User talk:Vanamonde93

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Deletion review for SSSniperWolf

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SSSniperWolf. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Day Before the Revolution

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Day Before the Revolution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Galactic Central links breaking

Re this edit; the problem is that the bulk of the site is generated once a quarter from an underlying database, and the generated URLS are constructed with sequential page numbers. That means that when material is added to the database, the next regeneration will slide all the contents down from a URL with an embedded sequence of, say, 970, to 971 or higher. Because of this I always add an archive link when citing Galactic Central and put a status of "dead" in for the main URL, even though it's live at the time I cite it, because otherwise someone may come along and put in "live" since it appears to be live.

Phil Stephensen-Payne, who runs the site, has set up a way to do persistent links; see here. The only time I tried this it didn't work, but it would be a better option. If you try it and it works for you, let me know. And yes, access to old reviews is going to be very helpful; I'm looking forward to seeing what other articles can make use of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! I'm certainly not immune to errors, but it would be strange of me to cite an entirely irrelevant database page...your solution seems to be a good one, but I think this means I have to go through all the pages I've used it on and fix broken links. Oh well. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Day Before the Revolution

The article The Day Before the Revolution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Day Before the Revolution for comments about the article, and Talk:The Day Before the Revolution/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Luminist

Were you aware of this resource? A friend just told me about it. It doesn't have everything, but it has a lot -- a complete run of Galaxy for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Sorry, I missed this thanks to the back-and-forth below...I wasn't aware of it, but it looks very useful, thank you! Vanamonde (Talk) 15:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

ANI

I think your close was rather poor considering I wasn’t asking for sanctions or claiming complete innocence, but requesting an interaction ban. I know I haven’t been particularly nice interacting with Schrocat but they just called me stupid three times in a row. What am I supposed to do? I can’t just avoid them since we edit in and strongly disagree on the same topic area. Dronebogus (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: If you want uninvolved users to implement an IBAN, you need to let them weigh in, not prolong the interaction you say you find distasteful. If it's just going to be you and SchroCat going at each other, the thread isn't serving any purpose. Will you commit to not engaging in back-and-forth there? Regardless of provocation, real or otherwise? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I can commit to it. I’m busy finding things somewhere else so I don’t really care. Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I can’t just avoid them since we edit in and strongly disagree on the same topic area. How would the requested interaction ban work? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

They simply don’t discuss me or respond to my comments and vice versa. Dronebogus (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The easy path is just to ignore their comments and don't respond to them, then. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What SFR said; also, note that an IBAN would require you not to undo in whole or in part the edits made by the other, meaning that if you're in the same area you would need to check the history of a lot of the content you edit. Do you really want that? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m currently attempting to engage in a civil discussion with them about something. We’ll just call it resolved for now. Dronebogus (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given to Vanamonde93 for collecting more than 50 points during the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! Hey man im josh (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Al-Shifa Hospital on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 November newsletter

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

• BeanieFan11 with 2582 points
• Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
• Epicgenius with 1518 points
• MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points
• BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
• AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points
• Sammi Brie with 520 points
• Unlimitedlead with 5 points

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
• Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
• BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
• LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
• Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

• Arbitration report: Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other admin who was extremely banned in 2015

• In the media: UK shadow chancellor accused of ripping off WP articles for book, Wikipedians accused of being dicks by a rich man

• News and notes: Board candidacy process posted, editors protest WMF privacy measure, sweet meetups

• Opinion: An open letter to Elon Musk

• WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2023

• News from Wiki Ed: Equity lists on Wikipedia

• Recent research: How English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades

• Featured content: Like putting a golf course in a historic site.

• Wikidata: Evaluating qualitative systemic bias in large article sets on Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Cricket jumpscare

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

A question

Hello, colleague. I don’t know who I can ask, so I’ll ask you. Perhaps you can tell me who I can contact.

I have a question. I've been told that Wikipedia can give editors access to protected academic journal articles. How can I access, for example, this article - https://brill.com/view/journals/ic/26/4/article-p407_7.xml?

I will be very grateful for your answer. With respect. Smpad (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Smpad. Broadly speaking there's two ways; the first is to request access through The Wikipedia Library. They grant access to a wide variety of databases, including ones containing journal articles. Their minimum criteria for access are six months editing, 500 edits, and no active blocks; you don't quite meet those, but you're not too far. The second is to ask for access to a specific source through WP:RX. Happy editing, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, colleague. With respect. Smpad (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

ACE 2023

There are too few strong content contributors on ArbCom; give it a thought? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What a good idea! Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC).

You, too, 'zilla! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Very kind of you both to suggest it, but I simply don't have the time to be a good ARB...though I second the motion for Bish to run :) Vanamonde (Talk) 23:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Any other ideas ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a few ex-ARBs who are also FAC regulars that I'd love to see run again: but besides that, I struggle to think of an editor who is active, content-oriented, writes FAs, has dispute resolution expertise, is an admin, and also hasn't been suggested already. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

":( Darn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

There's actually a handful of content-oriented folks that'd be quite solid candidates in my estimation, but those that I communicate with either became admins recently or have yet to take that plunge, and in some cases have to be persuaded even to do that. And of course the fact that they'd be good at it doesn't mean they're willing. So perhaps the long-term picture isn't too bleak, but I don't have too much to offer right now. I would fully support a few names that have been tossed around at WT:FAC. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I sure hope you don't think here that I was referring to you as nom on the SFR RFA, because they are mentioned in the same paras; I wasn't. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I did, in fact, assume that, because I can't think of another RfA you opposed as strenuously or in which you made reference to the noms in your oppose; but of course there's a lot of RFAs, and I appreciate you clarifying. That said, I stand by my comment. I think there's a world of difference between someone who has Wikipedia's best interests at heart but who is temperamentally unsuited for adminship (quite a lot of experienced editors fall into this category, only some of whom ever run at RFA, and fewer of whom succeed), and someone who made their very first edit with the intention of gaming the system. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you thought that, as that must have been very uncomfortable ... and it's just dumb luck that caused me to read the comment and realize I had better double check that with you! I don't disagree with you re gaming the system; my agreement with Feyd was more along the lines that "the good guys" can still do more damage than those intentionally gaming the system. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'll expand on that :) First, it doesn't happen as much anymore, particularly since the arbcom processing of bad apples goes faster these days, and there's more awarenes of admin boundaries, but it's hard to shake the decade-old scars of seeing how bad admins damaged good editors. Second, on a personal level, there's the admin cabal that outright went after me in 2007, because I disagreed with one of them on a WP:V policy matter, so they threatened me and concocted an arbcase to drag me through. Years later, one desysopped admin, and two community banned abusers-- but I went through hell. Third, there's the whole backstory to my block log. So, yea ... I jump when someone says bad admins can't do real damage. Going through an arbcase with two unstable individuals is not something that I've been able to forget. The block log -- meh -- did him more harm than me, but the 2008 arbcase left a scar. Fourth, I once had a medication mixup (actual pharmacy error), where I ended up accidentally with four times my synthroid dosage for three days, and was buzzing like crazy 'til I figured out why. During that time, I deleted something from an article, on BLP grounds, and later found the individual was dead (not a BLP). An admin revdel'd my deletion for no valid reason, claiming vandalism. And refused to apologize or acknowledge that the revdel accused me of vandalism, rather than an innocent mistake. I suppose I could come up with even more examples if I thought long enough, but I'd rather not think too hard on any more :). Feyd brought up a good point about expunging block logs, because I know an editor whose block log should be removed-- the admin literally hit the wrong button (misclick on the wrong editor), and labeled the subject a "raving nutter" in the block, and there that stands today, on a good editor, 17 years later. New editors come along and see that, and don't know it was a 100% admin mistake, for which the admin profusely apologized ... 'cuz you can't find that from the block log. So, yea, RFA stuff puts me in 'nother place. That's my story, and I'm sorry it could have seem aimed at you because of the proximity of commentary ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you went through difficulties at the hands of now-banned admins; I don't know the circumstances, and can't comment on what may have prevented it. If the sort of temperament that would lead to such a situation is obvious at RFA, I don't object to it being flagged. But the rest of your experiences, problematic as they may be, really shouldn't impinge on how we scrutinize candidates at RFA. Bad blocks are common; many are made by very capable admins who had a lapse in judgement; many (most?) others are accidental; most are not reversed, like yours was, because they're short term. My own block log has two entries, one barely within discretion, one from a compromised account. It hasn't ever affected how people treat me. Editable block logs might be nice, but they're a technical matter that's far outside en.wiki's control. Unfair blocks are only occasionally the product of unsuitable admins; even Lourdes, a confirmed bad-faith actor, has yet to have a bread-and-butter block reversed, as far as I can tell, though a couple may yet be. Revdel is even less of an issue; it's entirely reversible, and I promise you nobody is going through all 6000 of your deleted edits looking for evidence of anything. TL;DR; I appreciate that you've had difficulties with various admins over the years, but the issues you describe are largely not ones that would be avoided even if we considerably raised the standards at RFA. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think I could summarize my "raising standards at RFA" to ... do what I do ... stop supporting candidates whose character you don't know inside and out. That, to me, is an awareness issue. I'll keep banging that drum :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

• Ragesoss
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
• There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
• Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
• Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
• Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
• Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
• Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
• An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

• The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

FAC Mentoring request

Hey, Sohom here, I'm planning to take Cross-site leaks (it's a niche security exploit) to FAC in the near future (early next year, RL willing ). I saw your name on the FA mentoring list and was wondering if you would be willing to provide some feedback on the article wrt to it's current state, and what I can/could improve on to get it to a FA status. (I'm pretty sure one of your suggestions will be to improve the prose quality and wrt to that, I have already requested a copyedit at WP:GOCE/R)Sohom (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

• In the media: Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup

• News and notes: Update on Wikimedia's financial health

• Traffic report: If it bleeds, it leads

• Recent research: Canceling disputes as the real function of ArbCom

• Wikimania: Wikimania 2024 scholarships

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Iranian Democracy Movement

Hello! You were the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian Democracy Movement. I'm wondering if you would be able to provide a copy of it as a draft article? I think it's an interesting topic that deserves an article (perhaps as "Democracy movements in Iran" or some other variation rather than referring to it as one movement. Either way, I'd love to review what was deleted. Thmymerc (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thmymerc: There is already a draftspace version at User:Jaredscribe/Iranian democracy movements, which you are free to make your own copy of so long as you provide the necessary attribution in your edit summaries, per WP:CWW. Please also not that the deletion was the result of original research and synthesis issues, and recreation that doesn't address that will run into the same problems. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, seems like an article that would need to be re-done from scratch essentially Thmymerc (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

What is the basis for declaring that this edit contains original research? Every phrase is fully cited by credible news sources both domestic and international. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narendra_Modi&oldid=prev&diff=1186851071