Legacy researchers[edit]

The following users are members of the researchers user group which provides limited access to deleted information. These users have been contacted to see if they still require this access for whichever special project they were working on, but have not responded. As a routine cleanup, I propose we remove this flag from these accounts at this time, barring any specific objection. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• User:Cervisiarius
  • Added in 2015
  • Contacted for follow up 2 weeks ago
• User:DarTar
  • Added in 2010
  • Contacted for follow up 2 weeks ago
• User:Digitalshawn
  • Added in 2011
  • Contacted for follow up 2 weeks ago
• User:Staeiou
  • Added in 2011
  • Contacted for follow up 2 weeks ago

Comments

• Thanks xaosflux, this looks desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Seems a logical action to take Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Makes sense. I'm almost surprised there's no natural time-out for this user right (by which I mean either a manual or automatic process). Sam Walton (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  We probably should grant the right now with access for the duration of the researcher's project rather than indefinitely. They can reapply as necessary. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  That seems like a reasonable take, IMO. Any non-admin have any opinions here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Oh gosh did I just get referred to as an admin? Careful, my demotion might go to my head. --Izno (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not an admin, but, even so, I can grit my teeth and still agree with both Xaosflux and Izno. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• It would be good to contact the person/the WMF team who added them to the group since these rights were not granted by the community in the first place. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Ammarpad: some aren't around and I did contact all of the researchers with old grants, a few replied that they were still working on their projects so I skipped them above - these are only the non-responsive people. Ideally the WMF staffers would be engaged in these projects and would update this, but history has shown that this sort of clean up rarely occurs. I agree also with @Izno: that now that temporary access is available the staffers that are managing these projects could use that feature. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  That's why I said "person/the WMF team". I know the person might no longer be working for WMF, but on whose behalf they acted still exists. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Follow up, the staffers that added these accesses are no longer with WMF for these accounts. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Not all. Catrope added it for DarTar and he's still working for the Foundation. For the rest, current chief of research is probably the best person to ask whether the access is still needed. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, looked over that one due to the old naming convention. Certainly the users "using" this access should be able to speak up if they have a need though, like I said anyone who claimed a need I skipped. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  DarTar actually isn't working for the WMF anymore, per User:Dario (WMF). Sam Walton (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  The reference is to Catrope not DarTar. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with all of the above — reasonable removal, expiries should ideally be used in the future. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• SRP request filed for removal. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Removed. RadiX∞ 18:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

False password request[edit]

I just received an e-mail saying that "someone, probably [me]" had requested a reset of my password. It wasn't me. Of course the e-mail tells me to ignore the message if someone else made the request, but I'm a bit worried. I mean, why would anyone attempt this if s/he has no access to my e-mail? Steinbach (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Some options for you are: someone who thought they had an account by the name of Steinbach on Wikipedia (for example, someone did register that username at jawiki[1] and ptwiki[2]); someone mis-remembering their similar username; someone trying to be annoying; or a hacker with no clue. You can therefore usually just ignore it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I got that message as well on Friday (a request from 99.157.240.152). Apparently, there's some attack going on (which isn't uncommon on the Internet at all). If you've been using your WP password elsewhere you should change it ASAP and make sure you use different passwords for different sites. If you've got a strong password and it's uniquely used for WP there's nothing to worry about, just ignore that email. --Zac67 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. @Zac67: I already suspected I wasn't the only one. Mine came from a different IP, but one registered in the US where I've never set foot in all my life. Steinbach (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I got that message as well. It seemed to come from an IP in Poland.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• The normal thing to do with such messages is quite simple; just ignore them, as has been already said. Many people are indeed doing so, otherwise we would be seeing deluge of posts like this everyday. But the good news is that very soon (probably early next year) users would have even more control on their accounts and power to stop such messages completely by electing to require both username and email before any password reset mail is sent. This would be when the work on Password Reset Update project is finally completed. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If any of you want to watch that project, I suggest leaving a note at m:Talk:Community Tech/Password Reset Update. The PM seems to ping people who have been talking about the project. Otherwise, I'm sure that it'll be announced in m:Tech/News when it's finally done. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote for similar named organization without an article?[edit]

Wikimedia received an inquiry ticket:2019120410011208 regarding an issue with a similar named organization.

While I explained that we typically used a hat note when we have two organizations with similar names in Wikipedia, it appears that in this case, one of the organizations has a Wikipedia article and the other does not. I looked at the Guidance Wikipedia:Hatnote but I didn't see clear coverage of how this should be handled.

The Wikipedia article is OpenStudio, while the similarly named organization has a website here.

Is it, or should it be acceptable to create a hat note to explained that the Wikipedia article is not about the business management site?S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of any hatnote is to provide a quick link to the article about a similarly named entity. If such an entity does not have an article then no hatnote is necessary. On the other hand one should consider notability of the entity. If it is is notable then an article about it should be created and a hatnote added. Ruslik_Zero 20:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. What would we do when an article name could be confused with dozens or hundreds of similarly named entities without articles? Sam Walton (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

As Ruslik0 and Samwalton9 have mentioned hatnotes are for navigation among existing articles. If there isn't an article the hatnote will be a redlink and that is not useful. The same applies to "See also" sections. If the guidelines for either of these does not mention this then I would suggest adding a sentence about red links not being created and/or removed for both. MarnetteD|Talk 21:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• The convention on this is clear and simple; we don't link nonexisting article in hatnote. WP:REDHAT clearly explains that. Either the subject is notable (so create the article first) or it's not (therefore no article, no hatnote). – Ammarpad (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Contributing Money[edit]

I clear junk like cookies after each session online. I contribute 2£GBP occasionally but find next session I get the begging bowl come round again. Blunt Sword WP is using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.17.60 (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

So you know the source of your problem and the solution to it. Except you still call cookies "junk". I don't see a basis for complaint here. I have been on hundreds of websites in the past ten years, and 98% of them have far more intrusive advertising than Wikipedia's occasional banner. Elizium23 (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

When you walk down the street and see some charity's funds collector or just a poor beggar at the corner. And you drop some coin into his box or hat. Do you expect him to disappear from that corner the next time you walk there? Why would you expect so – just because you gave him a pound or two a week ago...??? --CiaPan (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There are browser extensions that allow you to create a whitelist of cookies that are protected from deletion. I would suggest that you get one. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

New Years' Eve[edit]

Hello Wikipedians! For those of you using the Gregorian calendar, what are you doing for New Years' Eve? I'm watching a TV broadcast of Vika and Linda performing a live cover of ABBA's Fernando (song), and Casey Donovan (singer) performing I Will Survive (song). And it's awesome that we have articles on all of thos things! Pelagic (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC) (disclaimer: I may have been wining earlier [does anyone know the link to that page?])

face palm "thos"

@Pelagic: WP:WHAAOE. --CiaPan (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

<thumbs up> thanks, CiaPan. Exactly that! Happy New Year. Pelagic (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Happy New Year from Sydney, Australia — UTC+11! Can't believe those peeps from New Zealand and Kiribati didn't get in first. Pelagic (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal Life sections of BLPs[edit]

Here is a story in the Washington Post about "Personal Life" sections in biographies of living persons. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obsessed-with-wikipedia-personal-life-entries-youre-not-alone/2019/12/30/cb31a50a-2673-11ea-9c21-2c2a4d2c2166_story.html Basically, many readers like these sections, so that, as long as we are in compliance with verifiability and the requirements for reliable sources and other aspects of the policies on biographies of living persons, maybe we should remember that is The Reader for whom we are writing the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Only as a comment: this quote stuck out to me, That explains why many facts are left out. Earlier this year, a piece by Allie Jones in the Outline argued that “The ‘Personal Life’ sections on many men’s pages are severely lacking” and pointed out some “abhorrent” men skate by with brief entries while women’s are filled with — sometimes scandalous — details. Not only on BLP but across the board, too many editors are facsinated to document the scandalous side of any topic (even beyond the gender bias), which leads to a good chunk of the behavioral problems that end up at AN/ANI or at ArbCom. Our goal should not be to try to document all the scandalous details simply because we can pull from a wide range of sources; when material is potentially scandalous (or may violate privacy, or may have other harm), we should be guided by RSes to avoid undue coverage in any part of someone's private life. --Masem (t) 07:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This may be an issue of WP:DUE. When you consider that most tabloids enjoy documenting the scandalous sides of the lives of celebrities, politicians, et.al., it is rare that we see "John Smith brings his wife flowers every Sunday and they own two very cute puppies which are the apples of his eye. Smith supports 3 local charities by volunteering every Saturday." Elizium23 (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not only tabloids. I have read entire books on men's biographies that did not even mention wife or kids, while even a short article on a woman's bio will usually mention marital status. Sexism runs deep in this area. WP did not invent it and it's just a reflection of available sources and their biases. Renata (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)