User talk:SlimVirgin/July 2019

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ • TheDJ

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Infobox

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Infobox. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainian Nationalists

Hello SlimVirgin, just wanted to follow up on the issue of the Lviv Pogrom and point out that it was carried out by Ukrainians, also if there is a suggestion that Poles joined together with Ukrainian nationalists (OUN), I would like to point out that just 2 years later the OUN initiated vicious massacres against the local Poles in the region. I recommend looking through the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia article to read up on the events. Also, there is a significant amount of historic photographs, which can be accessed through any internet image search, which document the scale and brutality of the events purported by the Ukrainian Nationalists and their supporters. --E-960 (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi E-960, thanks for the information. I've replied on talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Sick men's ward and torture instruments in the Marshalsea.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sick men's ward and torture instruments in the Marshalsea.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. CptViraj (📧) 11:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

• Partnerships
• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust ref

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

---

I am not sure whats going on to post to the talk page.....can you not see the source?Prof. Stephanie Wolfe (2013). The Politics of Reparations and Apologies. Springer Science. p. 87. ISBN 978-1-4614-9185-9.. --Moxy 🍁 03:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Moxy, it's better to post this to the talk page, then others can join in. The source you're adding isn't really an RS for the Holocaust, but leaving that aside, it says 11 million overall. Our article says 11 million in addition to the six million. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

OK 2 of you saying the same thing....I can only guess Google.CA is not the same for all......must be wrong page link. I am seeing a huge quote from Tim Cook (historian) saying. ..."Broader definitions include approximately 2 to 3 million Soviet POWs, 2 million ethnic Poles, up to 1,500,000 Romani, 200,000 handicapped, political and religious ... The broadest definition would include 6 million Soviet civilians, raising the death toll to 17 million." Think I will get the quote directly from Tims book....give me a few days to get it up on Googlebooks.Com.--Moxy 🍁 04:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No one is saying 17 million died in the holocaust that is why the source says Documenting Numbers of Victims of the Holocaust and (Nazi Persecution) https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution and that is from a reliable academic institute. And the other source said it was 11 million in all ?

The source says 11 million and 6 million were Jews https://books.google.com/books?id=TDm3BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false page 87

OK odd...your quote is from page 98 to me .....as I said will get the ref used in this book ...Tims book. Unlike the terrestrial source we're using now...Tim's book lists were all the numbers come from. Give me a day or 2 as it simply does not look good using an encyclopedia for the source.--Moxy 🍁 04:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I found it I went on google Books I typed in Broader definitions include approximately 2 to 3 million Soviet POWs, 2 million ethnic Poles, up to 1,500,000 Romani, 200,000 handicapped, political and religious ... The broadest definition would include 6 million Soviet civilians, raising the death toll to 17 million. and I got Allah and Space - Page 201 from 2010?

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&ei=hPkvXcKHGsG4tAbxrbTYBw&q=Broader+definitions+include+approximately+2+to+3+million+Soviet+POWs%2C+2+million+ethnic+Poles%2C+up+to+1%2C500%2C000+Romani%2C+200%2C000+handicapped%2C+political+and+religious+...+The+broadest+definition+would+include+6+million+Soviet+civilians%2C+raising+the+death+toll+to+17+million.&oq=Broader+definitions+include+approximately+2+to+3+million+Soviet+POWs%2C+2+million+ethnic+Poles%2C+up+to+1%2C500%2C000+Romani%2C+200%2C000+handicapped%2C+political+and+religious+...+The+broadest+definition+would+include+6+million+Soviet+civilians%2C+raising+the+death+toll+to+17+million.&gs_l=psy-ab.3...44971.44971.0.45062.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.2.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.o-1uVAFcZhc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs)

Please continue the discussion on Talk:The Holocaust, so that others can join in. Many thanks! SarahSV ^(talk) 05:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Animal liberation

Template:Animal liberation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

ER

Hey, Sarah! I'd be willing to help oversee this apparently well-intentioned editor's work under certain agreed-upon conditions. I'd think at a minimum, she'd need to agree to a period of probation during which she doesn't independently add any new content to articles but only brings sources to article talk pages, suggests specific edits, waits for feedback, then makes exactly the agreed-upon edits. Length of probation indefinite, but at minimum a year and not to be lifted until we've seen many, many suggested specific edits that in their original form are not problematic w/re copyvio. I just hate to see it end this way for someone who clearly wants to improve and contribute in productive ways. --valereee (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, that's very kind of you. I was thinking we could put together a team, and perhaps you could lead it as the mentor, with several more of us willing to help out as needed. I agree that this is not a good way to treat someone who clearly means well and has done good work. I wouldn't want to see it be too restrictive though, because that would be a depressing way to have to edit, where everything has to be brought to talk first. Perhaps if she wants to create anything new she has to check first, either a new article or adding a large amount of new material to an existing one? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Sarah. I saw your question about just how much copyvio there'd been; I'm interested in that answer, too. My concern is that copyvio is absurdly difficult/tedious to detect and fix when a source isn't online or isn't in English. I'd be very leery of allowing someone who didn't yet understand what copyvio meant to add something I couldn't easily check. I'd literally want to be able to see, "Source says X. We currently say Y. Suggested change is to say Z" before I'd be comfortable saying I'd done my due diligence. Yes, it would be a depressing way to edit, but I really don't want to add to Dianaa's workload lol --valereee (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking through her deleted contributions. I've just started. The first article I looked at (Edith Dolan Riley) has two sentences in it (that I've noticed so far) lifted from the source, but the whole article was deleted by Fram as a copyvio, when all it needed (based on what I've looked at so far) was a slight rewrite. I'm therefore wondering to what extent the copyvio concerns are solid. I'm not saying they're not, but I'd like to see evidence. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, butting in quickly. Elisa mentioned Evangeline Marrs Whipple in her unblock request. Looking at the article history, there's a lot of rev-deleting. From what I witnessed there was a fair amount of that and we need to know why and whether the source misuse continued - I didn't follow that many of her edits so don't really know. As far as a crew or mentoring, a good start would be to set up a sub-page with a tutorial, explaining how to use sources, how to avoid plagiarism (even from PD sources) and to show a full understanding of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. The only way to know the full extent is to check a large sample of her work. I'd be happy to pitch in but it will take time and effort.

I know I sound like a broken record, but the process of bringing the unblock request to AN (where as an non-admin I shouldn't have chimed in) before making a plan seems wrong. The process argument is beyond me and I frankly don't have the patience for it, but let me know if you'd like me to check some articles (I don't use the CCI tool when I check for sourcing issues but I've had a good success rate) and whether you'd like me to take a stab at a tutorial. The only caveat is that I work very slowly these days, am not around that much. If a rush is required, then there's not a lot I can do. Victoria (tk) 17:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, thanks. If you'd be willing to write a tutorial, that would be extremely helpful, and not only for Elisa. I hear you about the time issue; I have the same problem. I'm currently looking through the deleted contribs, but if I were to do it thoroughly, it would take ages. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Evangeline Marrs Whipple, it copied or closely followed this source, which has a free licence. I can also see at least one sentence copied from this, which is not free. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, Montanabw, and Rosiestep: Valereee has kindly offered to help mentor Elisa for a probationary period of at least one year. Details to be worked out, but it will involve Elisa posting new content to talk for approval. I'd like to help too, and Victoria is willing to start work on a tutorial (time permitting). Would you also be willing to be part of the crew to get Elisa back to editing? It would involve keeping an eye on her, joining in talk-page discussion from time to time, helping with sources, and so on. If we can put together a plan, there's a better chance of getting her unblocked. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, time permitting, I'd be happy to join this mentoring collaboration. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. My real life has been kind of crazy since last November, but I will be glad to assist as time allows. Thank you for proposing this Sarah. SusunW (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I am very willing to help. Make sure anyone who needs to get a hold of me pings me so I'll know I'm needed. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

That's brilliant, everyone, thank you. Valereee, are you willing to put together a plan about what kinds of edits would need approval? Article creation, yes. Substantive new content (more than one paragraph) to existing articles, yes. Ordinary copy editing, including adding sources and slight expansion (up to one paragraph)? I would say no. What do you think, and do we need a special page to monitor it? If so, perhaps it could be a subpage in your user space (e.g. User:Valereee/mentoring). Or it could be done on article talk as needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'll put together a plan. I'm thinking at first, any actual addition that counts as more than what I think of as a copyedit probably needs oversight, if only to reassure the community that we're on it. Even a sentence fragment can represent copyvio, depending on how it's worded and how many other ways there are to say something. We could maybe plan to relax that as soon as we're comfortable that ER is getting copyvio. But let's talk about what copyediting even means. When I think of copyediting, I'm thinking of something that is done by skilled writers of English. What kinds of ce are you thinking ER would probably be doing that wouldn't need someone to check, at least at first?

Hm...having it on a single page would be helpful because people could just have that page on their watchlist instead of having to ping people. But that takes it off a given article's talk page. Hm. That's a question. Input on that? --valereee (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it might help Elisa to have a single page where she can ask for help, and if it's in user space, we can invite people to take part. By copy editing, I was thinking of her improving articles she has already worked on, where she's familiar with the sources and understands the pitfalls. We can check by looking; she wouldn't even know we were checking. I'm looking through her deleted contributions, and I'm really not finding anything terrible. I acknowledge that I've just started. But the first I looked at relied on PD sources, and therefore was not a copyvio, although the whole article was deleted as such (and it had copied only a couple of sentences from those PD sources). The second I looked at was similar. I think we need to avoid a situation where Elisa feels entirely boxed in. Help but not control. But if you prefer to do it on talk pages, I'd be fine with that. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, my preference is that Elisa agrees to work through the tutorial first (I can tailor it for her, using her articles) and understands that when I put on my teaching hat I tend to be a bit ... strict. My rules are simple and easy to understand: no copying, ever. Not from a PD source or any other type of source. It would be best to avoid issues about PD vs non-free: for example I wouldn't accept the biographical text from archiveswest. It's tricky because the words next to "Access Restrictions": are "open to all users", but I believe that refers to the collection itself (though I could be wrong). To avoid ambiguity and pitfalls it's best to reword everything. The language barrier seems to make that harder, but not really. I've known people who read a source in English, paraphrase it and write it down in their native language, then translate back to English. Anyway, I'll to put together a subpage for the tutorial as soon as a can but it'll take a few days to get started. Victoria (tk) 22:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoria: I agree about no copying ever. Archiveswest.orbiscascade.org says their words on that website are C0, but now I can't find which page that's on. But regardless, no copying is the best thing. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I third no copying virtually ever (only exceptions I make are quotes, which I very rarely use, and names, because I often write articles on non-English speakers.) As I have no earthly idea how to attribute a PD source, it is far easier to me to just read it and write it. I do something similar to what Victoria described because when I am straight translating from foreign sources, there are always things that don't actually make for smooth text in English. It's like that children's game when you whisper a story to the person next to you and by the time it goes around the circle it has nothing to do with the original. The tutorial sounds like a fabulous resource for many editors, not just Elisa. SusunW (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on no copying except for direct quotes, and use of quotes only when really needed. I'm finding it interesting that Sarah isn't finding scary bad copyvio, though. Would it be useful to have someone like Dianaa take a look? Is it possible this is all a tempest in a teapot? --valereee (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Sarah, I found the C0 notice all the way on the bottom of the Archiveswest.orbiscascade.org page, so apologies about that. But it does raise the issue of plagiarism vs. copyvio, which in my view needs to be taken into account. Will dig around and see what our current policies are and how far they deviate from my take that direct copy/paste should always be avoided. Will check back in a day or so. Victoria (tk) 00:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, bear in mind that I've only looked at a couple so far. But Fram is usually thorough, so I imagine he would have looked himself. There are 17,210 (97.5%) live edits, and 433 (2.5%) deleted (see edit count). I'd expect to find more deleted edits from someone engaged in a lot of copyvio, given the number of eyes on this since her first block for copyvio, which was in July 2017.

Victoria, I've long disagreed with the focus on copyvio rather than plagiarism, but I lost that argument. I think we should never copy-paste text. However, when editors do copy from PD sources, they're supposed to at least add a template to that effect at the end of the page. See WP:FREECOPYING, which is part of WP:PLAGIARISM. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I've put together a draft of a plan at User:Valereee/ER; feedback please. --valereee (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Valereee. I made one small edit for clarity. Can we/should we, address the other issue of mass deletions? This was one of the areas that caused frustration for Elisa and made her feel under attack. I have no idea how it works to have them draftified, but is that a reasonable solution so that they can be cleaned up and put back in main space? The problem I see is if they are deleted and she is not allowed to recreate them, even under our supervision, it may be uncomfortable for her. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

SusunW, I would assume it would involve checking those articles for copyvio that goes over the line between minor copyvio issues that are fixable and those that can't be kept in an article's history but must be deleted? It would be nice if we could save as much of her previous work as possible. She might be able to suggest which articles are the most promising candidates for draftifying. --valereee (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the approach of Elisa reviewing the previously-written promising candidates and working on those first. It would be a good way to demonstrate lessons learned. Plus, in theory, some of what was written was probably just fine, so it wouldn't require creating an article from scratch; it would be rescuing a previous deletion. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, that's great, thank you for doing that work. We can draftify anything that isn't a copyvio. Someone should check with Elisa which ones she'd like to start working on, and we can take it from there, assuming that's what she wants to do. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe Victoriaearle would be the right person to reach out, as Elisa will be working with her first as she goes through the tutorial, but what should we be telling her? We can't promise anything. --valereee (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, Elisa knows that we're working on this. We just have to check, once it's finalized, that she agrees with the proposal. Do you think we should propose this mentoring as part of the current thread on AN, or wait and open a new one? A couple of people are agitating to close the current thread. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it needs to stay open, if folks want to close it, as long as we make clear that we're working on this and will be requesting comment eventually, there or some other appropriate place. I think we're better off taking our time to get our ducks in a row, and that could take a few days. --valereee (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm going to ask the closing admin again to undo his close, so that at least she doesn't have that strike against her. Not sure it will make much difference, but I'll ask anyway. Meanwhile, let's move on with getting this proposal finalized. If there's anything specific I can do, let me know. I'm not overly keen on the issue of one of us having to mark her edits in an edit summary. Is it not enough that we say we're keeping an eye on her edits? I'm thinking of it from her perspective; she's not a child and in fact is a good editor, so far as I can see, especially given that English isn't her first language. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

SV, I think the null edits do several things. They make sure the team isn't wasting time making checks when someone else has made them. They reduce the chance some other editor watching the situation thinking we haven't checked and jumping in to nitpick a perfectly reasonable edit. And they let the community see that we are indeed on top of it. I'm open to some other way to do this that feels less like micromanagement to ER, but IMO I do think we need to, at least at first, show that we're not just paying lip service to this mentoring. --valereee (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, okay, you make good points. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, a quick response (short on time at the moment). The best approach to something like this is begin with an assessment which can be done through a series of questions to determine which area/s need more or less focus. The worst thing to do would be to dump a bunch of blue links and say, "read these". It's something I do intuitively (sorry that sounds a bit touchy/feely) and is hard for me articulate. Regardless, I've had enough time to look at some articles, have prepared a plan, and can be ready to start whenever. Where to do it is an issue. Since she's blocked we might have to start on her talk page - if she's allowed- though I'd have to subject myself and her to having the entire project watching. On the one hand it might be good for people to see what I have in mind, on the other it might be nerve wracking for both of us. Ideally I'd set up a subpage, but it's best that she demonstrates understanding before subjecting her again to another AN pile on. That of course is only my opinion. Btw - Valeree, pings don't seem to work on your subpage, but I do have it on watch. I'm watching and will try to keep up. Victoria (tk) 14:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoria, thank you so much for doing this. If one concern is doing it so publicly, you could set up a page on Meta (perhaps a user subpage). People would be able to see it, but fewer would look. If you want to do it here, a subpage of hers would make sense. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize a ping wouldn't work there. Re: the tutoring, what it entails, where it happens...I agree that a bunch of links to policy and guidelines aren't the point of this. What I was getting at was more a general idea of the things you have in mind that you'll want to check her knowledge of, then work with her on anything you find. So you might say something like 'the tutorial will include confirming knowledge of X, Y, and Z, and covering anything within those that seems to need clarifiction.' The things that were brought up as issues at ANI, I'd think. I also agree that doing it in public is uncomfortable, but might be helpful in gaining community support. Sarah, good idea about Meta. --valereee (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a valid question, but if you don't mind I'd like to be intentionally vague. Basically the subject at hand is "How to edit Wikipedia" and the more focused subject is "How to use sources correctly" which encompasses best practices re sourcing. This includes definitions of various aspects of what we lump under the umbrella of copyvio, with emphasis on what not to do and what to do.

The best way to approach a task like this isn't through what's called an indirect assessment, i.e a multiple choice test, but rather through what's called a direct assessment - these often take the form of diagnostic writing or portfolios. Elisa has a portfolio of work, which is a helpful starting place. A good way of doing something like this is a modified form of Socratic questioning, using the texts of our policies and the portfolio to tease out what needs to be done, which areas need more focus, explanations, etc., and which areas less. Hence beginning with an assessment that takes the form of a question and answer (in written form).

Have I ever done anything like this on Wikipedia? No. I've done in it real life, quite often, and the results depend on many factors but it can be surprisingly effective. My background and training is in basic skills, various learning modalities, with an emphasis on ESL learners. As far as Wikipedia is concerned I've had experience scrubbing articles and trying to work with their authors - but it's an area inevitably filled with conflict and I've not done it for a while. I'm not really all that well known, but some people know me and are aware of some of the work I've done (per WP:BEANS not going into more detail). I'll read the AN thread carefully to be certain I've not left out any valid concerns.

After some thought I think it's best to get started on Elisa's page if that would be allowed. Meta is a good idea, but my time is extremely limited for various reasons and there will be linking and such, which is easier for me here where I'm familiar with the markup. It would be nice if we could left alone at the beginning and I will set up my own dedicated sandbox for others to pop in, leave suggestions, comments, etc.

To be absolutely honest I'm used to working in an environment where success rates with students rarely reached 50%, so I think I can be objective and I'm quite pragmatic. Hope this helps. Thanks Sarah for hosting this discussion. Victoria (tk) 20:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoria, I see no reason you shouldn't work on her talk page. Once people see what's happening, I can't imagine anyone objecting. I emailed her to let her know about this discussion, and she has agreed to the proposals, so feel free to get started whenever you're ready. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

After reading this, I'm comfortable with Victoria running this sort of by the seat of her pants. We can just point to this convo anyone who has a question. --valereee (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. Let's wait to see whether there's input from anyone else or whether anyone else has questions. I've decided I will set up a dedicated sandbox/subpage in my user space to field questions re the tutorial itself, and can't get to that immediately. If it's okay I'd like to wait until tomorrow to get started. Also, just to warn everyone (and I'll explain this to Elisa) because of some health issues I'm never certain of availabilty, so we'll be working in fits or starts if that's ok with everyone? If I'm feeling ok, I hope to get started tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoria looks fine to me. Glad you ran the ideas and discussion by Elisa, Sarah. Let me know if you need me. As I said, I am around, but for the rest of the week have a lot of commitments. SusunW (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, fits and starts is fine with me. --valereee (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Valereee, would it make sense to move the discussion at User talk:Valereee/ER to your talk page? I was hoping that your ER page could be dedicated to the mentorship so that Elisa would be interacting on a supportive page without talk of sanctions. It's up to you, though; this is just a suggestion. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's a good idea. I was trying to figure out how to work it so that editors who weren't actually part of the mentoring team could feel welcome to comment, but not there. On my talk page felt a little public, but I guess my talk page is a lot less public than some!  :) I've moved it, but it may just happen again. valereee (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• In the interests of avoiding any appearance of trying to go around the rules, should Victoria and ER's work move to meta? --valereee (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Valereee, there probably isn't much more to go, so it would seem a shame to interrupt it. Let's wait to see what the response is. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

    OMG. WTF? --valereee (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

    It's unfortunate for sure. I suggest we carry on putting the final touches to the mentoring plan. I'm going to read it again and I may post something on User talk:Valereee/ER. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Continuation of An thread here (Elisa.rolle cci)

The an thread is getting to be very large and cluttered, so discussion is best continued here. With what you last said at An, that means that she likely had problems paraphrasing, not copying large chunks of text over. This is a good and bad thing; The good thing is, this makes the CCI less urgent. The bad thing is, it's harder to detect bad paraphrasing than it is direct copyvios, so the cci will likely take longer. Regarding the deletion of the article, I'm not sure what to make of that; I'll relay what Fram says once he responds on meta. Thanks for your assistance, 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 02:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Money emoji, I've seen three articles of Elisa's so far that have been deleted as copyvios that should not have been:

• Isabel Pell (created by Elisa in August 2017), deleted by Jimfbleak at Ritchie333's request, supposedly copied from http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biop1/pell01.html. But that webpage says: "Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".
• Edith Dolan Riley (created by Elisa in October 2018), deleted by Fram because parts of it closely followed http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv58477/pdf. But that webpage is C0.
• Caroline Elizabeth Newcomb (created by Elisa in October 2017), deleted by Justlettersandnumbers, citing copyvio of [1] and [2]. The latter, which the article did copy, is cc-by; Elisa needed to add an appropriate template. The former is not free, but the article used very little from the former, and the sentences it did use were tweaked, not enough but you can see the effort had been made.

SarahSV ^(talk) 02:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

These "copyvios" are confusing me and don't seem to add up, so I think a different plan of action is needed. It's late where I live now, so tomorrow I'm going to run this by Jlan and try and figure out the exact nature of these vios, and then figure out what to do about the CCI and the Elisa situation moving forward. Once again, thank you for your detective work.... One way or another, I have a good feeling that this will bring down that massive CCI and benefit the project. Thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 02:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Justlettersandnumbers and Fram are on break, so this mystery is going to be on hold for a bit. Thanks again for your help. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 23:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Money emoji: thanks for letting me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Both are back now from their breaks --valereee (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

So sorry for the delay, I took the month of August off. Jlan didn't respond, which is ok because Fram responded instead (although only the first sentence is really relevant), where he said she copied from both. This worries me, and presents 3 options: we look for the books she plagarized from, which would take a while, delete all articles she cited books in per CCI guidelines, or unblock her and have her tell us the books she plagarized from as part of her unblock conditions. I'd like 3 the most, but all options are feasible; 1 especially if you and your friends can help out. Again, I'm so sorry for the long gap in a response. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 14:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi I didnt know if you could help me with a draft i created

Hi :) my draft was turned down and i didnt know if you could help me on it. Even if it' only pointers. Im in hopes maybe you could help rewrite or edit it to make it comply with wikipedia standards if you are interested. Thank you i left a link below so you could find the draft

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DG3_Rappers-_Amber_Richhart_and_Angelia_Richhart?markasread=167544488&markasreadwiki=enwiki Angel7112114 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Angel7112114, I'm sorry I won't have time to help with that. Rewriting it would be a big job. All I can suggest is that you pull out the three most-reliable independent sources, and write a much shorter article based tightly around those sources. Sorry I can't be of more help. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I appreciate it alot. Do you know any one that may be able to help me? Angel7112114 (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Try reading Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia (though it's a little dry); then follow up at Wikipedia:Teahouse for things you don't understand (but do try to help yourself first; just throwing yourself on people's mercy without showing that you have tried to help yourself doesn't work as well), and definitely go through the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure interactive tutorial. On talk pages, you don't have to start a new section to continue a conversation, just edit the existing section - I took the liberty of merging your sections together. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) As GRuban says, you could ask for advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is for new editors. I don't think you'll find anyone to help rewrite it, but there might be someone there who can advise generally. Going through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure is also a good idea. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoops - sorry, misread the timestamps, and thought you hadn't responded for a while. Didn't mean to barge in to an active conversation! --GRuban (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No, please go ahead, GRuban, you're welcome, not barging. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Cookies

		Cookies!
		Essayist1 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thank you for your help last week. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Essayist1 (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Essayist1, many thanks, and thank you for making the case for deletion. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)