news about Diannaa, but most understandable. I don't know how you all do it. I spent a couple hours this morning on one article only. It is not only amateur editors who misunderstand Earwig; a very experienced editor pointed me to Earwig on a Coldwell article containing copyright issues. It takes hours and hours to go back and locate these very old sources, which are hard to search in various formats used, and PDEL is the only answer when serial issues are found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even then PDEL isn't enough. I can deal with the easy PDELs in a few minutes each (the gadget Who Wrote That makes it easy) but (1) the sheer number means I hesistate to push more than five a day through WP:CP and (2) there are still an overwhelming number of complex cases. From experience, PDEL only halves the work at best. MER-C 11:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what can be done? Should we all convene in a sandbox somewhere for brainstorming? I have been working for days trying to nip another new one in the bud. And failing. It's exhausting and demoralizing and I'm too tired to write up the ANi now. There aren't enough of us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hooking Earwig up to machine translation would help reduce false negatives and tackle one broad swathe of difficult to detect copyvios. I don't see it being added to Copypatrol - it's another batch of API calls to some external service that will require money to access. MER-C 19:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, halving the work on Coldwell is a tonna work! And, it's the pushback that I find frustrating, which is why we need a consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Ok, starting this section to brainstorm and hopefully format a set of questions that we can apply to known bad DYKs, and a snapshot of DYK nominations over a fixed period. Will fill in more momentarily. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic structure first. This is mostly for convenience to quickly get to the relevant article revisions, DYK review, etc.
  • Name of article: [wikilink to article name here]
  • Date of creation: [link to first revision of the article here]
  • Date of copyvio or close paraphrase detection: [link to revision where cv-revdel requested, or close paraphrase first removed]
  • DYK nomination status: [approved/rejected]
  • DYK Nomination Review: [link to archived completed DYK review of article]
  • State of article at nomination: [link to diff of the article at or just prior to it being DYK nominated]
  • State of the article after DYK review: [link to diff of the article immediately after DYK review completed]
  • State of the article after DYK hook ended: [link to the diff of the article immediately after it left the main page]
Now some questions. Comments/explainers are in italics.
  • Did the copyvio or close paraphrase exist prior to the DYK review?
    • This will let us quickly filter out articles where the offending text was inserted after the review
  • Was the copyvio or close paraphrase inserted as part of the DYK review?
    • This is a very controversial question, and one I hope we maybe don't have to ask. But if we do ask it, it will give us more info on how the offending text was inserted into the article.
  • Was there a copyvio or close paraphrase detected during the DYK review?
    • If yes, was the revision deleted?
    • If yes, was every copyvio or close paraphrase detected during the review?
    • If no, was there mention of a potential copyvio or paraphrase in the review outside of the DYK review template?
      • Note, the three above questions at the level 2 list are optional and dependent on the answer to the question at level 1
  • How long after article creation was an issue confirmed and actioned?
  • How long after DYK nomination was an issue confirmed and actioned?
  • How long after DYK review completed was an issue confirmed and actioned?
  • Was the copyvio or close paraphrase from an online or offline source?
    • This one might be difficult to ascertain. In theory it should be determinable from edit summaries that removed the content or the Special:Log entries that actually hid the offending revisions. Where an article had been tagged with {{cv-revdel}} prior to revision deletion, the output of the template should state the source.
  • If known, how was the copyvio or close paraphrase detected?
    • Again this might be difficult to ascertain if revisions have been hidden. Checking the DYK review, article talk page, and edit summaries may help. Does copypatrol keep any relevant records here that would help?
That's all I can think of right now. Obviously formatting and phrasing is pretty far from final. And there's at least one question that I hope we don't have to ask, but might give us more insight into how copyvios are getting through DYK. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit overwhelming :) Who would gather this data?
I was thinking more along the lines of "how many of Wikipedia's serial copyvio offenders were spawned by the pursuit of rewards via DYK and GA"? I'd rather eat nails than have to look at DYK every day to answer these questions. I just took a look at one queue and it has a DYK hook for a recent GA that contains prose that is gibberish. And the DYK hook is not only incomprehensible, it's probably untrue and it's probably a copyvio from Spanish sources.
At one time, I tracked DYK daily, because every queue had at least one (often more) instances of failed verification, copyvio, or incomprehensible prose. That remains true, 15 years later. I don't want to have to get down to the level of analyzing DYKs to try to figure out how we can stem the copyvio problem. Anyone who doesn't know it's a problem and needs data hasn't been following the main page. What we need to know is whether the DYK process is furthering the problem, or helping teach editors to prepare better articles.
In the article I just looked at, neither the DYK nor the GA review amounted to ... anything. Passed 'em up the line with scant review. Are NPP and AFC doing a better job of vetting articles? What process does a better job of educating editors on policies and guidelines and best practices? How can we reallocate more resources to what works? DYK doesn't; we have 549 Coldwell DYKs as one example. (Those of us who have been around long enough know of quite a few more.). He just kept on doing what he did, and DYK kept on passing them. How we can better focus resources so that we don't have gobs of editors promoting DYK queues so that another gob of editors can file ERRORS reports? And still not catch copyvio, 'cuz no one's looking.
So, I'm confused about who would gather this data as you outline, and what we'd do with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For data gathering, whomever volunteers. But at the very least I'm happy to do it, I'd just need feedback on what it is I should be looking for.
So the purpose of this set of questions is to figure out where in the DYK process copyvios and CLOP issues are being missed. If we were to go to them and say something like "Hey, you all have a problem with letting copyvios and CLOP through the nomination and review process. Can you fix that please?" we'd not get much traction, and maybe some heat. However if we can go to them and say "Hey, there's a problem with the DYK process resulting in copyvios and CLOP being undetected. It's coming from [this part of the DYK review process], here's the data that shows how this is happening and how you can replicate our findings. Can this be fixed please?" I think, or I hope we'll have a much more positive response.
I'm not suggesting we look at DYK every day for a set period. What I'm suggesting is that we take a set of known bad DYKs from editors who have been subject to CCI, say around a dozen articles, and use a set of questions like this to determine where the copyvio/CLOP issue originated, and how it was missed at the DYK review. Then we compare that against a sample of recent nominations that have recently fully gone through the DYK process, for example all DYK nominations from 1 January 2023, using the same questions, to see if the same problems exist.
It is my hope that from the two sets of data, we can figure out what it is in the DYK process that is missing these issues. Is it because as you say "no one's looking"? Is it because DYK nominations are getting non-rigorous reviews? Are there DYK reviewers who are AGFing a little too hard on supposedly good/well known editors (eg, "oh that's a Doug Coldwell nomination? Not much for me to check here. Approve.")? Do some DYK reviewers just not have the competency to handle copyvios/CLOP issues when Earwig comes up clean? At the moment we don't know why this issue is arising from that process. Analysing data should help us determine that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright: Ideas so far

[edit]
  1. Summer internships for law students.
  2. A WMF Community liaison for copyright issues.
  3. Grants funding editors who work on copyvio.
  4. Policy changes (WP:PDEL earlier and easier once a copyvio is found, things like that ... I have spent days trying to rein in a new editor)
    What policy changes might allow us to nip more in the bud ... sooner, easier?
    Are user right limits too lax ?
    Reform AGF? how much copyvio before we suspend AGF and shoot on sight content cited to offline sources.
  5. More CCI admins Barkeep49 get the RFA nomination machine moving on copyvio types. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got a candidate with CCI experience who will hopefully run this spring. I'm also always open for recommendations. Additionally I know Moneytrees is active in CCI and is currently trying to do more admin finding. That said, as Money's RfA showed, I think CCI editors going for admin face the challenge that it's easy to be focused on keeping the negative out versus nurturing the positive. On the whole editors who have a story to tell about building, rather than defending, the wiki tend to have an easier go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Money, a fine admin and fine person who got a thoughtful neutral from me, went to 'crat chat for the same reason a few others did recently: a nominator statement. Presentations which feel less than forthcoming are always a big concern (one wonders what else they don't know). That doesn't happen with your candidates. But I agree that building is the way to go! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a thought, and probably a very radical and wild one. What is it exactly that CCI admins need the tools for? Is it primarily for revdeling and blocking? Has there ever been any thought towards unbundling the revdel part of that to a new permission? I dunno what you'd call it, but in scope I'd consider it something like "CCI clerk", a trusted user who can handle some of the burden of actually suppressing copyvios from articles.
    I had this thought when I was looking at the edit filter helper and edit filter manager perms, which allow for trusted non-admins to see (EFH and EFM) and edit (EFM) private edit filters, both of which are actions that are otherwise restricted to admins. Obviously there'd need to be some checks put in place to ensure that the trusted editors who gain that permission don't abuse it in any way, but could this lighten the load on the current set of CCI admins in any appreciable way? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was granted NPR to bypass filter 856, which tags every removal of a copyright tag in mainspace. I was granted PMR after repeatedly pestering admins to move rewrites into place, and even then, I still need an admin to delete the page when I'm done. I run the risk of an admin outright undoing my work and calling it disruptive. There's also an incredibly high level of leeway granted to admins. I burnt out on copyright problems, but I handled a lot of the cases where MER-C's pdel couldn't. There is a much higher chance of me getting blasted on my talk page or dragged to ANI for disruption for removing content without a clear policy ground; the policy ground is that the cases are ridiculously complex or difficult to look into, so I stub it for probable copyvio. People don't take me as seriously as they would DanCherek, for instance, in a copyright situation, because I'm not an admin. It's unlikely to get revdel unbundled even for a highly trusted role; at that point, the scrutiny would just be as bad as an RFA one because it involves deletion. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More CCI admins would help. Even a bit of attrition means serious problems in an area that's already hard work for such a small crew. (I managed to close exactly one CCI in the past year, a process that basically burned me out despite being one of the easy ones!) But I see a few wicked problems the community will have to overcome first.
    First, we need a way to teach copyright to editors so they can develop proficiency and eventually become admin candidates. I don't think there are enough fast community-driven feedback loops in place to meaningfully guide editors. (If the community had a dollar for every time someone stopped at "my Earwig score is only 22%", well we could just hire all the copyright specialists we needed.) I’ve only gotten actual constructive feedback once or twice in the past eight years—this means I have effectively zero idea how I’m doing. Now, this doesn’t personally bother me all that much, but my level of comfort with VUCA situations doesn’t magic away the root-cause problem.
    We also need to get tools into folks’ hands somehow, and that can be challenging. Not sure the community will go for further tool unbundling, and as Barkeep points out RfA can be tough for behind-the-scenes specialists. I wonder if the community has any appetite for a novel approach. Back in 2017, I got reasonably close to submitting an RfA myself, and one thing I considered was de facto unbundling by promising to use the tools only for revdels, G12s, and copyvio blocks. I even drafted a recall process that would have allowed anyone in good standing to have me desysopped if I used the tools for a non-listed purpose. Seemed like one way to assuage potential fears about handing broad discretionary authority to a niche/specialist editor. I remain doubtful that it would have worked, and obviously I didn’t end up doing any of this myself, but if any lurking RfA nomination-writers want to give it a shot with a future candidate, the first "wiae idea" is free :) /wiae /tlk 14:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GA/DYK reform: are they pushing more volume than they can handle?
  7. WMF funding to develop a better tool for detecting WP:CLOP? Tedious manual work ...
  8. Re-write, update, publish in Signpost Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches (the copyright pages are too dense for a new editor)
  9. Noticeboard reform. Consider this comment (three lost years), these (untrue) claims, and the complexity of using Wikipedia:Copyright problems. (Aside: wow. Just wow. On the three years.) One can drop a problem at the COI noticeboard or the BLP noticeboard without a lot of work, but just figuring out how to lodge a copyright concern stumps me every time. If XOR'easter could have made a simple, "could someone look into this" post at a noticeboard three years ago ... yes, the CCI folks already have too much work, but would not an easier-to-use noticeboard encourage more of us non-admins to help out ?? The COINoticeboard has saved my sanity more than once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noticeboards are only useful if someone's there to respond to the plea for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence, my point ... if it were easier, more of us would participate. I engage CCI reluctantly as I'm so afraid to make a mistake and the instrutions are so complicated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The instructions on copyright problems gives the information of how to handle copyright violations across the entire site. The policy itself says to refer to those instructions. I don't think there's a way to simplify the beginning stuff without a major major rewrite and restructuring. It's doable, but it'd take a while and the people that are most familiar with how the board works and how copyright enforcement happens 'round here may not get to it for months. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Data for GA and DYK to identify QPQ problems. Editor interaction shows clearly which editors were pushing DC's articles through DYK and GA. Mike Christie's data will be helpful as well. When a nominator puts up a GAN or DYK, how to add Mike's data showing frequent collaborators. The trends with DC are apparent via editor interaction, so having this info incorporated into the review might discourage unhealthy QPQ. Some of DC's collaborators have CLOP issues themselves, and should not be reviewing at DYK or GAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted this at ANI back in September: Not being familiar with CCI discussions I don't want to pontificate but I would have thought PDEL should be the default. If breaking copyright rules doesn't get you a scarlet letter, doesn't require you to fix your own messes, doesn't stop you from editing, and leaves your bad edits in place (since we don't have the manpower to clean most of it up), what is the incentive not to break those rules?. By "scarlet letter" I meant that the CCI page names are anonymized so nobody knows you're to blame. I think at least one of those four things should change. Has there ever been a case where someone unwilling to cooperate by fixing their own messes has continued to edit and been productive? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the time it reaches that point, the editor may already be blocked. Once blocked, they're usually faced with a choice between "volunteering" to clean up the mess, or staying blocked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds more than plausible, but do you think that happens because we don't bring down the hammer quickly enough? In other words, as soon as a CCI is opened the editor is expected to contribute significantly to the clean up, and if they don't they're blocked? They can edit elsewhere too at the same time, I'm thinking. If my kid were to take a stick and run around the garden lopping the heads off flowers, I'd make them help replant as necessary, and I wouldn't hide it from the rest of the family, give them the free run of the garden, and leave the damaged flowers on the lawn. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When given a chance, they often demonstrate that they aren't able to paraphrase and summarize sources in their own words. Now, in the good news dept, I just investigated the editor I mention below. Arb sanctioned for other behavioral issues, failed RFA where I gave a copyvio example no one else picked up on (which was happening daily at DYK, but there was never a CCI), came to my talk page, I gave them a stern talking to, and current editing of the same type of articles from the same types of sources reveals ... no problem! There you go ... a success story ... not that the old stuff has been cleaned up, though. The problem with most of the editors who end up blocked, and same with DC, is that their friends defend them, and the stern talking to doesn't sink in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When given a chance, they often demonstrate that they aren't able to paraphrase and summarize sources in their own words.. Then I'd say they have no place editing here. If after Doug's first CCI we'd required him to fix his own work and found that he couldn't, and he'd been blocked as a result, there would be a lot less to clean up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good question. The most prolific serial DYK offender I used to follow (a decade ago) is still editing, but I don't think there was ever a CCI. Need to do more homework to see if there were any sanctions and if the copyvio continues. People at DYK wanted my head then (there was daily copyvio on the main page, and then Rlevse happened, and the rest of what happened to FAC is history), so I solved my copyvio angst by trying to never again look at DYK. It would be nice if we could get a list of the serial offenders. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Machine translation for Earwig. Probably on a single source basis at first to control costs. MER-C 17:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. A write up explaining the limitations of Earwig; too many content reviewers have no understanding of what Earwig canNOT detect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi, I just read through this conversation with interest - lots of food for thought. I've been chipping away at Martinevans123's copyright investigation, assessing 2-3 pages at a time out of tens of thousands, and it strikes me that I'm never going to make any sort of serious dent in it. Then there's the Edelmand case, which was only uncovered because I've got the same books sources as they use, and was shocked to discover wholesale rampant plagiarism which wouldn't be uncovered by automated tools - ever. I think that's hardly been looked at, because it doesn't involve a high-profile editor and I didn't raise the issue at somewhere like ANI before I set up the investigation. The backlog at CCI stretches back years, actually decades, people get burned out by such an unpleasant slog, that I'm really at a complete loss to suggest what to do. Meanwhile, the "free" encyclopedia is being made a laughing stock by hosting blatant copyright violations that nobody (broadly construed) can be bothered to get rid of.

Incidentally, the biggest problem with Earwig is on any established article, you're likely to find the top one or two hits to be Wikipedia mirrors, which will give you the impression that the article is nearly 100% copyvio and flag the entire screen in red. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, Earwig is useless in dealing with our serial copyviolators, and too few content review editors and processes understand its limitations. The DC CCI is progressing amazingly well (that is, at least compared to other CCI cases) in terms of the amount of content already looked at and deleted. Part of the reason we have been able to move so quickly is the AN consensus we got per WP:DCGAR. But we need to do more to prevent the next Billy Hathorn, DC, etc ... I have been socked in with IRL work for weeks, but am keeping this thread on the page as I intend to work on #Copyright: Ideas so far whenever I get a breather. For now, when I come home after a long day, I try to get six to ten DC articles looked at ... anyone who wants to join the effort, a) prepare to see some of the worst content you've ever seen, and b) dig in with us at the talk page of WP:DCGAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any work to get rid of copyright violations on Wikipedia is good. The problem with Doug Coldwell is I've never interacted with him - I notice I called for an indefinite block at ANI last year, but that was in an uninvolved administrator role. I don't think I've ever read anything he's ever contributed to, at least not consciously. So I'm not sure where to start, if I'm honest. Martin's CCI is easier, as he's got overlapping interests to mine, such as British geography and music. I find it a bit easier to work on those as I can simply identify the relevant text and copyedit it, making any possibility of copyright violation moot. I wouldn't be able to do that with DC's articles as I'm completely unfamiliar with the subject matter. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy – thanks for all of the work you have done recently in this thread, at GAN, and elsewhere regarding this issue. Regarding your suggestion above about writing up an essay about the limitations of Earwig in detecting issues, I had started to write up some notes and I have now stuck them in my userspace here – if you or your talkpage stalkers want to use that as the basis for something then feel free to have at it! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing issues

[edit]

Following up from my FAC. Where can I find guidance on how to prevent close paraphrasing? Is there a common method for pulling info from a source that can avoid this? I read WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. It helps demonstrate what the problem is, but I find it really unhelpful with actually fixing the issue, primarily because it doesn't offer much guidance on how to combine sources while maintaining source-text integrity for each individual inline citation. Obviously there's an answer to this, but apparently this is an area where I struggle. I'm especially concerned because I have written eight WP:Good articles using these same sources, all of which passed fairly easily (lending credence to my theory that GA as a process is broken at a fundamental level). I don't want to burden you too much with all of this, but I'd like to know if there's a typical solution for this problem. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to find just that for you ... someone recently typed up a very good summary that I've been trying to find. Maybe one of my TPS remembers. The gist being to read all your sources, then set them aside and write in your own words what you remember without consulting the sources (so you know you get your own phrasing), and then go back and doublecheck that what you wrote conforms to the sources, adjust from there. That is, don't write with the source in front of you; you've got to read, remove yourself from the source, get away from it to write, then come back to it to check. Please feel free to burden me all you like; I am always pleased to see an editor grow through constructive feedback at FAC. I'm going to keep poking around to see if I can find that summary I saw recently from a better writer than I am (well, that's pretty much everyone :) Back in my day, we wrote this, but it may not give the practical info you seek ... maybe a TPS will pop up to help. I used to be so fearful of paraphrasing that I tended to overquote, probably still do, so hang in there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back ... I had forgotten there are some practical tips in there; hope it helps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished reading the Signpost dispatch. I definitely see what the problem is and why it's a problem. But the description of how to write without paraphrasing just doesn't feel intuitive to me. Presumably my workflow of "read one source, add relevant facts from that source, move on to the next source" isn't viable. Overall, I'm just overwhelmingly frustrated with Wikipedia's philosophy of "keep doing it wrong without guidance until someone comments on it months or years later". I can't help but wonder how many other regular editors are doing this without realizing it, because GA reviewers never seem to know how to look for it and apparently it's not really something that's closely scrutinized outside of first time FACs. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be frustrated .. sit on it for a day or two, do something else in the meantime, and come back to it. It will come together. It sounds like your work style is like mine: linear processing. I also tend to put one source on my desk in front of me, and chunk in everything I want to use from that source before moving on to the next one. But I've learned that I first have to have in my mind the big picture, an outline that is mine, not the sources ... perhaps that's easier in medical writing because we have such a well-defined structure. You will find your way through this, because you're determined. It's always good to be on a new learning curve, and the good news is you will now move beyond GA :). A good way to spend your learning time is reviewing other FACs, by the way. Sometimes you can spot things even if you're not sure how to fix them ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With close paraphrasing, there is always a balancing act between not making the text overly similar to the source on the one hand, and the need to avoid writing original research, stilted prose and the fact that sometimes there is really only one way of saying a thing. In cases where you have a closely paraphrased text, some thinking about alternative formulations and then a total rewrite is a good approach. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia or any TPS: is there an efficient way to determine whether there's close paraphrasing in other articles I've written? I'm hoping that the issue is limited to the first lady articles that I've written (due to the nature of biographical articles and the sources that I've been using for them), but it's always difficult to tell when it's your own writing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will answer roll answer in below with Christine's query. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larataguera, re your query here, moving discussion to here as the FAC has archived. I wasn't concerned enough about those instances to remove the text as copyvio; I can't say why-- it's just one of those "you know it when you see it" things. What was indicated by Victoriaearle was easily fixable and didn't seem to rise to the level of removal. The concern in this case is more related to getting a first-time FAC nominator on the right track. I also don't think of myself as any sort of expert in this area ... still learning myself :).

I love your username; it's poetic and musical and strong at the same time. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second Sandy's suggestion about reviewing other people's FACs, or even just following along if it's something on which you have sources available, and seeing how that editor reworked the text from the sources into their FAC. It helps a great deal if you have a fairly well-defined structure to use as a base.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrasing has always been something I've struggled with as well. Would doing an Earwig check help with it? Perhaps comparing your work with it could be an easy way to make sure your work doesn't sound too much like your sources? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to several queries above is a depressing, "no, there is no easy way". There are some tools that can help a bit, but no tool that will really pick up close paraphrasing, and not at all when the sources are scans like, for example, from newspapers.com. One should always run Earwig but recognize that it can't look at scans, and rarely detects too-close paraphrasing. Ditto for the duplication detector, although it might pick up a bit more if you set the word count low and remove quotes, but you have to check each source. But neither of these tools will pick up duplication of structure. The most egregious examples seen in the WP:DCGAR CCI are entire paragraphs where a few words are juggled.

As you can see, there's a whole big long rant and thread on this page at #TPS alert/rant: CCI work. Because after DYK let through more than 500 articles, and GAN let through more than 200, over more than a decade-and-a-half, we end up with WP:DCGAR, and that is by no means the first such example. That's why we have tried to put our heads together to come up with ideas above. Trying to read through low resolution newspapers.com scans to pick up too-close paraphrasing and copyvio that has gone undetected for years and decades is a miserable chore, and there are only about four very active admins and a few others trying to do it all.

So after spending a disgusting month in the bowels of some of the worst content I've ever encountered, and seeing the laxity in most (not all) GA reviews, I have to ask what purpose GA and DYK serve, if they don't serve to catch copyright issues early on-- before the problems become huge-- and these processes clearly do not. In fact, via the reward culture, they encourage editors to churn out content too fast for careful checking. And I wonder if the most active editors in those two processes really care ? There are several very active GAN editors helping in the cleanup, but almost no one from DYK. This situation might be understandable were it rare: it's not. DYK has been churning out serial copyright violators for as long as I've been editing, and not a thing has changed. We're still cleaning up copyvio from serial DYKers from a decade ago. After DCGAR, we know the same applies to GAN. And without Ealdgyth, one can wonder when the next FAC scandal will hit.

The answer to your query is all you can do is be aware, use what tools we have, go back and re-read your writing, and watch for same in all content review processes.

And don't beat yourselves up; it's something everyone struggles with, and it's those who don't care or can't change that we have to worry about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, I mostly follow (although off-line and via text files) Victoria's habit of reading a load of sources and then memory dumping in own words. This is to me the ideal approach. Creating articles in the 400 to 1000 word count range usually takes 5 to 6 hours (although YMMV): imo if its taking less than that something is wrong. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in: User:Victoriaearle/Tutorial is a different sandbox that might be more helpful. I dumped a bunch of links there some years ago when helping someone with the issue of writing in your own words and just added a quick step-by-step process. Basically it's always best to read a source thoroughly, walk away (so as to forget the specific wording in the source), take notes in your own words, then repeat with each source. Victoria (tk) 20:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch118&oldid=1183973242"