User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch85

AH error

Figured it out; forgot to change the actions from action2 to action3 when i put it in. They're two distinct topics so the two FTC promotions is technically right. For that matter I forgot to change FTA to FTC as well (noticed it on others where I made the error, forgot there). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Otis Redding

hello,

do you have spare time? If yes, could you copyedit an article? Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 21:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Have you seen Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed? I'm finding more issues this month than I was last, not quite sure why...Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No, barely keeping up, but I'll go look now-- the last I saw was two uncited hooks, both original research, neither corrected (still, and glaringly wrong although defended at DYK), both passed by the same reviewer who seems to be trying to do too much to keep up with volume there-- I'll go have a look now, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, that's excellent, but can you expand the page to somehow include the faulty hooks that ran nonetheless on the mainpage? Those include last week's stab wound (the hook is incorrect and the text is nowhere in the article), and Maroon Creek Bridge (see the talk page, Daniel Case has still not corrected the factual error in the article, the source says the bridge is a "relic", nothing "only significant", which is made up, since there are plenty of other remnants of the rail there). Great work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That sort of thing would maybe be better off in userspace rather than as a subpage of DYK? I'm trying to think of how best to approach it, will get back to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's where the real damage is done, and I'm tweaked that Daniel Case still hasn't corrected the error-- too many take their DYK bauble and never return to the article. You're tracking where the process is working, but not tracking where it's not working! (Some is better than nothing, but grumble, grumble ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just looked closer at each removed nom, and it looks like you're doing all the heavy lifting over there, while one editor continues to approve faulty hooks ... glad to see the record keeping and the accountability-- perhaps that editor needs to work elsewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I made the page - see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_74#Is_there_a_need_for_the_list_of_noms_returned_to_the_noms_page.3F for a related discussion. I'm tracking when it's working, but it's only working there because I'm catching things in queue (and in many cases arguing with the people creating such things to catch!). Tracking when it's not working requires that someone acknowledge when it's not working, and unless someone checks everything after it hits the Main Page that's tricky. You do good work in that area, but unless it's acknowledged that a hook is "faulty" you're likely going to be fighting over its inclusion in a "faulty hook" page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

FAC has its FAR, GAN has its GAR, but I guess DYK has no YWF (You Were Fooled)-- once a hook, always a hook, even when wrong. Perhaps I'll find time to track them myself, since word of the faulty hooks finds its way to me. And if Daniel Case doesn't correct that article soon, I may go do it myself. We're not supposed to just make it up-- original research may happen all the time on Wikipedia, but we don't need to put that sort of thing on the mainpage. Glad to see you've got at least one helper on that page-- the accountability may help turn things around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Lovely.

• Did you know ... that immunologist and AIDS advocate Robert Frascino considered himself privileged after being infected with HIV?

Not exactly wording found in the sources, a bit of supposition and original research, trying too hard to be hooky, and inspired by the DYK reviewer, Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Frascino. Working at DYK could make a sane person nuts. I wonder if his family, on reading that, considered him "privileged" to be dead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a pretty awful hook - although it did get me to click on the article, so maybe its awfulness served its purpose? In fact, Frascino was devastated to learn that he'd been infected, as any sane person would be. Over time, it would seem, he came to feel that being both an HIV-positive individual and a physician specializing in HIV/AIDS gave him a unique and valuable perspective. Of course, that's a bit too nuanced to fit in a hook. MastCell ^Talk 16:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night again

I'd be interested on your views on whether FA criteria are being represented correctly in continuing discussion at Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. This diff is obviously disgraceful from the point of view of civility; but the driver for the ongoing strife seems to be the feeling that the article has become a "walled garden". On that talk page the use of a FAR is the solution offered, rather than typical iterations of an attempt to reach consensus (on the scope of the article). Now some of us saw the RfC associated largely with this ruckus as misdirection from that point: if there is real disagreement on the scope of an article, it is not obviously a good idea if one side of the debate decides to push for FA status before the matter is better resolved.

In any case, what are the options? Presumably a FAR could simply be opened to look again at the issue of whether the article represents the topic fairly. If familiar arguments are simply brought to a new forum, will there be resulting clarification? In any case the discord is not going away. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First, that diff concerns me, and I 'spose it's a good thing I'm not an admin, because after perusing just a wee bit of that talk page, Parrot of Doom is not the only one I'd be blocking. I don't care who started it (although I have a good idea, seeing some familiar names in there, and some perseveration on issues), but someone should stop it, and Parrot of Doom should be taking the high road, since he was backed by the FAC.

Second, there are a number of persistent editors weighing in on that talk page who don't seem to get the message that they have been beating a dead horse for a long time. Yes, Consensus can change, but the consensus at the FAC was that a few editors were asking for TRIVIA to be added to the article, and FAs don't contain trivia typicaly. As I recall, the disagreement on the scope of the article came from a select group of editors, there was not concensus to support their view, and that they are STILL at it is disruptive IMO.

If a FAR is the only way to get the point across (re TRIVIA), it might be helpful-- except, FAR is not dispute resolution, and those editors should try other means of DR, since there is no basis for the argument that the article doesn't meet FA crit, unless something has changed since the FAC.

I believe your specific question to me is whether WP:WIAFA is being correctly represented in that talk page discussion. Per TLDR, could you please give me specific diffs that concern you as they relate to WIAFA? You didn't link me to the RFC, the "walled garden" comment, etc, so I'm unsure what your concern is-- I do see ongoing perseveration and disruption, and perhaps some ANI attention is warranted. Other than that, I'm afraid I'd just be reading through section after section of incivility-- some from editors who have been at the same issue for months, a few who are notoriously persistent and uncivil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The leadup to the diff I gave is this diff which is answered only by an ad hominem argument. The point made being that we are talking about a festival, I think it deserved better than that. The exclusion of sources relevant to traditions is quite serious here. That is one point: if work such as that of the Opies in folklore cannot be brought up, the article certainly risks not being "comprehensive". Further, the whole debate here hinges on what "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" is for a festival. My personal view would be that "stability" has been at the cost of an emphasis within the criterion of "high-quality reliable sources" on a restricted kind of source. But that is exactly the point an FAR might lay to rest. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I think this is a pattern that recurs frequently. The conversation goes something like this, in general terms:

"I think the article should mention X!"

OK, but do any reliable sources mention X?

"X is important. It's a travesty that the article doesn't mention X!"

Yes, I get that you think it's important, but what about reliable sources?

"I am a published expert and I know that X is important! Not mentioning X makes Wikipedia look like a joke!"

Stop it - if reliable sources don't mention X, then Wikipedia won't mention X.

"Well, reliable sources would mention it, except that academics are biased and only care about getting grants so they don't listen to new ideas."

That's as may be, but I'm getting tired of asking: do you have any reliable sources?

"Yes. Here are a dozen self-published websites and a passing mention in a footnote on page 276 of a reliable source."

But WP:RS isn't a hoop to Google your way through. It's supposed to ensure that we actually reflect the emphases of reliable sources.

"You know, scientists and academics were wrong about Y, so I don't know why we consider them authorities on X!"

For fuck's sake. Either produce a reliable source or shut the fuck up about X!!!!

"OMG incivility! OMG ownership!"

So I guess it depends on what you see as the problem in the above exchange. Most Wikipedians, I will grant, would point to the incivility at the end, although I see things a bit differently. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That's about it-- kinda the same thing I've been through with Hugo Chavez-- but the person who is relying on reliable sources should keep the high road ... not always easy, but since admins, arbs etc don't do "content disputes", sometimes the folks who are right get sunk by being driven to distraction and falling into the "civility" trap ... there are some at that talk page who can drive one to the brink :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly how I see it MastCell, every day, and not just with GFN. I've come to the conclusion that it's deliberate on the part of certain editors to provoke others into incivility so they can go running off to one of the playgrounds demanding that something (by which they always mean a block) should be done about the horrible editor they've just driven to distraction. Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• I saw this conversation and I took the liberty of blocking everybody involved er, requesting a restart of the conversation in talk. I hope that's ok. --John (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to say that hasn't already been said. Until somebody presents reliable authoritative sources that demonstrate the importance or relevance of songs, rhymes, poems, parkin, treacle, fireworks in other countries, whatever, my view that such things are essentially trivia will remain unchanged. As for civility, I have repeatedly had to endure muck being thrown in my direction. They may not use rude words but the intent is the same - grind good faith editors into the ground to get their own way. I am sick of it and will endure it no longer, on that article or anywhere else here.
  • Oh, and did anyone else notice that PBS stuck his head back in there and again tried to justify his earlier stance? Parrot of Doom 18:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I noticed all of the above, but PoD, 'ya still gotta take the road, or "they win, you lose", since admins/arbs don't do content disputes, but do do civility patrol. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

	Helpful comments
	Many thanks for your helpful comments on the article I nominated for FA review. Marj (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiving reference links for FA noms

Hi SandyGeorgia. Thanks for all you many years of work improving the quality of articles. It's certainly appreciated. As you're our resident expert, I was wondering if you had any opinion about archiving reference links for articles that are nominated for FA status. There was a thread about it at VPP a while ago that had support for it. I resurrected the thread a few days ago and thought I'd ask you opinion. Here's the link Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals#Automatically archive all reference links when an article gets FA nominated. Thanks again for all you service to the project. Best reagrds. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposal on that page is for promoted to FA status, but here yo said nominated for FA status-- it seems to me that archiving references for all nominations would be an incentive for premature FACs. I'm not aware of any problems with this proposal if it's done for those promoted, but I doubt that anyone will do the work, and if they do, I hope they don't do it in a way that alters citation formatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Yes, promoted not nominated. Thanks for the input. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why

has Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hard (song)/archive1 been closed already?????? It's only been open for 6 days. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 16:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Two opposes and no supports would be my guess. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Two opposes, no support, and multiple other comments indicating that the article was not yet ready for FAC-- a peer review might help better get it into shape at this point (articles really shouldn't appear at FAC with the number of basic issues reviewers identified in that one). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The first reviewer said that if I did all of his points, which I did, then his vote would change to a support. And the only other Oppose didn't really give me anything to go by in order to improve. But my main issue is that there are FACs which haven't been touched for a week and yet they are still open, if mine is being closed, then those others without doubt should be too. I think you were a bit to eager to close my nomination of Hard, because everyone else's appear to have been there for weeks. How am I mean't to make it FAC standard if you close it after 6 days? And the article had been copy edited by a member of the GOCE, and it was also listed for Peer Review, but you never get anywhere with those, no one can be bothered to do them. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/archive1

Okay, in reference to this one, you mentioned: "Generally, my concerns about aircraft and ship articles are general, not related to any given editor, because too often, non-MilHist editors will not engage because they find them boring and too full of lingo and numbers. Since most non-Milhist reviewers won't engage ships and planes, I have to spotcheck prose myself, and I almost always find issues in those articles, even after MilHist support." First, I'm a big fan of your work, and the times that you say that the prose in an article isn't up to FAC standards, I agree with your assessment almost every time. Second, prose in aviation FACs is a problem that hasn't been solved ... and it may never be solved, or it might take a while. We've tried everything we can think of at Milhist to get more aviation editors to nominate and review at our A-class review, with limited success. Third, I choose to see your comments at the linked FAC as supportive of my efforts rather than in opposition to me or Milhist ... this is stuff that I either silently fix or say something about every day, and clearly, I've been less than successful in getting my message across ... and your help is much appreciated.

OTOH ... on ship articles, you're saying this isn't about any one editor, but you're aware that I'm largely copyediting alone on Milhist FACs, so it seems likely that your comments are going to be interpreted as being aimed at me ... such as your edit summary ... "the usual" ... as if the undefined acronyms, redundancies and wrong tenses you point out in this one, which I hadn't copyedited yet, are usual in ship FACs. Over the last year, most of the ship articles have sailed through FAC (haha) ... were there problems with these that weren't pointed out at the time? And saying that someone outside Milhist needs to copyedit them suggests I'm not capable of seeing the problems even when they're pointed out to me ... is there any evidence of that? That's not the message I'm generally getting. Milhist people are aware that, this month and next, I don't have time to copyedit at A-class, so articles are showing up at FAC in less than perfect (okay, less than less than perfect) shape. One possible solution would be just to ask Milhist people not to bring articles to FAC until they've gotten a thorough copyedit somewhere. Thoughts? Again, I'm a fan and we've got the same goals here ... I just wish that if there's some major problem (and calling these problems "the usual" suggests that there is), you'd let me know about it article by article so I can deal with it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I think I'm going to have to oppose on this FAC, too. Changed my mind after seeing the edit history ... there's too much to fix here, and I don't want to get involved. This month and next, I'm not going to have time to work on aviation articles. Maybe in December. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My comments aren't aimed at you at all, ships are certainly getting better, but aviation remains a problem. They always have prose issues, and they always get support anyway (hence, "the usual"). It would be nice if we could get someone interested in addressing the aviation articles. Thanks for all you do, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. I'm working on a plan to recruit copyeditors. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If they didn't get support with obvious prose deficiencies, it would be nice as well :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I do understand the problem ... it puts the delegates in an impossible position (since you see your job as judging consensus) if you get 6 supports and no opposes for an article with obvious prose problems, and if it ever got to be a regular thing, that would be worse. I'm going back through all our current non-aviation FACs now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Gag order on discussing minors at RfAs, proposed at my RfC

Hi Sandy!

I was asked to agree that I would only state an objection to a minor becoming an administrator, as part of the closing summary of my RfC: I was not supposed to elaborate my objections. Since many of the minors have also had problems with poor scholarship and other policies, this would have chilled my ability to document misunderstanding of WP policies. (This seems to have been dropped.)

I objected to another statement, by which I am supposed to consult with a "neutral third party" (sic.) before writing about issues I "feel strongly about", "before they escalate". I stated that this was absurd, and noted my strong feelings that 1+1=2. Then I was told that the relevant example was (again) minors at RfAs.

Regardless of my feelings about the wisdom of this RfC, it is utterly improper to manipulate the closing statement to put a gag order on me, when our RfA policy allows editors freely to oppose minors. A gag order was not listed as a desired outcome of the RfC, and the complaints about RfA discussions have been ignored by the outside commentators.

I have noted an increasing concern about the group-thinking and scape-goating increasingly visible at the RfA Deform, for example the hysteria/threats/edit-warring about KeepsCases.

BTW, Pedro has referred to my concerns about "sexism" (in his quotes), and I referred to the "courting the Wikipedia fraternity" (only to have a glossing of "courting", which ignored "fraternity" quite nicely).

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I quote for convenience (from above)

I embolden and add italics for emphasis:

Demiurge1000 suggested this, which I quickly rejected:

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz agrees to limit himself to a simple statement about his views, rather than engaging in an prolonged argument, when someone under the age of minority applies to be a Wikipedia administrator.

WormThatTurned suggested this:

• DRAFT: "It is recommended that Kiefer.Wolfowitz discusses future issues with a neutral third party he trusts before they escalate, especially in areas he holds strong opinions."

• Thank you for the clarification. Under the circumstances, that seems rather weak to me... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I feel strongly that 1+1=2, but I shall not consult with anybody. Also the sentence's syntax is convoluted, I'm sorry to say, and "neutral" is redundant. I suggested the following  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  Before he strongly criticizes sources or edits, Kiefer.Wolfowitz should reflect on past experiences and consider discussing such criticism with any competent third-party.

• KW, there's a large difference between feeling strongly that 1+1=2 - which is a fact (for the majority of situations, I'm sure we can come up with a few where it isn't) - and you feeling strongly that say, that minors shouldn't be admins. All the above is recommending (and you don't have to follow the recommendation, but it is good practice), is you keep an eye on a situation and discuss it with someone you trust before letting things get too far. I'd not be happy with comments like "competent third party", as it is hard to quantify... I know there are people you'd regard as incompetent who I wouldn't. Also it's not just criticizing sources or edits, it's also commenting on editors. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course Keifer didn't actually bother to mention that it was another editor (Elen of the Roads) who made the commentary regarding courting [1] - but then he wouldn't would he. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(FetchComms is ready to block Elen and myself, so I did not mention her.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is this posted to my page, and where is this RFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why this is here I have no clue, but the RFC is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  21:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not only here, but it's now further up this page (in a section from September) as well. If Kiefer continues pasting sections of other talk pages into Sandy's talk page, he'll soon make manage to make this page into as much of a confused tl;dr mess as he's managed with the RfC/U and his own talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That RFC is a TLDR mess, and any experienced Wikipedian knows that discussing behaviors of child admins (and editors) is off-limits. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to add-- I'm typically pretty busy keeping up with damage done to articles by child editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You should be concerned about decisions that muzzle discussion at RfC. You have previously acknowledged my discussions of candidates' scholarship (at least once) or other issues, so I had wished that you would be concerned about a ban on my writing future discussions without having a prior consultation.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to follow that mess (nothing can be done about the demise of Wikipedia caused by child editors, since we have no means of stopping them from editing, and numerous senior editors who endorse their presence), but all I see is "Kiefer.Wolfowitz agrees to limit himself to a simple statement about his views, rather than engaging in an prolonged argument, when someone under the age of minority applies to be a Wikipedia administrator", and that isn't going to stop anyone from commenting reasonably on an admin candidate's preparedness, knowledge, or qualifications, whether child or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That phrase certainly won't stop me, from commenting.

However, that phrase will be blue-linked and cited in anguished cries of indignation in the future, by those who don't know what they are doing. You may recall that your reasonable comments have received many complaints by those who love to blue-link WP:AGF at RfAs.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

SandyG is, as usual, quite right. Let's not be too precious about this, and let's move on. My view on child administrators is likely as well known as your own, but there are senior editors here who are unable to see things as clearly as we can. In many cases that's because they no longer edit, just pontificate, so they don't experience the daily frustrations that we peons do. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The directors of writing on Wikipedia have cast me as Cassandra, then!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Would that there were "directors of writing". Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice use of the subjunctive!

When you are born a lion, you do not need a tag reading "Leo".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry about the mess Sandy. Kiefer won't (can't??) use diffs, so everyone is currently getting the copypasta treatment.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My goodness, how did we all end up here? Sorry Sandy for invading - I hoped the next time we'd run into each other would be at something more content based. DYK or FAC or something. It wasn't even about minors as admins, that was just an example of an area I knew KW felt passionate, as I explained here. Hopefully this won't happen again. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it :) We probably ended up here because it is known that I am concerned about the damage done to Wikipedia by child editors (child admins shouldn't even be a matter for discussion IMO), but I'm not about to pick to engage in an unwinnable debate. It's easy enough to find problems in their behaviors and editing at RFA, that we needn't get into the obvious issues of children playing on the internet before they've had the opportunity to learn conflict resolution, correct paraphrasing, correct use of sourcing, or how to play soccer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the damage is done by incompetent or lazy editors, many of whom are children. I've yet to see that turning 18 makes people competent or stops them being lazy, so I generally look on a case by case basis. So far, I haven't found many cases to disagree with your generalisation, but there are a few. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are indeed "a few", we should be encouraging them to enjoy their youth in pursuit of more appropriate activities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It is doubtful that the clock's telling midnight, notwithstanding its effects on Cinderella's escorts, magically transforms children into adults, young adults into grown ups, or promising leaders into presidential material, or crones and geezers into retired crones and geezers who must take eye examines before renewing drivers' licenses. Yet reasonable lines are drawn, to let adults get on with their productive work and intercourse, and to prevent foreseeable damage from children and seniles.

We don't need to have a case by case discussion on each of cases here or the principal that some age broundaries are appropriate, because it wastes too much time.

At RfA, it is telling how many of the nominated child or youthful candidates have never written anything worth reading, and how many cannot even write WP-compliant articles on, say (to protect the innocent), local pig-wrestling contests?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Your last sentence is still just about as true if you take out "child or youthful". Coverage of artiodactyla has always been rather patchy (notice that pig, an article of high importance in this field, is both indefinitely semi-protected and still marked as lacking citations!), and may not be benefitted much by the WMF's choice of countries in which to focus its expansion. I'm very much in agreement with your point that the real world has age restrictions at both ends of the spectrum, and this is why, every time someone suggests an age restriction for administrators, I query whether they mean a minimum age or a maximum one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that the median age is 17, and given the plurality of MySpace-like editors at RfAs (who habitually applaud even the worst candidates), your question there has been uneconomical and a distraction. It is a distraction here. Please stop following me with distracting remarks.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Or in plain English - Demiurge, please stop saying sensible things I don't know how to disagree with..."Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, you have shown your intellectual limitations at great length here, by explaining Lihaas's politics as libertarian national-socialist and Thomas-Scalia (conservative Catholics) and by your theories about my being Swedish or not speaking English regularly, in a way your editing an article on a commercial blender could not. Your speculations about my abilities and limits reminds me of little children playing at mathematics by asking their father to add really large numbers like 1500 and a million in his head. (23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

Please stop provoking me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You just can't stop, can you. You have to look down on, demean and insult everyone you come across. There's no need for it, really there isn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, I have asked you repeatedly, as have others, to stop provoking me or following my comments with a snide observation of your own. You have repeatedly commented on my lack of know how, inabilities, etc., while continuing to propound (on several talk pages) absurdities about Lihaas and my national origin or English competency. I have had enough to deal with in replying to ANI-jockies whom I've never heard of and the usual critics, that I don't need your distractions, when you are not making much effort to write clearly or to write things that cannot be read as insults.

I am very sorry to hear that you are stressed at your job, like I am, too (another reason I asked for this RfC to wait until January, I disclose). I used to be a fan, and I should hope that I should look forward to seeing your comments in the future. However, now, I don't see that your comments are helping at all; rather, I see that you are disrupting a miracle---Demiurge1000 and I having constructive conversations---and I beg you just to exercise maximum restraint with me for a while. Please!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Much as it pains me to be seen agreeing with an authority figure like Elen, I too think you are taking this too far Kiefer. Stick a cork in it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

FAC

Are you running through FAC today or should I? I'm prepared to do so, but it looks like you've been taking action the last few days, so if you want to do it/are looking through that's fine. Karanacs (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I can do it if you want-- I'm sorta kinda caught up around the house now. Do you think we could get our FAC chat page back to where we used it only for coordinating schedules? I hope the kiddo is well, and you didn't get sick, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone is healthy, thank goodness! We should probably be more aggressive about moving other topics to WT:FAC. As for today, I didn't want to step on your toes because I couldn't tell if you were already going through or not. Karanacs (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless something unplanned comes up (oh, like the fact that my new shower has to be torn out next week :) I do think I may finally be back in the saddle now. I'll send pics when I get around to them! I'd like to keep our FAC chat to two things: coordinating our schedules and our recusals. It just seems to me that anything else should be posted to WT:FAC for a wider audience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I just called into a meeting this afternoon. Can you take over? Karanacs (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep :) SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Understood ... this reminds me of prohibitions on ex parte conversations between lawyers and judges ... the cultures and the needs of the system are similar, I think. Would you (delegates) like to be notified on that page if a nom is trying to get your attention, or should I post to one of your talk pages? - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a notice at WT:FAC would be okay, if the nominator doesn't feel comfortable posting there themselves. Sometimes the questions can be answered by any reviewer. Thanks so much for your help overall, Dank! It's much appreciated. (As is Sandy's help today.) Karanacs (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank y'all (a perfectly good plural ... what's up with the vaguely sexist "you guys" and such? I think some Americans have difficulty acknowledging that Southerners got it right). WT:FAC it is. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs, my day didn't go as planned, FAC reading interrupted, starting again now. Dank, thanks for all you do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Dispatches

I responded on my talk page.

Coincidentally, your post reminded me of something, so there's an coming to your inbox that's FAC related.

Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The email has been sent. It's not an ASAP thing, but the sooner you get to it, the sooner I can feel comfortable doing reviews at FAC. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Going there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've also responded on my talk page to your point about vetting. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I read your disclaimer-- standard stuff, no problem, hope everyone doesn't write one because a) I rarely read them (I do see they will be useful for the nominators), and b) I usually have a good sense of reviewer areas, strengths, weaknesses, and what they review for anyway :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a year in and only starting to get into prose in a major way though (there are roughly a dozen people that keep the File namespace from imploding, and I am one of them), so I wanted to make sure that everyone knew that my strengths were not in Wikipedia article writing... yet. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

RAF Uxbridge at FAC

I saw that you removed the FAC nomination for RAF Uxbridge, presumably because the nominator already had a nomination for Ickenham. I noticed this myself yesterday evening and pointed it out to the nominator, with a suggestion to pull Ickenham (which to be honest I don't think has much chance of passing) and leaving RAF Uxbridge up. Is that not a possibility? Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I missed that-- I picked up the Uxbridge issue via a commentary at my user FAC chat (which was intended only for coordinating delegate schedules and recusals). Not sure what to do now, because if Ickenham is also closed, technically the nominator has to wait two weeks to put up a new one, so reinstating Uxbridge doesn't solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men [and women] and the obedience of fools." ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're saying that Uxbridge is ready, have him ping me ... I've got to go out, didn't get finished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for making the mistake with the nominations. If it's at all possible I'd like to keep the RAF Uxbridge nomination running, as I think it has a good chance. Harrison49 (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Percy LeSueur/archive1

Hi SandyGeorgia, could you archive Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Percy LeSueur/archive1? It's underprepared and FAC isn't a good venue to address the copyediting concerns brought up. Thanks. Maxim_(talk) 23:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Going there now-- hope to see you back soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Balance of comments at FAC

Sandy, would you have time to respond here (on your talk page, rather than at the FAC) to what I said here at a recent FAC in response to what you said? I think I know which bits of my review went outside the bounds of comments related to WP:WIAFA, but I can't be sure because you weren't specific ("Much of this" is a bit vague and it doesn't help me see where you draw the line - I initially thought it was only the "I guess" comment you were being critical of, but I'm now wondering how much you meant by "much of this", as I thought most of the rest of the comments I had made were OK). I was also a bit taken aback to see you quoting me here. I know you might not have time to return to every place where you make comments like that, but it seems you do have time to quote me elsewhere, which I hope you can understand annoys me a bit. If you don't have time to expand on what you said there, maybe you could suggest someone else I could ask who is likely to know what you meant by "much of this"? Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at this once I get through FAC, but my recollection is that just about everything up to that comment was heading the direction of that comment, hence related, and way off-topic. Where on earth did you get the notion to make a comment like that? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on secondary reliable sources; your statement directly contradicts everything we're about, and your very long off-topic review thusly made no sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying, been busy elsewhere. This is dispiriting because you've completely misunderstood what I was trying to say there, though I could have been clearer. It might help to understand what I said if you look at the preceding bit, where I said:

"unlike the use of book-length sources, where it is possible to greatly compress and summarise, or citing a source in passing for a brief point that needs referencing, the use of article-length sources as the main source for an article on Wikipedia can be problematic. The reason being that Wikipedia articles are generally of the same length and tone as these articles, and you may (by drawing on the same or similar sources) end up largely replicating what the author of that article did (merely rewriting things) - there is also the point that as being essentially the same thing, the articles are in some sense in direct competition for readers"

In other words, some publications produce articles of a very similar length and style to that of Wikipedia, and it was in this context that I asked: "what does a reader get from this article [in terms of the overall reading experience] that they wouldn't get elsewhere". Hopefully the bit in square brackets that I've inserted helps makes things clearer. What I will do in future is try not to go into that amount of detail during a FAC, as that sort of thing is (as you said) best discussed elsewhere. The rest of what I said in that review, I stand by (the fact that changes were made to the article based on what I pointed out should by itself be enough to refute your assertion that my review made no sense), and I make no apologies for the detailed discussion of the article's sources (something that doesn't happen enough at FAC, in my opinion). Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm intrigued

Obviously, as you've said elsewhere, you and the other FA delegates have a pretty good idea of what it is that we mere commentators bring to the party ... aaw, scrub that, I'm just feeling pissed off again. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So bring booze to the party and cheer up!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

An apology

I've acted very negatively to you over the last several months, including some barbed comments that were, frankly, well out of line (although not intentionally sexist, but that's another debate). I'd like to say I'm sorry for them. I'd give you the puff talk-page apology about how fantastic your work on Wikipedia is blah blah blah but that just looks naff and is not germane. I've been acting like a dick towards you and I regret that a great deal. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  19:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

well dangit, it's no fun to get an apology for something I have no recollection of :) (It takes a masterful dick being dickish over a sustained period of time, or one sweeping spectacularly stupid act-- like blocking The Fat Man-- for any editor's actions or posts to stick in my mind. I prefer to keep my brain space free for remembering the good folks.) I appreciate the thought, though, all the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro, you are making my eyes tear and my throat choak-up! Another classy move exemplary deed! Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 20:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not really meant to be a classy move, to be honest Kiefer. Just an apology for acting like a fool at times - with poorly thought out intent. Nothing more, nothing less. Pedro :  Chat  20:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(too Kiefer, and apologies to Sandy for the talk page hi-jack). My most warm recollections of interaction with Sandy can be seen in the emotive and sad history of this user's talk page; ironically one of the few moments on Wikipedia I can honestly say I was my real personality not an "on screen persona". I thank you for the "exemplary deed" comment. Pedro :  Chat  20:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I rarely mind the talk page interruptions, but you may as well know that my work day ends whenever I'm reminded of Jeff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Sandy. He was a wonderful person, and I know we both communicated with him regularly prior to his passing. It's been a few years and it still hurts. Best. Pedro :  Chat  20:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You two wrote lovely and heartfelt condolences to Jeff's family. Long ago, I was invited to go to a drag show, which was to raise money for AIDS research. What I remember most about the evening was a long conversation with a mother who was grieving for her son, and found it comforting to spend time in the supportive and accepting community, where gay men were just enjoying themselves. I am sure that your notes meant a lot to his family. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That he happened to be gay was "one of the least interesting things" about Jeff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That video link should move hearts-and-heads. Thank you for sharing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

CNN, website, and Youtube channel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Tbhotch

SandyGeorgia, I have nothing to do with what happened between you and Tbhotch. However, there is nowhere in his text a single word that can be described as offensive to anyone. In case you doubt, I can translate the entire text to you. However, since you made clear that you don't like being called "Sandra" (since it isn't your name), I removed it. If you don't like having links to what you or another editor said... well... then you shouldn't have said at all. But removing the entire text merely because you can not understand Spanish is way too much. Again: I can translate to you if you wish so. --Lecen (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You know I don't require a translation, but I would certainly have loved to have seen yours (but now we have Tbhotch's). Not a single word that is offensive? You have a most strange POV ... his characterization of MF, characterization of his powerful friends who lap up his insults, continued misuse of my name that is not his "fucking problem" because he can call me whatever he wants and there's no policy stopping him ... it's not the sort of screed that belongs on a userpage. The fella has quite a temper (but I knew that long before the MF incident, so I'm not surprised), and that is what led to the MF issue, where an involved admin blocked Malleus. TB might need to be blocked if he keeps this up (or at least his userpage protected), since he's not slowing down any, and he continues to revert and add the polemic as well as his misname for me (these Latin dramatics are always cute, no, how we Spanish-speakers hate diminuitive names, but where did he come up with the idea that Sandra is my name, even after I told him it's not? Anyway, thank you for the offer, but I don't need a translator; now, please leave this, since drama need not be fed and this molehill doesn't need to become a mountain. If he wants to persist and get himself into trouble, then so be it. And, please, do take care to tell the truth when on my page: But removing the entire text merely because you can not understand Spanish is way too much. Peddle that story somewhere else, please :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I was never his friend and I believe you are well aware of that. I don't remember ever having worked with him before. Although I certainly dislike the idea of a valuable editor leaving. You are indeed correct about not liking to be called "Sandra" (and in fact, I removed that piece from the text). But he did not offend you or anyone else specifically. Although he did say that he would return only after you were not here anymore. If you don't mind, I believe you should ask him to return and try to make peace with him. God knows why there are a few who mistake MF for a misunderstood genius. None of those who support MF ever complained about his behavior. But they were all too eager to jump over Tbhotch. It must not be easy for you, having to watch over the FAC nominations and be involved on editors' quarrels. However, precisely for the reason that you are a delegate you have an inherent moral authority that could be used to push the ears of those same quarreling editors. Anyway, it's really not my problem. Good luck there. --Lecen (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether we are "someone's friend" shouldn't even be part of this discussion. Besides that you made it abundantly clear well beforehand that you had issues with Malleus, and that seems to be what is driving your behavior. Yes, he did specifically offend others (and he even acknowledged the personal attacks in his translation). Yes, the "Sandra" thing was probably his misguided Spanish-speaking irritation at how we gringos shorten names, but I told him "sandra" is not my name, and he quite intentionally kept that up; it's such a small matter that it's not worth discussing, but it does show how he pokes and pokes and pokes, which is what he did to Malleus. Now, please strike your personal attack on Malleus MOST QUICKLY before I have to do something about it being on my page-- if I have to remove it myself, you will not be happy. Like quite a few others, I am quite sick of the tripe I've had to deal in the last 48 hours, after I hopefully was going to be able to return to normal editing now that my RL issues have settled down. If this is how my time is going to be spent I'd rather not be here. Strike the personal attack on Malleus now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't like your threat. It was really uncalled for. I came here as a friend and I was even trying to give you my support for having to deal with this kind of situation. But once seeing your words, there is no reason to be here anymore. I should have noticed that MF has indeed somekind of diplomatic immunity. Anyway, best wishes. --Lecen (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the personal attack; reminding editors that they may be sanctioned for same is not a threat, it's a promise that we have procedures for dealing with such. Your casting of aspersions continues; dealing with this kind of thing can wear down anyone so please do not continue to post on this topic here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Main Page gripe

See my response at Wikipedia:Help_desk#What_is_the_.27Article_of_the_Day.27_editor.27s_fascination_with_Australian_warships.3F, where I've tried to be very constructive. What do you think of the idea of working my response up a little and making it a template to use whenever these posts appear at Talk:Main Page, talk pages of TFAs, help desk or ref desks? --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your response combined with others on that page could probably be worked into a template, also comes up at WP:FA talk page. Good to see you now and then, the Wikipedia seems like such a hostile place lately :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Mmmm, I've always tried to either avoid or defuse conflict, but I don't think there's more of it. Just I'm spending more time in projectspace, where it's more obvious. Trying to push Jonathan Agnew through to FAC, which will help me pick up my mainspace editing. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

An example of the sort of things content editors have to deal with...

Rather than get to my own FAC and some much needed content work, I've had to devote time this morning to dealing with someone editing as an IP (but clearly who is very familiar with WP processes) who has some fixed idea of adding some content to John, King of England. So I had to go and deal with this as if they weren't POV pushing, and dig in books and marshall arguments as if I hadn't reveiwed the entire article at FAC. The talk page discussion is at Talk:John, King of England, and this is typical of what happens out in the wilds of content editing. Stuff like this is what will eventually drive me off Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

sheesh, I'd say get it protected, but that hasn't stopped the craziness at Guy Fawkes, so ... yep, eventually we give up ... I certainly did on most of my watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw your comments about some kind of essay, Sandy, and I don't know if essay or revolution would be more prudent, but in some way, the critical idea that needs to get across is that using and abusing content, particularly when the abuser has no intentions of finding or using reliable sources, is a more egregious offense on Wikipedia than impoliteness. That should be worded as strongly as possible. That needs to be publicized. This needs to be a mission and it needs to spread like a cause across this site. --Moni3 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It needs to become a revolution. Content writers can't write content and fight with editors who have no inclination of writing content. Something has to give. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@Moni3 and @Truthkeeper88,

You should look at my RfC, if you want to see how administrators value incivility versus source abuse.

See the 11-minute reading (of 103 kilobytes of RfC) and sermon by User:DGG:

Especially horrifying is his recent conclusion---DGG concluded that stern actions are needed, beyond the RfC, because I displayed a misunderstanding of NPOV. The sign that revealed my sin? I had written, "If there are two contradictory statements, then at most one of them can be true." (DGG first misquoted me as stating "only one" of them can be true.)

I posted a plea for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic? Can you guess which ArbComm administrator showed up immediately?

I see that core articles in statistics are being damaged this week. A few weeks ago, I would have spent an hour nursing them back to health. Now, I watch as parasitic edits, left unchecked, have weakened the host, invited further attacks, and the articles are being destroyed. Soon we shall have a Wikipedia worthy of its administrator corps.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

comments heard around my household at the end of the day. "Whatdya mean "diffuse" the situation, whatdya think this is a chemistry experiment? Doesn't anybody know basic English anymore"? We need the essay, and we need to begin to drill it into the admin corp, and we need the revolution. Or we could just all quietly leave; that's what's happening anyway. Ok, so good night. Whatever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no answer... I wish I did. But (similar to Truthkeeper88's statement above) I can say a few of us at Talk:Muhammad/Images are running into a very similar situation - and trying to remain calm. I'd be all up for being involved with any initiatives, proposals and so forth to rectify such things. :-/ ^{(Oh, and good night Mary Ellen!)} Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem has long been and continues to be that we just keep granting adminship to editors with absolutely NO content building experience. We just did it again. They don't get it because ... well, they can't. If they could build content, they would. What I most want to know is why do people nominate these RFA candidates anyway ?? Of course that, and the increasing number of immature editors, is not the only problem, but it's all beginning to add up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the vandal-fighting specialists who predominate at RfA is that their very limited experience leads them to believe that the role of administrators is to act as some kind of a police force. Added to which most of the administrators who've been around since Adam was a lad in reality have no legitimate authority at all, are completely out of touch, and ought to be relieved of their badges. Malleus Fatuorum 03:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

True. But pulling their badges and doing nothing else also means you have a mess on your hands. It's true that too many of us (ahem) are nothing but 'vandal fighters' (I hate that term; it's nothing to be proud of), but perhaps the related problem is that there aren't a lot of admins who have content experience. I mean, if you have enough of both you can tackle more issues in a productive way. I know plenty of admins (off the record, of course) who don't want to interfere in the kind of content dispute you're hinting at, above, for fear of having to decide on content, so to speak. What I see here is evidence of the urgency that one of y'all run for admin, right now. Eeny, meeny, miny, moe...Sandy, you're it. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Pulling their badges would go a long way towards improving my mood, so well worth doing IMO. Let's be honest, what can administrators do in content disputes that any regular editor can't, except wield a big stick? Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And to paraphrase Steve Redgrave, if you ever see me at RfA again you have my permission to shoot me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the moment admins starting swinging that big stick around you know what's next: dramafest on ANI. Being an admin is easy if you stay away from the real difficult issues, of course, and getting involved in a content dispute is the last thing that many admins want. Bad for one's reputation! Might not get a merit raise! An associated problem is that there's a bunch of folks in the peanut gallery and in other places who yell "involved" immediately, so an admin discussing content is very quickly disarmed as an admin and can only operate as a regular editor. I've seen these things and have wondered about getting involved--often these are lose-lose situations. Sometimes I jump in, sometimes I don't. Sometimes the shit is so absolutely moronic that one takes a few days off--when, as is hinted at above, one is dealing with complete idiots who think that a. they know their subject matter and don't need no stinkin' sources and b. don't know fuck-all (I'm practicing my BE) about our policies and MOS. And you have to extend good faith to these idiots! Wave your big stick against a group of such editors and you're biting the newbies. Etc, etc. PS: I do appreciate you showing up at mine. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And there's the crux of something interesting I brought up some while back. An admin who does not content edit but has a thorough understanding of policy (and strong ability in DR) can step in (as uninvolved) to work out policy disputes, enforce consensus and so on. I'm not saying it's necessarily better... though I have been on the sidelines for a dispute or two where a few admins have had to sit there and "say" something long the lines of (through inaction) "Ummm, someone get someone else with the bit". Anyway, I'd hope the big stick wouldn't be necessary very often. But that doesn't require skills in content - it requires skills in mediation/dispute resolution, ranging from being an unforgiving ass at the right times to being supportive at other times. It's why I kinda believe that "Strong in A, C, D, F & G" is as good as "Strong in A, B, C, E & G" (relevant combinations of course). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we're getting off-track here. The old discussion about the problems, or not, with the admin corp aren't going to get this problem moved forward. We are going to see less and less qualified admins just as we're seeing less and less qualified editors in general. I think we need to accept that the admin corp is what it is, some good some bad, and focus on getting this message across without taking on the competence of the admin corp: "the critical idea that needs to get across is that using and abusing content, particularly when the abuser has no intentions of finding or using reliable sources, is a more egregious offense on Wikipedia than impoliteness". We've seen half a dozen situations in the last week of novice (and experienced) editors destroying content, wasting time, making productive editors nutso, and after all the drama subsides, all the admin corp can manage to focus on is "civility". How can we get them to understand the effects of these disruptive editors, and make blocks for disruption and IDIDNTHEARTHAT or I don't care what policy says I'm going to make you waste boatloads of time more of a priority? There are some admins who will block thickheaded disruptive nimwits, but they are becoming the minority. We've seen a handful of editors cause these situations for all of us this week, but all the admin corp sees is "civility"-- we need to help them adjust their lenses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry for cutting in MF--ec, and I hope I'm addressing Sandy's point.) Well, as I suggested above, I think you'll quickly run into a brick wall of editors who thrown WP:AGF and WP:BITE in your face. I have great respect for editors who take what appear to be utter vandals under the wing of mentorship, but I have little faith there. I think people's feelings are important, and hurting them unnecessarily is bad, but WP is not a playground--but I'm in a minority. I agree with your slogan, but I don't think it will lessen the ANI dramas. We've had this out over a silly little article, Green Brigade, where one editor had no intentions of etc--and wasted hours and hours on a topic ban for that editor, in two acts, which we got by the grace of god. I wish it could be easier. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anything can change. Civility is one of the 5 pillars, but quality of the product isn't. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) to Sandy: LoL, guess I'll never become an admin... yet in the last few days, I've helped write/rewrite the leads or various sections of various articles. But check my article contributions, and... virtually nothing. I don't care about the credit, so I write, dump it on the talkpage, read other proposals, support or tweak, wash, rinse, repeat (sometimes with some fabric softener thrown in too) - and someone else ends up making the actual article edit. But alas, I'll be judged for content contributions by my stats.

Fortunately, I don't particularly care about the mop... but the point is, I've had decent sized contributions to a decent number of "higher profile" articles and a couple GAs for which my stats will never show. I'm sure there are plenty of others who fit into that same boat and will be judged similarly, while contributing a lot to content - even if all behind the scenes. Heck, the rework on Evolution, which is VERY extensive, will only end up showing up as the contribution of one or a small few editors - yet the talkpage clearly shows it's not.

Still not too sure either way that content building is as important as how the editor reacts and deals with situations. For instance me: One of my big flaws is AGF'ing to the point of absurdity at times. Or (see thread in earlier post) wasting time responding to attempts to derail legitimate good faith efforts at resolving something. Neither may be suitable for an admin. On the other hand, with one exception I remember (as pointed out at my RfA), I stay calm and generally civil (even if rather blunt once AGF has long since expired).

I've got no solution to this, and I think the point I am trying to make is content creation shouldnt be a "be all, end all" - and that other factors may make such less important (while lack of those other factors may make content creation more important). Or I'm babbling, because I still havent left for 7-11 for that much needed coffee. I'll trust your judgment on which. ;-)

(to Malleus) - perhaps true, if that's 100% the case for a candidate. But see above (same indent level to Sandy). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Revolution:

• Start the discussion to delete WP:Civility.
• Do the same with WP:OWN.
• System-wide campaign to overturn civility as the fifth pillar.
• Oppose, en masse, any RfA candidate who has never written a GA or above.
• ... ?

The idea isn't to accomplish these things, but slap the community into seeing a systemic problem of deliberate refusal to understand that sources are integral to material on this site. If you don't want to go look for sources, get another hobby.

I can describe at least a dozen examples of having to defend articles I wrote, just in the past year, from editors who refused to access sources. Just this week, I have had to justify edits I made to clean up the lead in an article I overhauled more than a year ago, reminding the overturning editors that I am fixing such matters as citations after punctuation and removing outdated information, as well as removing OR and POV from a lead where the editors who added the info obviously have not read the core source the article is about.

This is some ridiculous shit. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

With barely one new admin per week this year it isn't really the time to try and drastically increase the content experience required. It might be better to push for easier RFAs for "content specialist" admins without as much knowledge of the minutiae of admin-type policy as is required at present. Experienced editors blatently misusing sources (Talk:Medieval_art#Historical_comparison_of_wealth as here) or using minority or outdated sources inappropriately (King John, just now) are harder to combat than those who won't use any. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Pragmatism is nowhere near the concept of revolution. Revolution is a slap in the face--or a guillotine in a plaza. Enough of this bullshit. No, really. ENOUGH OF THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT. If you don't want to search for sources and improve articles to high standards, get another fucking hobby. We infantalize users. We're timid because we don't want to be accused of being a clique or a cabal, or classist in some way, as if high quality articles makes us the 1% on Wall Street looking down on the filthy masses. We tolerate bad quality and bad editing because we do not want to damage others' self esteems and what's worse, we don't want to damage our own by being accused of owning and being uncivil. What kind of bullshit priorities are these? --Moni3 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

IMO that's one new admin a week too many Johnbod. I'm with Moni, it's way past time to man those barricades and force something to change. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggested forming a Wikipedia Project:Encyclopedia at a recent RfA. However, it would be useful to have a WikiProject Articles where writers could discuss these concerns, and occasionally rally to the defense of writing (usually emotional support but occasional wopping-upside-the-head for the writer, or even criticism of an administrator that doesn't know his place).

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

So what's the revolutionary level to stop the swarm of disruptive editors? Getting rid of WP:CIVIL isn't going to stop them. I want to use my block button liberally and divest myself of all the disruptive editors, but Mal doesn't like it ;) Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it, no. Blocking is like being assigned to the naughty corner, which is why it makes me absolutely furious every time it happens to me, and that fury doesn't just go away after a few hours, days, or weeks. When I was studying psychology I worked in what was then known as a hospital for the mentally subnormal (we don't have them any more, politically incorrect now) and I became interested in the idea of prosthetic environments, designed to minimise the impact of whatever disability a patient had. In other words, we can't change human nature, human abilities, or human disabilities, but we can construct environments that control and minimise the rewards for disruption. Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the "GA or above" part-- I'm pretty sure I've supported some good RFA candidates who had shown special abilities in copyright, images, etc territory. But they are the exception. I'm more concerned when we pass admin candidates who have practically no content involvement whatsoever, and little even in the way of dispute resolution. They just don't know what goes on in the trenches. And I'm not opposed to our civility policy-- the problem is in uneven application. All I can think of is to drill into ANI the issue every time one of these absurd content disputes comes up, where the side who doesn't read, know, understand, or uphold Wikipedia's sourcing policies needs attention. I don't know if that will work, considering what has gone of for at least five years at Hugo Chavez, and many senior editors considering some of the POV pushers there as respected editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a big problem with focusing on content experience for admins. Most of us want to write articles. Most of us use our tools sparingly - and most of us know not to use them in the examples that have been thrown around here. But there are so many other admins who don't get it and rush to fill the gap that it doesn't matter. Unless all the content admins are at ANI all the time to call for unblocks or blocks, then nothing will change, no matter how many new content-focused admins we get.

I spent HOURS over the last few months dealing with an editor who continually changed a template to include random articles because HE thought those should be classified as part of the Texas Revolution. I analyzed sources on the talk page and his talk page. He never engaged. I reported him for slow edit-warring and the closing admin declined to block because the editor hadn't hit three in 24 hours (a dozen over a few weeks didn't count). I finally put up a content RfC, had to create new little-used templates for his pet project, and he went off to bother someone else. The time I spent was equivalent to about two days' worth of FAC processing and would have been enough for me to finish polishing the article I intend to bring to FAC next.

A lot of these editors have pattens of being a timesink, but it doesn't meet WP's definition of "disruption". I do not think we should throw away the civility policy, but I think we need to redefine "disruption" so that there is some recourse to dealing with these editors before the content experts get fed up. So how do we redefine "disruption", and what actions do we think ought to be take in these cases? We need a firmer plan. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What about starting with Wikipedia:Disruptive editing? The description of the problematic content seems okay to me, but the process for fixing the disruption is soooo long and doesn't really work. Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. The process described there is laughably divorced from reality, and assumes an infinite amount of time and patience on the part of the constructive editor. I once tried to follow the steps outlined there; I did all of them (and more) to address an obviously tendentious, disruptive agenda account. The process took over 6 months, during which I essentially curtailed any other contributions to Wikipedia, culminating in a poisonous ArbCom case.

I had to put up with a substantial volume of attacks, many of which were obviously made in bad faith, but which were permitted because I was engaged in "dispute resolution". And this was to deal with a single, obviously disruptive agenda account. It takes six months of a constructive editor's time to deal with a single disruptive agenda account, using the prescribed process. One can imagine how well that scales if you're faced with more than a single disruptive editor. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Tell me about it. You'd think that admins would be held to higher standards, but even after all that he still won't leave it alone. I'll never bother with RFC again. Parrot of Doom 18:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been around awhile, and I can't remember a single instance in which a user-conduct RfC led to any sort of meaningful resolution of a problem. Certainly I've never seen an instance where the end result was worth the amount of effort expended. They are best viewed (and, I think, are viewed by all but the most naive) as a necessary prelude to filing an ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"You think admins should be held to a higher standard..." I would. I do. And if (heh) that day comes, I'll insist on being judged by such. BUT, on the other hand, when admins try to do the right thing, such as reconfirmation RfAs, or dropping the bit and having to RfA to get it back, people give them hell. Yes, it's by and large the admins all or most of us highly respect. But no (as others have claimed) it is not useless. It accomplishes a few things: (1) it allows the community a level of control over who has that bit (even if unwarranted for those who have traveled this route), (2) it sets an example that other admins will hopefully follow one day and (3) it slowly creates a situation where perhaps such can be the norm. Doing so, when considering all three, additionally creates a situation where the community can continually give feedback on what they expect and don't expect from their admins. This eventually enforces a behavior/actions as desired by the community (and the policies the community sets) through either the removal of admins that are not acting in such fashion or lessons for those who want to ensure they pass their reconfirmation RfA. Yeah, it'll take quite some time for it to be truly helpful, but it's a start - and it does not preclude efforts to tackle the problem from other directions at the same time either. Just one more piece in our box to hopefully enable us putting the whole puzzle together. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion initiated here. Karanacs (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW over at the visual arts we had a great admin, brilliant on policy, great on content, always helpful, and willing to stand and fight for what's right - a good editor capable of coming up with really good sources, quit for over a year now - thankless job...Modernist (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Very true, but for the gender balance record, I think she was a she actually (I was never quite sure). Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Shes usually are shes in my experience. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually in this case the truth was well hidden...Modernist (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking ladyboys? I hope we are. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You've got my attention as well now... Kafka Liz (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No no no guys; don't let your over educated imaginations get the better of you - it was just a case of a well concealed, well protected anonymity with no leaks...Modernist (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Aye, Modernist. That administrator has been sorely missed. Excellent on all levels. JNW (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Did he commit the unforgivable sin of suggesting that somebody read something or of explaining a logical error?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Over and over again; time and time again; politely, calmly, logically; until the burnout began to corrode and waste far too much precious and creative time...Modernist (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Modernist, I think you've used the operative word here: creative. Writing is creative. Some of only have a finite amount of time to devote to creative endeavors here. I'd prefer to spend the time being creative rather than, well doing all the other stuff, like explaining over and over .... Truthkeeper (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

TK - your creativity is an invaluable asset to this project; and as you know this project is a volunteer endeavor and those of us who enjoy a creative life in the real world have only so much time and energy to spend here; we need to do our best and at the same time move forward in our own projects. I could not possibly imagine the complexity of being a responsible, and thoughtful administrator here and at the same time trying to creatively function in the real world. It's becoming more and more a serious issue...Modernist (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm following this discussion with interest (a similar one is currently going on in the Gender Gap list), but guys, it's really scaring me. It seems that the consensus in this thread is that more experienced content editors need to become admins, and that's making me think that I should put myself through RfA. I mean, I have 8 FAs and 6 GAs, so that would make me "an experienced editor", right? I've avoided it up to now, mostly due to the scary things I've heard about the RfA process, and assuming that as a content editor and as someone who avoids conflict, it wouldn't be a positive experience for me. I'm rethinking that now, since things seem to have almost gotten out of control.

That being said, though, I actually have a positive experience with an admin to share, an example of what happens when you're lucky enough to get a good admin who knows what he/she is doing. A fellow editor, who is actually a friend of mine, helps me maintain The Wiggles, which was my very first FA. If you thought that I was a rabid Wiggles fan (I did write their WP article, you know), I don't even compete! There's some content in their article that she hated, so she removed it, even though it was well-sourced. I reverted her, and gently told her why. Two months later, she changed it again; she did that twice! After the second time, I strongly warned her that if she did it again, I'd have her blocked. Sure enough, she did it again, but waited six months. I felt bad about it, but I reported her to ARV. I mean, she loves Anthony Field; how bad can she be? She was blocked for a week because the evidence was there. I hope that she has learned from the experience; time will tell, I suppose. And yah for the good admin! Christine (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There's only one real predictor of success at RfA and it's this; have you ever upset another editor? If you have, then expect them to come down on you like a ton of bricks, so a good thick skin is essential. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus is absolutely right. Good work and good networking will get you supports, but pissing of a few morons may invite a bunch more morons to the party and destroy your run (look at my buddy Kelapstick's RfA, which totally got out of hand). My RfA was fun--I was opposed by two idiots. The first one is now (after a bunch of AGFing, even on my part) indefblocked; the other opposed me because I wouldn't support an indefblock for the first one. I wouldn't hesitate a moment right now to block that first idiot, by the way--now that I've picked up a healthy dose of I really don't care.

Christine, there's the lesson. Run for admin after a couple of months of welcome templates, play nice even to those who don't deserve it, and don't piss anyone off. Good luck--you will have my vote, after you show me some WikiLove! Drmies (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Forgive me for butting in here, but I'd just like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. We need people who write content, because an encyclopaedia with a bunch of empty pages is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, but an encyclopaedia whose articles have been trashed by vandals is equally useless, as is one full of copyright violations, or typos. I think it's wonderful that there are people who are willing to take on these tasks, and I think we should all be mindful of the good work that the others do, because peoples' talents lie in different places.

  To take one example, I'm an admin and much of what I do is blocking vandals—and I block them not to act like a policeman, but to stop them trashing your articles, and my articles, and all the other articles (in fact, I'm almost certain I've blocked people who have vandalised articles written by most of the contributors to this thread). The majority of my fellow admins spend their volunteer time performing all sorts of other tasks to keep the wheels turning so that it doesn't interfere with writing and maintaining articles. We're not perfect at it, and some of my colleagues might not be fit to do the job, but please don't tar the majority with the same brush as that minority.

  A parting thought, on WP:CIV: the policy itself is more of a hindrance than a help in my opinion, but the idea behind it—that the editors of an encyclopaedia should maintain some sense of decorum, and that everybody deserves to be treated with respect (at least until they prove themselves unworthy of it)—is sound logic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  • The idea of WP:CIV may be sound (or not, depending on your view of human nature), but its implementation stinks. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Indeed. All too often it's quoted as often as the Bible, by those who act in similar ways to certain Catholic priests. Parrot of Doom 22:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

HJMitchell, a collaborative effort means other editors read sources so they can check my mastery of the facts and how well I summarized them--or add their own summaries to an article. I welcome that. So far, that has happened perhaps three times in all the articles I've written where someone suggests something get changed. A collaborative effort does not mean I write stuff and others complain about it without doing any goddamn work. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated, and perhaps the new article feedback tool (not the current piece of shit) will make things a little easier. Earlier this week an editor I'd never come across before slapped an {{update}} tag on Pendle witches, because it didn't use a book published last year. As it happens I got hold of the book the following day and it does contain some interesting detail, but I very much resented the defacement of what is a perfectly decent article by tagging it, rather than just quietly drawing attention to a new book on the subject. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@HJMitchell,

However, your statement does not seem free of denial. I ask you to look at my RfC and particularly how civility and AGF are being used. Please examine the context of the diffs provided. Or look at the discussion at WikiProject Logic, which is shorter. Can you guess who is the administrator---and who is not--- by the tone (and lack of apologies, although some non-denial non-denials)?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll echo much of what HJM has said above, I for one genuinely believe that the reason I do vandal-figthing and admin tasks (with nowhere close to HJM's volume) is to let the article editors get on with what they like to do, which I often assume is improving articles. I have (at least) two frrustrations. One is that, even when I read a dispute and can easily see that one "side" is totally wrong on the merits of their argument, I can't actually say it. If I do so, I'm taking a content position, thus losing my freedom to act as an admin. Another is that the established and very competent editors around here get down into the trenches and fire back in oh-too-personal similar ilk, or even march out in front with the ad-hominems. This is a big problem for me when I'm trying to line up a clean shot to eliminate the problem. Franamax (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Franamax, I can certainly chime in with your first point; as I suggested above, though, I may see "freedom to act as an admin" a bit differently: I don't think such intervention impedes on my freedom, but it often enough is an occasion for other involved parties to throw that back at me. Your second point, I may not have been an admin for long enough to know that, and I've certainly stayed away from climate change and the current president. But, and this maybe responds to it in a roundabout way, some of us have histories, and with each other. I have one advantage when it comes to that: my (perception of my own) neutrality is greatly helped by advancing old age and the attendant memory loss. I carry grudges only for a few people. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I should banish you from my talk page for revealing the reason I don't carry too many grudges!! It takes a grandiose cock-up to earn a place in my long-term memory, where the space is mostly taken up by Eagles247 and a now-desysopped and presumably gone admin who was stupid enough to make a post to my talk page five years ago that guaranteed I'd stay around long enough try to make things right here, so no one else would ever have to be subjected to the admin abuse I was. That incident also gave me a different perspective on all these admin rants about civility, because I've never seen just about anything that compares to the things an admin cabal got away with saying to me, in plain view of boatloads of people, and protected because they had powerful admin friends or were admins themselves. It took more than a year of patience to see several of them desysopped or sanctioned, but uncivil has a whole 'nother meaning for me than the random "fuck" or "arse" that we often see admins ranting about-- I wanna say, honestly, get a sense of perspective and a history of the things admins have been known to say to lowly newbies like I was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is so much dishonesty here. A year or so ago, perhaps two years ago, I was met with the most astonishingly abusive attack I've seen anywhere, never mind Wikipedia, and from an administrator. That administrator was a friend of User:Pedro, also an administrator, who had seen the attack but declined to act because it came from his friend. Later in the day when sanity prevailed I think the admin was reined in, but by then of course the damage had been done. Admins right, plebs wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 04:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar FAC

Hi Sandy, just a note to let you know that the image issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2 have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction and that the FAC is now ready to be closed. There are no opposes. Prioryman (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just starting through my watchlist now, no promises, but I hope to get through FAC today (if not, Ucucha usually makes it on the weekend). Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually running through now. Ucucha (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, since I ended up with surprise visits from two repairmen, still stuff around the house. Thanks, Ucucha. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Turkey test--I'll show you mine if you show me yours

[[:Image:John_Tukey.jpg|thumb|right|The turkey test should not be confused with the test of Tukey (pictured)—or a tuckus test (not pictured).]] Pray tell? (I'll tell you afterward what I think of as the turkey test--it has to do with boys and girls and medieval medical science.) Or is this some Georgian idiom I'm ignorant of? Drmies (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm ... I dunno if there's another meaning ... mine came about from a boss I had in the corporate world years ago. He wouldn't hire anyone until I'd had a long lunch interview with them-- he claimed I had the best "turkey test" in the Division, that I could pick out the losers (turkeys) over lunch. Once, while I was away in the US having surgery, he had to hire someone who hadn't passed my turkey test. Turned out to be the worst turkey ever. So, I use it to mean someone who reveals the character of others-- the Malleus "turkey test" is that anyone who can't get along with Malleus reveals something about their own character. OK, so what's yours? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's nothing like it, haha. You know that turkey thermometer, that they are bred with these days? It pops up when the thing is cooked through (and bone dry), right? Well, take the Artistotelian/Galenic theories on body heat and gender (women are cold and men are warm), apply that to the fetus, note the similarity between the male and female reproductive organs and how what's outside the one is inside the other--then, apply heat to the little human child in the oven (womb), and if it is cooked properly, POP, out comes the little Willie Wonka. In other words, girls are undercooked and probably not safe for human consumption by FDA standards. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe you got me to read that :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. (Oh, I'm licensed to tell this: I teach classes on medieval women and writing and such.) Hey, do I need to tell you how relaxing some homemade soup and a couple of glasses of wine are? The kids are watching Scooby Doo, and I'm doing nothing at all. Wonderful. Have a nice weekend!

@Drmies, Do you have a take on "Makelesse" in Pearl and I Sing of a Maiden. Am I correct that maiden/widow/husbandless is the primary meaning, but the secondary meaning "matchless" was also established, so that usual translation as "matchless" is justified? Or is "matchless" an abominable translation?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That is an accurate translation, yes. Doesn't it say makele(e)s in the original? I don't have a copy of Pearl out here on the patio, of course. The OED confirms "spouse" as the first meaning of "make (n.)", but the verb "make" is possible also (I don't have the MED here on the patio either; I have to OED online), which would point, IMO, to the idea that she was made without counterpart, without match. That fits obviously with Pearl, and also with the "Maiden", given the Marian reference. Both are wonderful poems. Have you studied Pearl? I recently got a new Norton edition of all the Gawain poet's poems (incl. Sir Erkenwald), translated by Marie Boroff--it's such a nice book that I want to teach a class just on those poems alone. But since we were speaking of authority in editing, up on this page--if Marie Boroff allows it as a translation (maybe one of hers is available through Google Books) you can take it to the bank, as far as I'm concerned.

As a side note, since I became a father a few years ago I've developed a completely new understanding of Pearl and the narrator's agony. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The MED is available on line. My first pint of Guiness was purchased for me (when I was underage) after the close of Medieval English by Professor McSparran (RIP), who noted that I had failed to treat the sexual tension in the bedroom-kissing scene(s) of Gawain (in one of the mid-term papers). I thought of her and Gawain when I read that anti-literary page-turner, The Da Vinci Code, and (with much greater pleasure) David Lodge's Small World.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha, well, if you have that at your fingertips, what you asking me for? ;) I have an excuse: I'm the Old English guy in my department. Thanks for the link! Drmies (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

UGH! Medieval Lit guys. Should have been Medieval historians, we have more fun... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break! Do you really want to spend time discussing the climatology of medieval France or the Sweezy (shudder of horror)/Brenner debates, when you can read The Miller's Tale?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

But I didn't! I studied medieval bishops ... and usually the bad boy ones ... like Ranulf Flambard... much more interesting... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Climate? Economics? Forms of Property? Land-distribution? Is it Christmas in October? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention they didn't have turkeys in the Middle Ages. Or oven basters. I'm confused. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's beside the point, Johnbod. You're talking reality, which is highly overrated. (Anyway, 'twas just a brillig metaphor.) BTW, Ealdgyth...you know what they say about medieval historians who are not Peter Brown, right? (They're old. And boring! With boring jobs!) Listen, if you go to the Zoo next year, I promise to go too, and we'll meet at the dance. I'll be one of the bald guys who can't dance. Oh, Fifelfoo--your name is Beowulf-inspired, no? If not, congrats on a great coincidence. Drmies (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(Apparently I am the gate of monsters that flows through the first meta-syntactic variable. Beware the Fifelbar.) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Illustration from title page to William Morris's A Dream of John Ball (1888)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your discussion of the way civility is used as a club to beat article-writers.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I owe you an apology

I have read, with great interest, all that you have had to say since the entire ANI civility versus content debate started. While talking with someone tonight, though, I came to the realization that I have lapsed into doing exactly what I was positive that I don't do... marginalizing someone's contributions because of their incivility. The person in question is a tremendous pain in the ass (in my biased opinion), but at the prompting of someone on IRC, I looked over his contributions tonight and was shocked at what an excellent writer he also is. The bottom line is that while I feel that civility is a cornerstone to good collaboration, I also am in total agreement that something has to be done to protect content contributors who feel they are under siege by a never-ending parade of substandard (and often new) editors. Even though this individual in question makes me insane, I will be the first to say that he's worth more to the project than any five thousand hit-and-run IP contributors. To me, it appears the changes necessary are going to be far more invasive than the community will probably concede to, but the alternative means losing a lot of fantastic writers only to have them replaced by a horde of Randy clones. I'm reading WP:QUIT in a new light. It doesn't just apply to experts, it applies to all respected and qualified content contributors who are finding themselves disillusioned with the project. Trusilver 06:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Trusilver-- it's a depressing situation, isn't it, and I don't see any solutions on the horizon. Last night it occurred to me that I might begin the process of "education" by starting two FAQs in my userspace-- 1) a list of incidents when FAs come under seige by editors that don't know policy, and 2) the history of Malleus's block log (the fact that he has a block log is now used as an excuse to block him, and it's insane that his first block was for using the word "wikilawyer", it goes downhill from there-- it might be good to have an FAQ for all who don't know the history of How Wikipedia Admins Created That Mess). Gosh, though, I hope that Pain in the Ass person you refer to above isn't the same one I'm thinking of, because we do have some competent writers who seem to perseverate to an extent that can make anyone nuts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about something else... that there really isn't a "new editor's guide", and there really should be. I'm not talking about WP:Introduction or such, I'm talking about an actual guide to what new users will expect without the candy coating. I consistently see shock (and the frequent angry talk page message) from new editors after I revert their first edit because it was unsourced, unencyclopedic, biased, improperly placed within the article, poorly written, rambling, batshit insane, etc. After reading things like the introduction or the tutorial, a new user can very easily get the idea that Wikipedia is a place where we spend our days giving group hugs and crapping rainbows. It takes the average IP editor about eleven seconds after editing Barack Obama to find out that this isn't the case at all. There should be a new user guide that mixed a nice welcome with a good dose of hard knocks. New editors should come into the project with the understanding that they are outsiders to an established system. They should understand that nearly every article of even mild importance already has a core group of editors tending to it. I like the idea that new editors are encouraged to be bold, but at the same time they should also be aware of when to step lightly. I'm also completely in favor of the idea that EVERY featured article should get semi-protected permanently. I find it very unlikely that IPxx.xxx.xx.xx is going to add anything to a very stable FA that's going to be a net positive. Trusilver 16:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I had something on my user page when I was new for a very long time to the effect of "who wrote the user manual for this thing"-- something like that might be helpful, but it might not get read. The "anyone can edit" facet of Wikipedia is stronger now than it was six years ago, when Wikipedia attracted those more interested in content, less interested in the social aspects. And my bad experiences went beyond that-- every time I found a place where I might get help, I tended to get misinformation. And then I got attacked by an admin cabal ... ah, memory lane :) I'm not sure semi-protection will help FAs-- the destruction often comes from registered editors. Where can we get stats? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a damned good question, one that I don't know the answer to. I have a certain amount of bias only because of the amount of time I spend doing recent change patrolling, so I have a habit of looking at IP contributors and new accounts with suspicion. But I suppose semi-protecting FAs are just preventing the drive-by IP changes and a good number of the Truth-bearing SPAs. Unfortunately, those aren't the users that cause the majority of the headaches. They usually edit once and then leave, or when the see resistance to their changes they get bored and go away as well. I can see semi-protection getting consensus... maybe. I don't see full protection getting consensus, even though it seems rational to me, for the same reason that "no anonymous edits" can't get consensus, even though it would nearly eliminate vandalism. Trusilver 03:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Truesilver,

Your statement was so generous that my vanity wishes that I had driven you crazy! (My RfC is over, BTW.) Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been on Wikipedia for five years now, and I have managed to avoid taking part in a lynching RFC. My only hope is that I can, God willing, go the NEXT five years without taking part in an one too. Trusilver 01:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I know of two RfC cases earlier. Look at a discussion with a statistician, months after we both had been threatened with blocks, etc., after he failed my turkey test; look at what it took for two administrators to state they were considering filing an RfC! The other case of RfCs and ArbComm cases involved the Monty Hall problem, and compare the problems discussed there.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I read the discussion at the aviation project about the glorified See also lists that a lot of plane articles suffer from. Well done for raising the point. I think I agree with you that they are unencyclopedic. --John (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been going on for years -- the problems on the Aviation Wikiproject first came to my attention via a) the use of Joe Baugher, a hobbyist, as a source on a FAR, b) Archtransit (now desysopped), and c) the MOS issues that repeatedly appeared on FARs. It's surprising when editors band together to support something that is so clearly original research, in breach of MOS, and unhelpful to our readers just because it's the way they've always done it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I followed that discussion too, and it came to mind when I read Statue of Liberty when it was on the front page recently. I was surprised to see List of statues in the 'see also' section there (imagine if list of aeroplanes was put in an aeroplane article). I may have said it before, but I don't see the structural elements of articles (see also, categories, navigational footer templates, external links) get as much attention at FAC as they probably should. I know the content and sourcing are the most important things, but I swear some articles look like the editors have not even looked at the 'appendix' elements (i.e. anything outside the main article text). Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Not any more. That was ridiculous; it isn't even a particularly good list. --John (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad stats on blog

Could anyone who posts to WR please get some clarification on what looks like erroneous stats here?

• http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/10/repetitive-labour-and-wikipedia.html

High of 20 edits per page among active admins? No. Karanacs, Moni3, Ucucha, Wehwalt, Casliber, Nikkimaria, Ruhrfisch, Iridescent -- too many to name, those are samples only-- are all admins, and there is no way they are making a high of 20 edits per page. That analysis looks flawed. What's up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why just admins, anyway? I guess us non-admin content editors aren't worth even crap... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, unclear just what the point of that blog entry is, and there is so much more that could be done via this sort of analysis. Does anyone know how "active admin" is defined and where I can find such a list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active. The main page tells you "Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months.". Very few (1% over 9) had the higher figures on his table, & I don't see anything inherently improbable in them myself, especially if working pages - requested moves etc - are counted. The 20 is the highest single figure. Of course it's a very unsophisticated & rather useless approach to analysis. I don't know how to get individual "edits per page" figures any more, but for a person who mainly just adds content high figures are not unusual. Actually I do know now, as the blog links to the tool. These are lifetime figures btw. I see I am at 5.3 & Sandy at 8.34. [2]. But 84% of admins are at 4 or below, which does perhaps reflect the lack of content work among them. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So it's an averaged figure? Like if someone has 1,000 edits and has edited 100 unique pages, then their number would be 10? Dana boomer (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - over all their editing history, and I think including all sort of pages - talk etc. It must have taken ages! New article patrollers, random changes watchers etc have low figures & content adders higher. But I do lots of category work, which pulls my figures down. It also depends on editing style of course. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, the blog post did not say it was an average-- besides that it's not a very helpful analysis, where did I miss that he said it was an average? Or was I supposed to check that tool to realize that? I guess he's not a statistician, but that admins are making a "high" of 20 edits per page is wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What would it be if it wasn't an average? This is a standard stat that used to be cited a lot at RFA. "The result is that there is a wide range of edits per page from a low value of 1.21 at one extreme, to a high value of 20.51 at the other." - that means one person had 20.51, which is indeed high. The table is heavily weighted towards the lower figures, with 84% up to 4, and only 1% over 9. But admins are the worst people to take for this sort of analysis if you are looking at how content is generated, as he seems to be doing Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I see now that it's an average by clicking on that tool, but he doesn't seem to clarify that in the text (he says a high, not an average high). And, if he's going by the average on that tool, sheesh, that's about the least helpful application of EDITCOUNTITIS I've encountered lately-- I'm the perfect example of why edit counts don't work (I have the highest or second highest edit count on gobs of articles that I've cleaned up at FAC or FAR without ever adding a relevant piece of text, and I make tons of typos). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My first thought when I read the blog post was the same as Sandy's - that this was the highest number of edits the admin had ever made to any individual page. This could have been much clarified by the blog poster with a simple "average edits per page" statement - as far as I can see, the word "average" doesn't appear in the post at all. I'm also confused as to how/why he decided to just focus on admins - it would be interesting to know the thought process behind this decision. Dana boomer (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, but there are bigger problems still with such a simple analysis. Moni3 and Malleus, as examples, have higher averages than mine, which is a true reflection of their contribs (because they're more efficient editors than I am), yet Ucucha is very low, probably reflecting 1) the way he edits-- likely efficient, and 2) possibly that his articles aren't vandalized much, so he has less maintenance. Honestly, editcountitis gone awry is all that blog post is about, but there could be some more interesting analysis of the active folks at the top of WP:WBFAN relative to those active admins. But please, let's not forget that several of our top content contributors are admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I imagine because the list was there, but it's the wrong one for his purposes entirely. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting approach. There are some anomolies, such as Iridescent who has of course produced a lot of FAs, but has also done a lot of editing with AWB (fixing typos, tagging pages for projects) so has an average edit per page value of 1.53, though this is something of an extreme case. It is only a single measure so you can't put too much weight on it, but it tallies more or less with experience; generally people who write articles have a higher average than those who don't. What would be more interesting is average edits per mainspace article, as the current tool covers everything. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What he's saying is that the higher the ratio of edits per person to a page is indicative of a page being built/written as opposed to lower ratios which are indicative of an editor floating from page to page without actually contributing. I think it's a good analysis - but I have an embarrassingly high edit count per page (which everyone will now rush to look at) because I spend a lot of time on individual pages rather than flitting around. In the example he gives, one of Ceoil's and Modernist's pages as it happens, he shows that the high ratio shows they are content contributors vs. flitters for lack of a better word. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm as editcountitis-wrong as that blog is, but when I look at an RFA candidate, I don't look at their average, since I know that can be deceiving. I look at the articles they have the most edits to, and go see what they've done there. When a candidate comes up whose highest-ever-edited article shows just about nothing (relative to what we're used to in top content), I get suspicious and look closer. So, I think highest ever is more relevant than average. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that he selected admins because its a clearly defined manageable group. Doing "all editors" would be near impossible, I would think. I can't see what point the average has. Unless you focus on a few article to the exclusion of all others, and add content by tiny increments, the average is bound to be in single figures Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

<---------------- The figures should be correct. I am the author of that blog. The 'active admins' is as someone correctly defined above. I.e. 30 edits in the last month. This omits many admins, and of course omits non-admins. The purpose was to get a clearly defined population, to avoid selection bias. I didn't mention many specific names, as my blog is mostly read by non-Wikipedians. But for your benefit. the highest edit per page was Wehwalt (20.51) then Moni3 at 12.72, Tony the Marine (10.08) and a number of others. Non-admins or non-active ones were not discussed in this post but include Giano (13.19), RelHistBuff (12.43), Serendipodous (12.34) and many others. Not to forget Truthkeeper above at 14.75.

The purpose of that post was to discuss whether there is any meaning at all to the edit-per-page statistic. It's not necessarily meaningful, which is why I introduce the thought-experiment of 1,000 different editors making one edit to an article, and producing a featured article. Common sense suggests this is unrealistic or impossible, and the evidence bears it out. There is a very broad correlation between the number of edits per page and 'content contribution'. Typically those with e.p.p. under 2 are running bots, or making very mechanical and (if you like) 'low value' contributions. Those with counts over 4 are probably making some content contributions, those over 10 are almost entirely pure 'content contributors'.

The reason why 'flitters' cannot contribute 'content' is actually very difficult. Why can't I do to many different articles what a 'content contributor' is doing to a single article? I suspect the reason is this. A 'flitter' is likely to be coming to an article with the point of view of correcting a single type of mistake. For example, adding links to the Estonian Wikipedia (my example in the post), or correcting 'teh' to 'the' or something like that. There will be a limited number of such corrections necessary in any article - in the case of the Estonian Wikipedia, max of one - so the flitter will move on. Also, creating brilliant and arresting and entertaining prose is a matter of understanding the whole thread of the article. Summarising in the right way, getting the right order, getting out reference works and sourcing the right material. This takes hours of work and requires immersion in the article. Hence the creation of 'real value' means many many edits to the same article. That's my explanation. There is no logical reason why many flitters working independently and randomly could not create featured articles. The fact is that they don't.

You are probably asking why that number appears so low. An editor writing a whole article will make typically hundreds of edits to that article. Answer, the figure is contaminated by edits to talk pages, 'gnome' work on other articles and so on.

This is part of a broader piece of work, to go into a book, to answer the question whether 'crowdsourcing' works. All the evidence so far suggests that it does not. Most of the articles I have surveyed have a small number of contributors, who make a significant portion of the edits. The rest are small numbers of edits made by random contributors, some of which are 'gnome' work, the rest of which are just vandalism or noise.

The other significant finding is that the majority of admins contribute 'low value' content. By 'low value', I mean as defined in the article, namely mechanical and repetitive work that in the real world would be poorly paid or mechanised, because it is easily learned.

I hope that clarifies the point of the post.

I will be doing further work on 'content creators' but the problem is to find a sample without selection bias. I started by taking the list of featured articles then taking the top 3 contributors then looking at their e.p.p. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this is most helpful info. Could you retroactively add the word "average" to your blog post, since that is what led to my original confusion? And if your future analysis could look into those admins who are also at the top of WP:WBFAN, and active WBFANers compared to active admins in general, it might be interesting. Some disclaimers about the limits of editcountitis would also be good-- my edit count means very little because of the way I edit, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done so, in italics :) I realise the blunt nature of such statistics, but it is necessary in order to get an entirely objective measure of whether "content creators" even exist. For example, an editor with a low e.p.p. average might complain that their contributions are also valuable content. And so they are, but as I point out, their relatively mechanical nature means that they would command a low price in an efficient labour market. And the nature of an average means that content contributors who also make significant mechanical edits will be discriminated against. I found a few examples today. I like your idea of highest edits per page, but the problem is to mechanically locate which article it was, given the problems of accessing the database. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I will also look at WP:WBFAN, thanks. The point of the current post was to look at how admins edit. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You might also look at the amount of text added overall, as a way of excluding typo corrections. The trouble is needing to find a way to exclude reversions of blankings. Also, it is theoretically possible (but very difficult) to create a featured article with one edit, or more realistically to add to an article in large chunks. Those working from sandboxes in their userspace sometimes do this, so the number of edits related to a single article is obscured somewhat when that happens (though the amount of content added will still be the same, regardless of whether it is added in bits or all at once). Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Our stats are certainly very bad at distinguishing between content addition and other stuff. In a short article someone who adds an infobox may add more bytes and take more edits that are in all the text. Citatuion templates are another thing that screws up the stats. I'm not sure why you conclude that crowdsourcing doesn't work - it doesn't have to work at the level of the individual article, though it often does. Many short articles are greatly improved by a single edit from someone who knows the subject area well - sometimes ISPs, and I don't see why these should be called "random". Obviously the content creation "crowd" is smaller than it has been, & that's a concern. Btw it's 30 edits in the last 2 months to be "active". Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is adding an infobox, or adding a link to the Estonian Wikipedia not adding 'content'? The point of the blog post, which is one of a series of such posts, was to address the issue of what 'content' means in the first place. I mean, I agree with you, but you have to be careful about what you mean by 'content' here. On 'crowdsourcing', I am thinking about a suitable definition of it, and an objective means of establishing whether articles have been crowdsourced or not. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well by content I mean article text, and images, which may be a lazy usage but is a common one. You will find it very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions on this from the stats available, as the many previous academic efforts demonstrate. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would adding a template or a link not be 'content'? We need clear criteria for what counts as content. The only two I can think of are (a) Wikipedia's own measure, which is the Featured article and (b) how (un) mechanical the task is. Saying 'text' is quite arbitrary. Which academic efforts are these? Would be grateful for references. I think the broad conclusions are meaningful in that there is a clear correlation between the e.p.p. average taken from various sample populations, and 'content' as defined by various measures. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Academic studies about Wikipedia is a starting point. A useful section in a paper this summer summarized over 1,300 papers & books, but I have lost that reference. I don't see how Featured articles define what is content. Obviously everything in articlespace, and perhaps beyond, is content at one level, but internal discussions tend to mean article text by "content". Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've moved discussion to your talk page. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but misleading. My avg edits per page is 3.94. My top 10 edited articles range from 145 to 375 edits; 6 FAs and a GA represented there. I think the stat includes ALL edits, not just mainspace, which skews mine a lot. Karanacs (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The skew in cases like yours I think is in the rather brutal distinction between article space and other. For instance, GA reviews always take place in article talk, but FA reviews are "hidden away" so far as the analysis is concerned. Therefore your epp is dragged down by your FAC contributions. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who has ever done RC patrol will have a large number of pages with one or two revisions, which will make the edits/page metric rather inaccurate for them. Even if you have worked on an article for a long time, and made hundreds of revisions on it, it will be lost in hundreds (thousands?) of pages where all you did was click [rollback]. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but the underlying point is in the balance of your work. How many RC patrollers have ever done more than one or two edits to an article? Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the usual problem with trying to distill a complex phenomenon like a human editor's editing behavior into one number; I was slightly miffed to see my "magic ratio" was only 2.36, I suppose because I've done a lot of typo work with AWB historically. Nevertheless I am not above sometimes doing many edits to one article as part of an improvement drive, like my recent 100+ to Battle of Vukovar. An average over a large number doesn't capture that though. Maybe something like what Sandy originally thought this was would be more interesting; the most edits an editor has made to an article, though this would only be really interesting in comparison with the current quality of the article. This might reflect badly on me too though; the last time I looked my most edited article was Celtic F.C., which is not one I am particularly proud of. I suppose, ultimately, an editor here is more than just a number. Long may this remain true. --John (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WT:V

Hi, SandyGeorgia. The reason for this post is that I'm wondering whether you've fully understood the RFC that you opposed earlier today. When you say that the proposed change resembles WP:ATT, do you understand that both the editors you named as proponents of WP:ATT (SlimVirgin and Slrubenstein) are very vocal opponents of what the RFC is trying to accomplish? Their involvement has been purely to try to stop it from going through.—S Marshall T/C 23:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm unaware of past Wikipedia policy disputes in this matter, but your long post there [3] may be interpreted as an attack or at least as a continuation of a past dispute in the wrong forum. Giving examples of policy misuse (one way or the other) is fine and I have added a few myself, but you should probably avoid naming specific editors for wrongdoings in the policy page itself. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, ASCIIn2Bme, but I'm afraid we're way past that. The evidence of that user's misconduct is quite strong enough to justify my repeated naming of her in the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And on the substantive matter itself, I am puzzled why you think that removing "not truth" will allow attributed POV easier. My impression is that the opposite will happen, i.e. minority POVs will be harder to include. As I said elsewhere on that page [using my previous user name "Have mörser, will travel"], "NPOV, not 'truth'" would be a much better slogan for Wikipedia than "verifiability, not truth", because some points of view are given zero WP:WEIGHT in certain contexts, and so are excluded even if verifiable. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Too many edit conflicts-- the problem is less in the removal of "not truth" than in the fine print in the final sentence about attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• The proposed change does not remove "not truth". I understand why you thought it did, because a great deal of misinformation has been spread.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, S Marshall, too many edit conflicts on my page to get to you quickly, and the WP:V page is lengthy, so I may have missed something, but I don't think so. The text proposed is at the top of page; the concern is in the final sentence. I note that the possibility of POVing articles to include false info is added in the last sentence of the proposed new text-- that is, it would allow us to add false info if we attribute it, and shifts the burden of sourcing to article talk from the reliable sources noticeboard. This is precisely what the old defeated WP:ATT tried to accomplish-- it weakened our sourcing policies. I am just now reading this thread, after finishing my post to the RFC. If I've gotten something wrong, pls direct me to it-- it appear that the text of the RFC changed several times, was closed and reopened, and a whole mess, so ... Yes, I think we're past the point of discussion about continuing disputes, considering the matter came to my attention via the ANI and Sarek's talk page, when I heard he had resigned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It surely removes it from (undue) prominence, i.e. from the lead. The explanatory section/paragraph addition on how to handle trivial errors in otherwise reliable sources could use some improvements, but like I said in the RfC: I chose the lesser evil. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I found my error (thanks S Marshall); ASCII, I don't know what you're arguing, but I've more urgently got to go strike and fix this mistake first. Later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 The intention was not to weaken our sourcing policies, but to try to describe how to deal with potentially untrue information. From the very lengthy discussions during the working group, I can be sure that what Blueboar was trying to say is:- "The moon landings never took place" = unacceptable in any article, but "Mr Smith denies that the moon landings ever took place" = may be acceptable depending on the article (specifically unacceptable in Apollo program, but tolerable in Moon landing conspiracy theories). If that were clarified, would you consider revising your !vote?—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for calling my error to my attention, S Marshall, but I've got to go fix this other places. The example I gave of why that wording doesn't work still holds-- we shouldn't open the door to including false info by attributing it. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) If I got this right, Sandy is bothered by "Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information." I also think that's pretty silly, and I'd rather have the article fixed rather than attribute clearly wrong info. Relevant examples were discussed in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 52. Unfortunately those have been archived already while the RfC is still ongoing. But that sentence is a lesser evil in my view than having "not truth" in the lead. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is a weak paraphrase of the NPOV policy, namely Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#A_simple_formulation. I suspect it was written to support the paradoxical notion of "verifiability, not truth". Another user in the discussion describes this as "NPOV, not truth", which is more accurate. The problem that we're dealing with here is that someone at sometime in the near past decided to make the "verifiability" policy separate from the guideline on "reliable sources". Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. I've now redacted and apologized, think I got it all, and trying to post while trick or treaters are ringing my doorbell was A Very Bad Idea. Anyway, if we can resume this conversation at another time, the example that concerns me was explained there (Female genital manipulation, info attributed to an advocate, likely false). We shouldn't include false info by attributing it, when that data is noticeably not included in reliable medical sources, and we shouldn't shift the burden to article talk from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, since article talk is often burdened by ownership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, there's another interesting example that I found linked from somewhere on WT:V (I think; can't find from where owing to massive TLDR there) even though it's somewhat TLDR itself: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 100#Using sources which one hasn't actually read. In a nutshell: someone quoted a contraction of "GDP per capita" as GDP from an abstract and insisted that per WP:V it must be written in Wikipedia that way, even though the context made it clear without reading the paper that it was per capita. And, of course, when someone did read the rather obscure paper, it was talking about GDP per capita. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Goodness me, that FGM article is a rather distressing thing to read. I had intended to track down the diffs you refer to, but I'm afraid I decided to stop reading it for the sake of my personal equilibrium instead. Could we discuss a different example?—S Marshall T/C 00:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• That troubles me, too-- the medical articles on the topic treat it with cultural sensitivity and are not at all hard to read. I think we've got some attitude coming through that I just don't see in the medical journal literature, and I think that's what makes it hard to read. It's a cultural issue as well as a medical issue as well as a human rights issue, and presenting it as only one of those three is POV. Imagine if we treated our circumcision article, hence the Jewish religion, like this one? Or imagine if we had an article on divorce and the Catholic Church and what LatinAmerican women endure in marriage because of their cultural and religious beliefs, and presented it as if they were all barbarians because their religion encourages them to stay married to whore-mongerers, since some are convinced they'll rot in hell if they divorce? We have to have some cultural sensitivity, just as we have to treat the medical issue with sensitivity-- that article does not do that, it uses the advocacy sources for sensationalism, and does not reflect the same tone as seen in the medical articles treating the subject. It is an issue that many physicians in the US will encounter. The advocate claims 10% of women are dying from this: I haven't found a medical source that backs that up. It looks like sensationalism to hype the human rights aspect, at the expense of medical accuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I think the human rights aspect of FGM is a pretty big deal. I'm not a squeamish man; I've spent too many years working in Children's Services to be easily upset by horror stories. But to my uninformed eyes, comparing FGM with circumcision is like treating decapitation as a kind of serious haircut. A circumcised male experiences little pain and remains a functional male afterwards. You're probably right that the article could be toned down, but Wikipedia isn't pretending to be a medical textbook, and a strongly-worded disquisition on the human rights aspect seems appropriate to me. All the best—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• There are different degrees of FGM, and I always wonder why people think lopping off a newborn boy's tallywacker isn't painful ... anyway, I don't have one, so what do I know ... but we don't need to be a medical textbook, but we should be treating the article from all aspects to avoid POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• When you say "we should be treating the article from all aspects to avoid POV", I only partly agree. I don't think that NPOV is achieved by averaging out all the POVs, and I think that there are many times when it's appropriate to disregard a POV entirely. (For example, I think it's right that our article on evolution doesn't mention baraminology.) In the case of FGM, the POVs I feel it would be appropriate to examine are the historical, medical and legal ones. I'm conscious that there's a religio-cultural aspect to it as well, but I would be anxious to avoid giving that much weight. For example, I believe there's a somewhat disputed hadith about it (link), but I certainly wouldn't want FGM to be seen as a muslim practice!

  Going back to the point with WT:V, Blueboar's proposal deals with this kind of thing by saying that potentially untrue things should be rephrased as statements of opinion. So for example, any mention of Islam in connection with FGM should not read "There is a disputed hadith about it (cite)", but use actual in-text attribution ("according to source x, there is a hadith about it (cite)".—S Marshall T/C 01:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that NPOV is achieved by averaging out all the POVs ... That's not what I'm saying. In the case of FGM, the POVs I feel it would be appropriate to examine are the historical, medical and legal ones. I'm conscious that there's a religio-cultural aspect to it as well, but I would be anxious to avoid giving that much weight. But that's not our choice-- we report what reliable sources cover, and the secondary peer-reviewed medical sources cover all of these aspects of the issue, since physicians will need to know all of these aspects in order to deal with their female patients with FGM with cultural sensitivity. And, we don't get to leave out aspects covered by the highest quality, peer-reviewed medical sources, while advancing medical data that has not been peer-reviewed and comes from a known advocate (who doesn't even provide a source for her data, that doesn't even pass the duck test-- do you really think 10% of women in Africa are dying from this?). Undue. POV.

  FGM says that a known advocate against FGM says that 10% of women die from it. That is likely false-- it's not repeated in any medical source that I can find. Adding false info to an article-- and justifying it via attribution to someone with a known position to advance-- is undue and POV. That's what that Blueboar's proposed text gives us. We don't need to hype to inform our readers of the problems with FGM; we can let the highest quality sources speak for themselves, as they do a very good job of doing that-- presenting the issues with cultural sensitivity and medical accuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, well that's much closer to what I think. I had the wrong impression there. I should have explained that I do not believe the 10% mortality figure and I certainly would not include it. This is what Blueboar's trying to say with his "an initial threshold for inclusion"—he's trying to say that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. (Personally my preferred phrasing is "A criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" and to omit "not truth" entirely, but I was obliged to accept compromise on that or we'd never have got as far as RFC.)

  The only part of your post that I disagree with is when you say, "we don't get to leave out aspects covered by the highest quality...sources", and my position is that we can and should make a judgment about that. I think that the process of writing an encyclopaedia article is analysing the sources, weighing them, and summarising them. Part of "summarising" is deciding what we can leave out.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Gee, I hadn't seen this long thread here, but wanted to let you know that I just left you a reply at WT:V: [4]. In my view, the problem you are concerned about is far more likely to occur with the present policy wording than with the new compromise wording that Blueboar proposed (in part to address concerns very much like yours). (Note that I edit-conflicted with your most recent edit over there, so I hadn't read that when I clicked Save.) Cheers, --JN466 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Considering the momental gaffe I made there, I really think I should bow out of the discussion altogether, no? I hope I've fixed/clarified with my final post? I'm not opposed to removing "not truth", I am opposed to adding false data via attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I think you've clarified your post admirably.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

:) --JN466 20:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're smiling about this, nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

But maybe you should work on the paraphrasing, or quote it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done some work on the close paraphrasing. Better? --JN466 00:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Very good! If it were up to me, I might go a step further, though -- the Monroh "says" is a good case for the use of the word "claims" instead. There are times when "claims" is the right word-- in this case, specifically since Monroh cites no source in her book and more reliable sources do not support that data. At any rate, we are much improved over what was there. There's a lot more of same in the article (possibly inaccurate medical data attributed to laysource). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility....

...would require informing an editor when discussing him in a public forum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That'd be courtesy, wouldn't it? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a novel interpretation of civility, but while you're here, if you would archive your talk page so it doesn't take five minutes to load, you would increase the chances that I would post a notification to you. Since I'm not always on a fast connection (and perchance some of the editors affected by your admin actions aren't either), that would be courteous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Since when has it been civil to talk about people behind their backs? That does seem to be the novel interpretation to me. I do archive my talk page, but point taken (and acted upon). Do you know about section editing and the "New section" link? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your best defense is to come here and try to deflect your inappropriate behavior on to me, particularly when your talk page was a mile long and I'm on a slow connection. I hope this kind of behavior isn't a pattern for you-- next time I'm on a fast connection, perhaps I should peruse your talk page archives. And no, I don't use the "New section" link; I don't find it helpful to post to someone's talk page when I can't scroll to the bottom of the page to see if the issue has already been raised. Besides, I'm a ditz. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I rest my case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Having just been directed to Jimmy Wales's talk page I'm rather astonished by your bullshit Stephan, as nobody had the courtesy to tell me I was a topic of conversation there. And almost equally dismayed by Jimmy's naive comments about me: "Responding to people like Malleus when he's misbehaving by misbehaving further does not resolve the problem". What does "people like Malleus" mean? Just who the Hell do Jimbo and his acolytes think he is? Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

God and his angels. Parrot of Doom 20:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What gets on my tits is Stephan complaining that he's not been notified of the discussion, when I wasn't either. But of course as an administrator he's much more important than me even though he does fuck all. Wanker. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. Is any reason why this does not cover you? If yes, sorry. Explain and I'll try to be more inclusive the next time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

For some reason I'm reminded of an Alan Clarke quote, it went something like "My dear, you will remember me, but I won't remember you". Parrot of Doom 20:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Could I humbly suggest that maybe the "wanker" bit is not likely to smooth things over here, and might be a smidge too far? Pedro :  Chat  21:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You may suggest whatever you like, but it's unlikely to alter my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall asking you to alter your opinion. Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't no, but I have no interest in "smoothing things over". There are serious problems here that need to be addressed, not smoothed over. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm mystified how stating someone is a wanker will address serious problems. I'm hardly in the civility police, and I fully understand the number of times you've been wrongly blocked under the pretence of WP:NPA, when you've made comments that are not personal. However calling someone a wanker is, I feel, over the top. c.f. the whole "arse" stupidity. If I call you an arse (in Br. E.) it's got a connotation that is really just a modest rebuke. Calling you a wanker is not really the same level. Still, whatever. Luckily they don't desysop through inaction, so I get to keep my precious buttons. I just think removing one word would not really dilute your concerns but might make it a tad easier to duck under the WP:CIV-POL radar. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that I care about the reaction of the civility police? They are what they are and will do what they will. Let others judge their honesty, and see how many agree with me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing leads me to believe you care about the civility police, and frankly you've enjoyed one to many Stellas if you think I've said that. If you're only concerned about "how many agree with me" then frankly I'd like to know when the real MF retired and someone else took over his account. That's a very suprising comment. I'm going to disengage and apologies to Sandy for the orange bars.Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've had no Stellas at all, yet. So perhaps you'll have to wait until you hear what I really think. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Stella is minging, you should try this. Bloody lovely. Parrot of Doom 23:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The very thought of cider, pear or otherwise, brings back teenage memories of Bulmers that are best forgotten. Even the smell makes me want to puke. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I will not allow personal attacks against Cider. Reported at Run to mommy sorry ANI. Parrot of Doom 23:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is to notify you that this discussion has resulted in a report being lodged at WP:REALALE/N Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been dragged kicking and screaming to a few cider-only pubs in the the southwest, and even a Bulmers one somewhere near Guildford IIRC, but I always fall at the first hurdle; I just can't drink the bloody stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Would you cruel people stop discussing beers and ales that I cannot get easily here in the States?? Meanie heads. And dang, Malleus, cider is good! And Brit cider is better than the crap stuff I can get here in the states... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you a Strongbow fan? One of my nieces loves the white ciders like White Diamond, but I've always believed that alcohol shouldn't taste nice; it should be hard to drink, a bit like medicine. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, Strongbow has been made illegal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Strongbow's better than Woodchuck that is made here in the states .. yikes. Now, I need to get back to helping the stepdaughter make a log cabin from twigs. I'm pretty sure that is NOT a UK school project, aren't ya'll lucky. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Aged about 19 I got drunk on about 7 halves of Woodpecker and black, but unknown to me each one had been spiked with vodka. I ended up running around in my underpants on a pub bowling green at 5 o'clock in the morning, but that's a complicated story. Needless to say I didn't touch cider again for a good ten years. Parrot of Doom 00:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope they were clean underpants. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

To get back on topic (much as the cider side-discussion is nice and chummy and all that), there is a serious point here about what Stephan said. it can be very disconcerting to discover that you or something you said is being discussed on other user talk pages. Sometimes it is unavoidable (I'm sure I've done it myself more than a few times), but sometimes it is just plain rude. It's like walking into a room and everyone falls silent just as you walk in and you feel your ears burning because you are sure everyone was just talking about you. It's not quite like that on Wikipedia, but there is a tendency for some editors to post on their user talk pages as if the only people able to read the conversation are those participating, when in fact these are public pages and anyone can read them.

The example in question (where Sandy mentioned something I'd said) I raised here. You will note that in her reply, Sandy failed completely to address the point about how her quoting me somewhere else annoyed me. I didn't push further on that point at the time, but now I see someone else making a similar complaint, I'm bringing it up again. From my point of view, a FAC delegate responded to something I said during a FAC review, and then failed to respond to my follow-up question, and instead (two days later) effectively gossiped about it on another editor's talk page. 'Unprofessional' is the word I'm looking for. As I said, I let it slide at the time, but seeing Stephan make his comment here, and the resulting 'chummy' conversation (effectively editors using Wikipedia user talk pages to socialise) really gets my back up at times. The ironic thing being that such threads often consist of those who produce (or help produce) excellent content blowing off steam on their user talk pages (fair enough to an extent), but to then see someone who often takes part in such 'chatty' talk page threads then complaining about immature editors socialising off-wiki on IRC? You really couldn't make it up.

My view on socializing on-wiki is that people should minimise any chit-chat on their user talk pages (which simply leads to the formation of in-groups), and at some point redirect the conversations towards content editing. In other words, interact with people while discussing content (i.e. "I remember this editor from a discussion related to this article", rather than "I remember this editor because they made a hilarious joke on someone's user talk page"). I don't expect many of those here to welcome what I've said, but please, the next time you are joshing with someone, or having a laugh in public, or engaging in idle chit-chat, consider that though it may reinforce social bonds between the editors involved, that is nearly always at the expense of objectivity and engaging with editors where it really matters (building content). It can be more professional to maintain a distance. Wikipedia isn't a place to socialise (not even user talk pages). The content should come first. And if you must have venues for on-wiki socialising, make them public cafe/pub areas, not user talk pages which just encourage division into social groupings. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your view isn't worth chicken shit. I was also mentioned in the thread that Stephan objected to, by Jimmy himself, and not in a nice way. Go fuck yourself for your dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's getting late, isn't it? I'll check back tomorrow when I won't be tempted to respond in kind. Carcharoth (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully by then you'll have recovered whatever senses you once had. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's more a matter of knowing when it is best to exercise restraint (quite aside from whether editing late at night is good or bad in terms of saying sensible things). I'm genuinely curious as to whether when you read something written by another editor that annoys you to the point where you start saying things like you say above, whether you even consider showing restraint, or is showing restraint something you would consider "dishonest"? To me, restraint is part of being civil. To you, maybe it is being dishonest. <shrug> Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly can't say that I'd have expressed myself in quite the terms that Malleus did, Carcharoth, your post sounds incredibly pompous and annoying. Much like a school teacher lecturing small children to get back to their homework. Perhaps you've forgotten that we are volunteers and if we want to chat on user talk pages, we certainly are allowed to. And certainly, lecturing this group of people ... who are certainly considered some of the stronger content contributors on Wikipedia .. wasn't the smartest move you ever made. I'll point out that MF's percentage of article edits is in the high 60%, while yours is 25%. Parrots is also above 60%, as is mine. I think you can safely say we know what the goal of the project is. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a clear disconnect between those building the project and those who police it. Carcharoth ought to be thinking about that before he posts again. But of course he won't. Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(responding to Ealdgyth after edit conflict) But can't you see that you've managed to be pompous and annoying yourself there? Quoting percentage of article edits and putting yourself on a pedestal is the very definition of being patronising (and in any case, amount and quality of content added is a far better metric than pure edit counts or edit percentages - I would never judge someone purely on edit counts or percentages - and yes, I know you've all done more of that than I have, but that is still missing the point). The point is that I was pointing out the double standard of complaints being made about off-wiki IRC socialising (the edit summary was something like 'spoonfeeding the IRC crowd'), when large amounts of the same sort of socialising goes on on user talk pages. That those doing the socialising are a high-calibre quality of content editor shouldn't make any difference. Just as high-quality content editing isn't a free pass for incivility, it isn't a free pass to use Wikipedia for socialising (within reason, I'm not trying to be a complete killjoy, just pointing out some of the unintended consequences [due entirely to human nature being what it is] of user talk pages becoming de facto semi-private socialising areas rather than places for messages to be left). Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for a comment?

Hey there! I hope you are having a great day, I was wondering if you check an article I am hoping to bring at WP:FAC in the near future. It recently received a peer review but I was told that the outstanding issues is the fancrut in it. I have a hard time with identifying fancrut in articles (esp Selena-related ones) so I decided to ask someone who is familiar with the process at WP:FAC to help me identify the issues so I can fix them. I hope you can help, please forgive me if you are very busy with active FACs and if you are busy in RL. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sandy....

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Persoonia lanceolata/archive1 has three supports and although an image review has not been done it'll be pretty straightforward, are you ok if I fling up another short FAC one now? Promise to review a few ;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Kthx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Klazomania References

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Wafflephile (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Malleus v Kaldari

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination) is what you're looking for. Black Kite (t) 19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Providing examples of fixed paraphrasing

I've just been reading the latest round of examples you gave at WT:DYK, and while I still don't particularly agree with the approach you are taking there, there is a point that I would really like to see cleared up, which is the matter of actually providing examples of how to fix such close paraphrasing. It is not always easy to do such rewriting (you really need to have the entire article and its sources in front of you to do that), but it would be helpful to do a rewrite for at least one example to give people an idea of where you personally draw the line. To take the three examples you raised recently (link to fixed page version):

• Article: Church of St Michael, Alnham
• Article text: The font, dated 1664, is a small bowl, octagonal in shape with a moulded profile in the Gothic tradition,
• Source text: Dated 1664, octagonal, small bowl with a moulded profile, still meant to be in the Gothic tradition
• Rewrite: The 17th-century font dates from 1664 and takes the shape of a small octagonal bowl with a profile moulded in the Gothic tradition.

The information communicated here is '1664', 'small', bowl', 'octagonal', 'moulded profile' and 'Gothic tradition'. Not sure what "still meant" refers to (can't see original source). In any case, it is very difficult to communicate that information without using those words in some form or fashion similar to the original text, so any rewriting will be minimal here by the nature of the density of information contained in the source text (though one option is to spread the information out over a longer paragraph). If there are other ways to write this, it would be really helpful to have that demonstrated. If you can't rewrite this yourself, then that might indicate that this is not really the problem you think it is (and if you can, then it would really help show others what is needed).

This is a tricky one. Paraphrasing Pevsner, who is very well-informed & obliged to write in a very compacted style, at roughly the same length, is especially difficult. The font - or is it just the moulding? - is "meant to be in the Gothic tradition" - but does it succeed? At 1664 it is of course extremely late. I'd be inclined to quote, but once you start that... A link to Gothic survival might be worked in. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Article: Church of St Michael, Alnham
• Article text: Building features include a Bell-Cot, a lower chancel with a porch on the south side, and a 3-bay arcade on the north side.
• Source text: Nave with Bell-cot, lower chancel, transepts, and S porch. A N aisle was pulled down, but the three-bay arcade can still be seen on the north side
• Rewrite: The Northumberland Pevsner guide lists the church's features, which include a bell-Cot, a lower chancel with a porch on the south side, and a 3-bay arcade on the north side.

This is a descriptive list of building features. By its very nature you are not going to be able to extensively rewrite a list like this, and the same words will be repeated regardless of how much you try to paraphrase the source, though my approach above seeks to surmount this by making clear within the text where the information is from. Regardless of that, this was, IMO, a poor example of duplicated text to raise at WT:DYK. In case it helps, Nikolaus Pevsner was the original author of the guides, and though new generations of authors doing the updates are also listed as authors, the guides are generally referred to with that name - see Pevsner Architectural Guides.

The "arcade" won't make much sense without explaining there was an aisle that was pulled down. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Article: Ratih Hardjono
• Article text: Furthermore, she was also unpopular with clerics within the Nahdlatul Ulama, a Muslim organisation which is the President's political power base, because the clerics disputed her claims that an eminent 19th century Muslim guru was her ancestor.
• Source text: She also stirred opposition inside the Muslim organisation Nahdlatul Ulama, which is the President's political powerbase, where clerics disputed her claims that she was descended from an eminent 19th-century Muslim' holy man ...
• Rewrite: The Australian Financial Review reported that Hardjono's claims of descent from a 19th-century kyai were disputed by clerics from Nahdlatul Ulama, a Muslim organisation described as "the President's political powerbase".

This, IMO, is a valid catch. The sentence structure here is copied (with minimal ordering changes) and can (and should) be rephrased with in-text attribution and quotes for the glossing of Nahdlatul Ulama. Some rewording has already taken place here, but above is what I would have done (presuming that Crisco's use of 'kyai' is correct). Talking of Crisco's rephrasing, IMO, when rewording takes place after criticism like that you made, it is critical that you either approve or reject the new wording, otherwise any point of the initial criticism is lost and no closure is achieved.

I realise it is not reasonable to expect such close discussion for every example raised, but sometimes such discussion is needed, otherwise no-one really moves forward in any way. Do you think it is reasonable for those raising such concerns to provide at least one example of a rewrite at the same time, similar to how I've tried to do it above? I'm posting this here, rather than over at WT:DYK, but will post a link there stating that I've posted this here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have time to teach people to rewrite, by all means do so ... such examples at DYK might be helpful. I'm concerned with teaching people to review nominations, and avoiding repeat offenses at the cut-and-paste playground that is DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but do read what I said back at WT:DYK. I'm serious when I say there that it would be better to reduce the volume of DYK to allow more time and space for discussions such as this. Obviously the discussions would take place at the review or article talk page, but I stand by what I've said that such discussions are needed. You've said yourself in the past something along the lines of how DYK should function to help educate new editors ("DYK is the perfect place to catch these problems early and educate editors" and "educating DYKers"), so I'm surprised to see you rejecting such an idea. You seem to have changed from educating editors to educating DYK reviewers - there is a big difference. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put words at the end of my fingertips that I didn't type-- they certainly need to be educated. You are welcome to give much-needed guidance in how to paraphrase sources in our own words-- my time is limited and my focus is on getting reviewers to review. Reviewers don't review at article talk pages-- they review in the content processes, and admins shouldn't knowingly be putting copyvios on the main page (which they are). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Two things here.

One, whether or not these kinds of examples are "copyright violations" IS a judgement call. And let me make that statement precise. It is a judgement call in the sense that if you bring these kinds of examples to the attention of people who are familiar with copyright law (on or off Wikipedia) they won't give you a precise answer. They'll give you a "you PROBABLY shouldn't do this but I dunno, maybe, kind of...etc" kind of answer. In Wikipedia speak these fall under the rubric of "close paraphrase". Somewhere in between. More or less, and especially in cases where you have a sentence "listing" stuff, you're not gonna convince anyone who knows that ONE or even TWO sentences constitute a copy vio. It's got to be a chunk, paragraph or so. Of course, from a stylistic and moral point of view, even the literal (more or less) copying of one or two sentences should be deprecated.

Two, if this is your standard for "copyvios" I can find you a buttload of these in GA articles. Which doesn't make it ok for DYK but does put the whole problem into perspective - it's Wikipedia wide, not particular to a specific project.

 Volunteer Marek  05:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Marek, I have limited online time today, so quick answer is that I don't disagree with you, it is clunky to write out "copyvio/close paraphrasing/plagiarism/cut-and-paste" to cover all aspects of the discussion (which is always at DYK a general discussion about the general problem), but none of this means we should just stop caring about this significant problem and let it keep occurring at DYK, which is a training ground for all of the above regardless of what we label any individual case. Fact is, at DYK we should be educating editors to paraphrase and summarize sources correctly-- instead we see direct cut-and-paste or artefacts in the articles of what is surely cut-and-paste editing, limited knowledge of and review for same, and direct opposition to addressing the problem from several DYK regulars whenever the issues are raised. Re your second point, if the examples given rose to the level of my standard for significant concern, I would not have argued that the CCI should not have been opened-- those examples rose to the standard of 1) "this editor needs to be educated, not investigated" and 2) DYK is still not addressing the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Klazomania

Hi SandyGeorgia,

I am one of the editors for the klazomania page you have been helping with. Thank you again for all your help, I left a few questions on our discussion page and was wondering if you could help me out with them?

Best, User:Adondaki —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC).

Comments on Educational Assignments

First let me say that I am aware that you are kinda awesome. You make lots of great edits and everywhere I've seen your work on articles (usually because you pick up the pieces after a student tramples it) is made better by your attention. However, some of your comments have led me to believe that you think that professors aren't talking to students about what to do. To be fair I don't know what other profs are doing, but I've spent a great deal of time in class talking about what to do, demonstrating what to do, working with students in a computer lab, and trying my best to link them to the appropriate WP policies and style guides within our assignment page. But some students don't learn everything we teach them. I still have some students who don't know how to WP:SIGN, they wait to the last minute and throw together some crap, and all the other behaviors we see with any assignment. For traditional assignments I can write feedback and throw it back at them to fix, but that doesn't work here. If students mess up in main space, you or another experienced editor swoops in and cleans up. Which is great for WP but not so much for me and my students (to be fair though I don't expect you to care about my class).

So, let me say this: We (professors) are also new to Wikipedia and are trying to find the way to make this work for everyone. All my students (now and in the future) are going to work in sandboxes until their contributions get vetted. I think they might be a problem if others change the articles they want to work on, but I can still grade their work and some of what they generate might still be able to be incorporated into the mainspace. I appreciate your earlier comments about WP:MEDRS, and welcome any other suggestions you might have about the assignment for my students. Cheers, MTHarden (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're finally responding ... what I'm finding is professors who don't engage talk, hence students who don't engage talk, hence frustrations in editing for students and established editors alike. I can't say this is all related to your students, since my watchlist is being hit by numerous class projects, and few of them notify in advance (a big chunk of wrong text just appears and I have to go buy sources and deal with it).

The first thing students need to learn about Wikipedia is to engage on article and user talk, and if they don't do that, they're wasting their time (and more of mine on quite a few articles I watch and edit). Another problem is that several articles I watch/edit are being hit by more than one college class, which sets up a whole 'nother set of issues-- student groups working at odds with each other, and not following a MEDMOS structure, and neither group reading the talk pages. I can see one problem is that students have varying levels of ability, but I see a bigger problem is that they're taking on topics they aren't much familiar with on Wikipedia that they aren't much committed to, and the biggest problem is that we can't help 'em learn better writing, correct paraphrasing, correct use of sources, and Wikipedia policy if they don't engage on talk. I guess that's the very most frustrating part ... they put in a lot of text that basically has to be deleted (and I spent $34 yesterday to get a source only to find out most of that article needs to be deleted), and they don't even read or engage the article talk page to understand why.

It would be most helpful if they were graded more on how much they engage, adapt, adjust text, learn, and less on the text they add, since in almost every case I've seen most text needs to be deleted because it is either poorly sourced or in the wrong article or from sources that don't even mention the article topic edited or plagiarized. And I'm finding lots of WP:NOTAFORUM rah-rah-I-like-what-you-wrote talk page entries going off on my watchlist (that sort of thing really belongs on user talk, not article talk, which is for improving articles and discussing sources). One group (not even sure if it's yours) worked in sandbox from almost wholly faulty sources, didn't notify on talk they were working in sandbox, and if they had notified, I could have guided them towards correct sourcing before they plopped in a lot of text from sandbox that had to be deleted. It's frustrating all 'round from where I'm sitting, since I've yet to see an article upgraded in ways that help our readers. I hope some of my suggestions will be of some use to you and your students, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Klazomania 2

Sandy, I saw your note on Talk:Exercise addiction and will follow up on that tomorrow (I'm about to pack it in for tonight). Thanks for the heads up there. I also saw the exchange above and I'm glad to see you're talking to Mitch; from the interactions I've seen he's doing a good job explaining to his students what will and won't work. I think the classes are generally very valuable to Wikipedia but as Mitch says above it's still a work in progress to figure out the best way to have the students benefit from the class while Wikipedia benefits from the students' work. I can give you more background if you're interested (I was at the Higher Education Summit and have been reading many of the relevant pages), but I think Jon Murray's class, which we all remember fondly, is the stellar example of what can happen when things go well. There are also, sadly, some current examples of what can happen when things go badly; WT:IEP is a train wreck, for example, and I suspect (and hope) the WMF is going to rein that in strongly next semester. Anyway, enough for tonight; we can talk tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Jbmurray had a whole team of copyeditors, researchers, and very experienced FA writers helping him on vital and important topics via a WikiProject that got everyone's attention ("this doesn't scale" comes to mind :). I'm all alone on obscure neuropsych topics that don't always even warrant an article with little research available, generally behind a paywall, and students who are not grad students and may have never heard of the terms themselves. I just created sham rage for klazomania-- who's ever heard of either of these? Yet I've spent days on researching and cleaning up articles that I basically encounter via Tourette's. I don't have all the help Jbmurray had :) :) Anyway, I have a wake tomorrow and funeral Monday then travel Tuesday, so don't know when we'll be able to talk ... best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My contribs are gettin' scary ... what kind of nutcase editor is this anyway?

• 02:28, November 6, 2011 (diff | hist) Klazomania ‎ (wrote that article) (top) [rollback]
• 02:26, November 6, 2011 (diff | hist) Sham rage ‎ (→Further reading: add) (top) [rollback]
• 02:03, November 6, 2011 (diff | hist) Go the Fuck to Sleep ‎ (→See also: seriously, d'oh) (top) [rollback]
• 01:08, November 6, 2011 (diff | hist) 20 Años de Éxitos En Vivo con Moderatto ‎ (→Background: cite doesn't say that)
• 21:57, November 4, 2011 (diff | hist) Exercise addiction ‎ (→Classification: comment out plagiarism, will check the rest)

I'm going to go the ... oopsie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Back online this morning -- sorry to hear about the wake and funeral. Here are a couple of thoughts before I go back to those other articles. Re Jon, yes, the FA team was certainly a big part of the success of that project, and without them I doubt there would have been FAs, but I think GA could well have happened for several articles. Having been involved with several of these efforts now I am confident that the single biggest factor was the students themselves -- the successful ones were motivated and capable. Jon gave them very good direction, but as Mitch says above, some students simply don't benefit from instruction, so it's not just down to the instructor.

It's tempting to think of the students as simply newbies who should not be bitten, but I don't think that's quite accurate -- the typical new editor here is trying to contribute out of an interest in the topic, not because of external pressures such as the desire for a good grade. On the other hand, these students tend to be directed towards topics than the average new editor is less likely to work on, and there is an external infrastructure that attempts to guide them -- on campus training and support, in-class instruction and demonstration, and online ambassadors to help. I think they're a different class of editor than Wikipedia is used to -- on the plus side they've got a decent chance of adding useful material, but on the negative side they don't understand our rules and have little reflex to engage in talk page interaction. There are some real success stories, such as Kayz911, who is largely responsible for Nuclear energy policy of the United States, created as a class assignment. On the other hand I've seen students who seem to have little ability to write a coherent sentence, let alone assemble useful information into a form suitable for inclusion in an article. The challenge for the USEP is to find the best way to maximize the benefits of the program while limiting the negative effects, such as the addition of weak material that then has to be cleaned up. I've suggested that limiting the number of classes while we work out the mechanics would be a good step. If you do run into problematic student edits, please also let either the campus ambassador, the online ambassador, or the instructor know; the ambassadors are there partly to help in situations like this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple of quick thoughts, Mike, because I have limited time today. First, I don't believe any knowledgeable professor should have guided those poor students towards an article like klazomania. I'm sure it sounded interesting, but even an experienced editor like moi has a hard time with an article on such an obscure topic; if the students fell down there, I think it's partly the professor's fault, and two colleges are in that one. Second, initially on all of these articles there were problems with professors not making their students aware of some on-Wiki writing that would help with copyvio issues, and certainly not making their students aware of MEDRS. Third, the additional complication of more than one college class working on the same article, sometimes in sandbox, usually without notifying article talk so I cold have helped guide them. Fourth, the emphasis should be on grading the students for learning how to engage on Wiki, because what is making me batty is that they rarely read what I'm writing on talk-- they charge on to add non-compliant content even though I've given feedback. And one final point (not their problem), somewhere in that mess of links you gave me, I saw one online ambassador who has prose and policy issues and has continually come to my talk page to tell me to stay away from "her" articles even though I encounter them in vetted processes. So, should I tell her to stay away from "my" articles? I hope most of our ambassadors would be knowlegdeable good FA writers with diplomacy skills-- similar to you. Certainly, that is what made the Jbmurray class articles work, and I remain concerned that the success we saw with his students doesn't scale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen some significant contributions from User:JimmyButler's high school students as well, so there are some collaborations that work. Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, just to say that although my energy the past couple of semesters has been over on the Spanish wikipedia (mixed results, still figuring things out there), I do keep half an eye over what's going on over here, and am certainly interested in the general project of bringing Wikipedia and university classes together, and trying to keep up with that conversation. My ears prick up when Mike says that WT:IEP is a trainwreck, for instance. Will follow up some links now...  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just checked in on WT:IEP, and then [5]. OMG. To call that a "trainwreck" is a horrible understatement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's sooooo good to see you again ! I was aware of the India trainwreck, but I'm also unconvinced about other areas. I'm seeing across my watchlist of neuropsychiatric articles (sorry this is under Klazomania, because that's by NO means the worst or where all of this is occurring-- it has actually been better than most):

1. Blatant cut-and-paste plagiarism
2. Edit warring (gosh darn it, I'm getting credit for that sentence, I'll reinsert it six times if I must)
3. Zero engagement on either article talk or user talk
4. High-school level command of English grammar
5. No knowledge of WP:MEDRS or WP:MEDMOS in classes directing edits to medical articles
6. Original research and synthesis (pull in some text the student thinks is related even though it's not)
7. Text being placed in the wrong article or with no sections or regard for the lead
8. Unengaged mentors
9. Unengaged professors[6]
10. Professors with up to 200 students each (impossible to supervise that many) !!!!!
11. Professors with classes working on up to 25 different topics (how can they follow that many)
12. Edits to articles about topics so obscure that even accomplished editors would have a hard time turning them into developed articles
13. Multiple college classes working on the same article, no awareness of each other
14. No notification on talk pages that classes are working on articles, or in sandbox, so others can help guide them
15. Classes that aren't enrolled in any mentorship program
16. Inappropriate use of article talk pages for class "peer reviews" that amount to ILIKEIT but nothing useful
17. Incorrect medical sourcing

Ah, heck, I could go on, but it seems to me that the Jbmurray projects had enough mentors to help the students, a professor who paid attention to his students, a professor who helped the students choose worthy articles, etcetera etcetera ... none of what I'm seeing on my watchlist, where generally what I am seeing is a lot of bad info that is worse than no info. I've got hours into cleaning up obscure articles that I've long watchlisted and keep clean only because they're linked from other articles I edit, that should be nothing more than stubs because there's little to say about them, and they are articles that will never get more than a few hits a day, and I had to spend $34 the other day to discover faulty sourcing, original research and plagiarism behind a pay wall, so are we adding to the "sum of all human knowledge" or just taking my time and money? Generally, I don't get a sense these students care about their topics or Wikipedia-- they're just in it for the grade.

Other than that, one of the "ambassadors" is someone whose prose had to be addressed by you and Tony1 at FAC and who didn't respond well to your critique, so ... que tal ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I do think it's worth separating out what's due to a) bad or unprepared students (though we will always have a proportion of bad students, however much preparation we try to give them), b) bad or unprepared teachers and c) bad course design. For instance, last semester, with grad students (grad students!), whom I though needed rather less supervision and explanation, I found there were two rather serious cases of plagiarism. They got fixed, but even so. I think students may approach the Wiki somewhat differently from the way in which they approach an essay (as in some ways they should): though one of the students also plagiarized in other elements of the course (more obviously on the Wiki, but still), the other *only* plagiarized on Wiki.

Anyhow, because I'm focussing on the Spanish Wikipedia, I haven't been particularly involved with the Ambassador/Mentor program, though I would have hoped that that might have helped. I'm sad to hear that too many problems continue.

All well here, though busy. Was recently hanging out with the people who made this little film, which you might like. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Que lindo video !! La Yolando ha cambiado un pelito, no :) Seguro que esta gente son panas, aunque no viajo mas p'alla. Anyway, it occurred to me after that post it would be darn near impossible for one professor with more than 200 students to oversee editing on more than 50 articles, so I think some of this is getting ahead of what you used to do. Hopefully the (grand total of) two students who have at least engaged on talk will get the grade. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I went to a Wikimedia-sponsored event in Boston, at which there were a couple of profs from the U of Toronto who had Psychology classes with 1000 students, whom they hoped to introduce to Wikipedia. I was like "What?!" (Mind you, I find the notion of having a thousand students in a class to be pretty inconceivable, too.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That would not be my first indication of the issues with the psych program at U of Toronto (and I'm not referring to Wiki, I mean IRL). Jon, I don't see evidence that these massive programs are helping Wikipedia-- I see mostly evidence that they are taxing committed editors and not bringing in new knowledgeable editors, or editors who stick around to improve articles. They're not doing what you did-- they just can't be overseeing the amount of work that their students are undertaking, many (not all, I'm sure there are some good ones, and I've encountered one who at least is reading talk, engaging, trying to get it right) of those students seem to have no commitment to Wiki and are only doing it for a grade, and I really wonder what kind of monster has been unleashed. For me, these ill-guided psych and neuropsych projects are going off all across my watchlist, 'cuz that's where I edit. In the medical realm, no information is better than bad information-- if we can't get it right, we shouldn't be misleading readers, and we should let them find their information from reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Correction, wrong school, Google is My Friend-- it was a different Canadian psych program. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, a quick note, since you may not have realized this -- at least one or two of the problems you've run into with student editing are not, in fact, part of the USEP -- they are independent efforts sparked by outside organizations such as the American Psychology Society. That may not affect your view of students editing on Wikipedia, but it might be relevant to any discussion of the USEP itself, which has a goal of providing a framework for this sort of effort. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh-- another one. That's discouraging. Well, thanks for that info, and I'll try to catch up on that as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, a University of Toronto psychology class was today mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Copyvios from psychology students - the section also has a link to the class page. User:WoodSnake is the professor, and mentions something about 1700 (!) students potentially being involved in the course, although perhaps that's the number from the university as a whole this year, not just this one class. This class is the one psychology class from there that Nikkimaria isn't already helping with as online ambassador. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on what I know of average undergraduate (especially first-year) classes at U of T, 1700 would not seem out of the ordinary, although no responsible prof should be trying an experimental (for them) teaching approach with a class that size - particularly as this class has only 3 TAs and no Online Ambassadors (and I don't blame the OAs for that - who would want to be solely responsible for 1700-odd quasi-active newbies? Not me!). Despite all that, I will say that even with ambassador attention plagiarism is still a concern for students: I caught two instances of plagiarism/copyvio from Piotrus' class in the DYK queue, and given the number of current GA noms from various educational projects I wouldn't be surprised to hear of more plagiarism being caught there. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Way to go, WMF; you'll kill us off yet (now Canada Education Program hitting our watchlists, in addition to India Education Project and US Education Project). Keep up the good work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Joe Danger

I respectfully request this be withdrawn. I'm not entirely sure this is something a non-delegate should do, so I will raise it here. Thank you for your analysis. — Joseph Fox 16:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Most kind of Brian! I'll do that now-- hope to see you back soon and ready to roll. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So do I. ;) Sorry for wasting your time, and Graham's time. — Joseph Fox 16:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Chavez

On the one hand, I could get a ton of books and become an expert, but that might be futile as far as actually implementing improvements to the article. On the other hand, I could just keep the article watchlisted and offer support to neutrality efforts. Any recommendation? So far, I was just concentrating on balancing the pro-democracy stuff in the first paragraph of the lead, but I see that even those who support an NPOV tag might nevertheless oppose any objective statement that the subject has avoided accountability to democratic institutions like the legislature.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how much time you have to lose ... my experience is that no matter how well sourced, anything that is not Chavez hagiography will be removed, and the excuses for removing text are so varied and novel that you can't even anticipate what they might be (particularly since they are never logical or grounded in policy). Until some editors show up there who care about neutralizing the article, anything you try to do amounts to a timesink, since the article owners won't allow it. Until/unless they are brought to ArbCom, I believe that will be the status quo, but I don't think there's even a good arbcase there, because the guardians of the article are adept at making sure newbies, IPs and anons do the actual pro-Chavez-biased editing, while they mostly revert attempts at neutrality. In other words, by encouraging newbies on the talk page to violate policy, they keep their noses clean, making an Arb Case difficult to pursue-- the editor actually POVing the article varies over time, while the article owners cheer them on on talk. Fact is, nobody on Wiki cares that we've had a POV article on a world leader for at least six years (and that is disgusting). But here's an interesting piece of history: the FA version that was POV was written by Saravask-- the POV in that version was somewhat understandable, since back in 2005 and 2006 the world wasn't paying much attention to Chavez, and if you didn't speak Spanish, chances are, you didn't know the story. After the article was defeatured, Saravask disappeared from editing there, so I never knew where he stood on the POV. He showed up on talk the other day and blasted the article's obvious pro-Chavez hagiography, so now we know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. I'll think it over and keep an eye on it. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few Wikipedians capable of doing the work there, but I think they're all scared off because 1) the owners are so persistent (some of them are SPAs), and 2) they smell an arb case in their future if they dare try to NPOV the thing. Writing that article correctly just shouldn't be that hard-- the first step would be to chop out at least 60% of what's there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've already got arb in my past, present, and future so that's no impediment. However, I would want to very thoroughly study this guy before doing article edits. Last time I studied Venezuela was in sixth grade (1974!), and I imagine things have changed a bit since then. I've watchlisted the Chavez article, and will stay with it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Georgia on my mind

[7] Hi, do we call you Georgia now? Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, when we're not calling me "Sandra", we're calling me Georgia :) Falls under "Don't sweat the little stuff" ... kind of you to offer to review and ce there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Other arms reach out to me
Other eyes smile tenderly
Still in peaceful dreams I see
The road leads back to you"

Graham Colm (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad I've never been there, huh?  :) :) You are so kind, Graham! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm sorry, you might have said you didn't like that name! I just assumed that was nicer than "Sandy". — Joseph Fox 02:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have time for a quick look?

Hi. I know you're busy, but I was wondering if you have time to glance at Birth control movement in the United States. It went thru the GA process, and it passed, and I've continued to work on it since then. I think its ready for FAC (I've been reading the FAC discussions, so I'm aware of the kind of issues that come up). But I dont want to waste people's time at FAC if it is not ready yet. So, if you could just look at it for a minute or two and let me know if you spot any glaring issues, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That's much too hefty of an article for a quick look (one would have to spend a good half-hour in there to offer a worthy analysis, specifically of the sources), but I did see that it needs a MOS review (I saw wrong use of ellipses, hyphens in place of endashes, and problematic headings including "the"), and I popped down to one section that started off with no context for the time frame ("Opposition"), suggesting organization might need work (sentences there also seemed choppy). I know it may seem time consuming, but the fastest route to the star is often via peer review, particularly if Ruhrfisch, Brianboulton, or another PR regular will pick it up. GAs are variable depending on the reviewer you get-- it may mean something, it may mean nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I'll get it in the queue for a peer review. --Noleander (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Random question

I was reading at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Featured_articles/FA-Team/Analysis and I saw your name. That team is thought to be inactive, but it had a worthy goal. What ways would help WP get more featured articles? I'm guessing what prevents more articles from getting through are, in relation to the demand, a lack of copy-editors, people familiar with the MoS, experienced peer-reviewers, good article reviewers, and featured article reviewers. Do you find there to be a particular bottleneck? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like three-and-a-half years ago I said what we're seeing now: there's only one Jbmurray, similar educational projects are not run as well as his, and the educational project idea doesn't scale. But ... that doesn't mean that teams of experienced writers collaborating to produce FA worthy content can't work-- it did in the past with WP:1FAPQ. As far as I can tell, the only thing preventing higher production of FAs is that editorship across Wikipedia is declining, while those who enjoy writing top content continue churning out as many as they can, while also doing the lion's share of the real work at all content review processes, like peer review, GAN, and DYK-- they're just aren't enough of them, and at the same, we have processes like DYK which are actually training editors to cut-and-paste, and rewarding them for doing so. The only thing I can see that may change this trend is to reward editors for "improving" content to the top level rather than giving them the instant gratification of mainpage exposure for a quick cut-and-paste job. Those few editors who hold down all of the real work at peer review, FAC, FAR, pass the good GAs, and also catch all the copyvios at DYK don't have enough time left over to write more FAs. It's much easier and more rewarding to churn out stubs at DYK that won't be checked and you never have to visit again to keep in shape, and those editors don't learn good editing or reviewing at the resource-heavy DYK page-- the top DYKers don't move on to the FA-level. If all of the resources wasted at DYK were poured into peer review, GA, FAC and FAR, we'd have more top content and less useless start class articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that reply. By saying it doesn't scale do you mean there just aren't enough academics out there with the skill set and motivation behind what was an already "Wikipedian"-minded Jbmurray? Jesanj (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean that what

• one excellent, committed and involved professor was able to do with a couple dozen (?) students in one class working on about (?) a dozen articles on topics he knew very well, on subjects where he knew the research, with a whole team of experienced FA writers backing them

is not what

• relatively uninvolved professors-- sometimes at the community college level where writing skills may be lacking in some students-- who don't know Wikipedia as well as Jbmurray did and who have hundreds of students working on scores of obscure topics in several different classes without active mentorship and guidance on Wikipedia

can achieve. I may have the exact numbers on the Jbmurray projects wrong above, hence the question marks, but we can't take the success that Jbmurray had and expect it to work on a larger scale. There aren't enough Wikipedia editors to oversee the work, and some of these projects have taken on much more than the professors can oversee. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks again. Jesanj (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:SandyGeorgia#Klazomania 2. On the other hand, if all of the resources expended in teaching editors to cut-and-paste and rewarding them with mainpage exposure at DYK were directed instead to collaborating to produce top content, maybe then ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A good read. Thanks. Also, FWIW, I think I've produced useful DYK articles: Fee-for-service (more useful) was a 5X and now BCBSMA (slightly useful -- AQCs brought me to the subject) is up for the honor, and I thought Daniel Case did a good job of pointing out a glaring omission of mine. But I understand. One time I reviewed a DYK and it was very underdeveloped. Maybe things are improving though. Jesanj (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Lots of people have lots of worthy DYKs-- it would be nice if we reviewed well so we could feature the best on the mainpage, instead of this notion that anyone who can cut-and-paste gets their time on the mainpage. Those editors are rewarded for cutting and pasting and may have hundreds of copyvios before someone does a correct review and educates them-- and by that time, it's too late to go back and address all of their articles. My criticism of the review process there-- and the small group that defends the status quo-- is not meant to negate that some very good FA and other writers also take new articles through DYK. I used to criticize GA, too-- they listened, changed and improved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Preece

Hi, Sandy. A "named mourner", in UK usage, means a person named in the funeral notice of the deceased person. I don't think that using the five words from a long article is a copyright vio. I suppose we could say "Her father was named as a mourner in the funeral notice", but that only removes the "a" from the phrase and is just longer and duller. Feel free to change it if you feel strongly. is there anything else in the article that you think might be paraphrased too closely? I haven't seen the copyvio discussion that you refer to. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't look any further there (it just happened to be the last DYK I saw mentioned on his talk, where I went to check when I came across old issues) but considering past issues, it might help if you would check (and reword if necessary, since you know the sources and topic better than I). I did go have a look at Flower Drum Song just to be sure we don't have issues at FA-- as far as I can tell (from a cursory look), you and Wehwalt do a fine job of paraphrasing sources correctly in your own words, but I did find a dead link there and noted it on talk. Those folks over at DYK don't want to understand that I don't want another VanishedUser bringing copyvio from the training ground at DYK to FAC :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Wikipedia's biggest problems:

1. POV
2. Verifiability and uncited articles
3. Non-reliable sources
4. BLPs
5. Undue weight and synthesis
6. Dispute resolution failures
7. Abusive admin actions
8. Pile-on supports for ill-prepared admins
9. Immature editors
10. WP:IEP and ill-prepared college programs
11. Copyright violations
12. Disruptive and tenditious editing

Problems, yes, but ones that do not affect Wikipedia on the same scale but get disproportionate attention:

1. Lack of civility
2. Alleged gender problem

I should write an essay, but why bother-- plenty of others already have, and it would not be read. And by the time I finished writing it, I'd be discouraged about the prognosis here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You should add disruption in there somewhere. I'm sure you understand how tiring long term disruptive activity can be. Parrot of Doom 18:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hard (song)/archive2

Are you actually having a laugh? It was only transcluded 2 days ago. I thought it was unfair that the first one was closed in less than 6 days, but less than 2 days is really taking the piss. I am not impressed at all. You are not giving my FACs any time to get any form of notice, yet for some reason, other FACs get to to stay for weeks and weeks, even if no one has commented for over a week. I'm so angry and annoyed right now. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 20:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

First, refer to the FAC instructions-- there is no set time limit on FAC nominations, and there has been plenty of discussion at WT:FAC about the need to archive nominations quickly if they aren't likely to succeed this time around, so that nominators can take time to better prepare the article, and reviewers can focus on articles that are prepared. Second, FACs are expected to be well prepared, and issues raised in previous FACs should be addressed before the nomination returns to FAC. Third, you were given good advice about how to seek collaborators, and you responded that you preferred to work alone-- that doesn't usually work out so well on Wikipedia or at FAC. Fourth, multiple reviewers agreed the FAC was not prepapred-- that is not the case for any other longer-running FAC that I'm aware of. And finally, you'll be more likely to get others to work with you towards preparing the article for its next FAC if you don't curse about the process, and have a look at reviewers' commentary when you aren't "What the actual fuck. So pissed off". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well how would you feel? How is closing a nomination after just 2 days of transclusion fair? Even if there is no time limit, 2 days is not fair and not giving the nomination a chance. If "Hard" is "so underprepared", then shouldn't there have been more points to address? It can't be that bad if people can't even produce more than 6/7 points in the entire article. The sources are 99% perfect as well. Two people opposed and one person gave a comment. And there are multiple nominations on the nominations page which have had so much reviewing, which is effectively saying how bad the article is, yet just because they write "Comment" instead of "Oppose", they get to stay. How is being told that I have to search through Wikipedia to find people who also like Rihanna to help me "good advice"? Even if I did find someone, who is to say that they have the capability to edit effectively and comply with MoS? I know lots of people on here who don't like working with other people, so you can't just single me out for that. And saying "multiple reviewers agreed the FAC was not prepared", I would hardly call two Opposes (with only one giving 6/7 points to address, others just commenting) "multiple", again showing that my nomination didn't get a chance to be properly reviewed. With regard to my edit summary, yeah, I was annoyed, and my edit summary reflected that. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 20:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Calvin I understand your frustration, but there are so many problems with the article – too many to solve at FAC. One of your edits in response to a comment at FAC introduced a further error that had been mentioned several times previously, "with Hard being one of them". This is another ugly fused participle, which you use a lot in your writing. I don't want to put words into Brian's mouth, but his comment about paraphrasing quotations applies to most of them, and there are many. Your comments here "I don't like working on things with other people, it distracts me and I like to know what is happening" and "when it comes to working on something, I prefer to do it alone. Working with someone can take 10x longer" is not attractive to reviewers (well at least me). I copy edited the Lead, which you acknowledged was an improvement, and was prepared to help more but your put down, "I am surprised that changing a few words around in the Lead took over an hour" about how long I spent on the edits made me decide against helping further. You could have a fine FA if you worked with reviewers. You should listen to what other editors are saying. Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Calvin I understand your frustration, but believe me, if you take the comments made about the article in good faith, and work to resolve any issues raised, you'll learn something. Message me on the weekend, I'll run through the article and see if I can't help you improve the prose (which is ok, but not FA standard). Parrot of Doom 20:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do work well with other people, if you look at all three FAC archives for S&M (song) and Hard (song), you will see that I always reply to or amend every point raised by the reviewer, saying that I have either "Done" it and made the correction, or ask to clarify or explain something if I don't understand what the reviewer wants me to do. I even say that even if I can't make the corrections straight away, I will do them within a few hours or at the very latest, the next day, so I would disagree with you that you think I don't listen, because I obviously want to make the article better, so I will listen. What I mean by working with other editors, like so many editors on here, that I don't like working as a pair when preparing an article for GAN or FAC, due to a past experience, and I vowed never to do it again, as I did not find it a pleasant experience. And what I mean't by you, Graham, looking at how you phrase things: "This is another ugly fused participle". It's not nice to see that what people think of what you have written is basically crap. Like I said to you before, I quoted a lot of things because last time I paraphrased things, on Wait Your Turn, I was told that I was plagiarizing. And yes, I was surprised that you spent over an hour changing one sentence, I think a lot of people would be, it's not a bad thing or criticism, all I said was that I was surprised. I didn't knock you for it; I did, after all, say that it was an improvement on what I had written. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 20:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This is more than "one sentence". I have had my grammar corrected many times – it's taught me a lot. There is a universe of difference between "ugly" and "crap". Graham Colm (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, either way then, it wasn't very much. I wasn't criticizing you, like I've said before, it's better than what I wrote. And yeah, I agree, I've learned a lot form others correcting me. Let's just forget about it now, I've vented my frustration and calmed down. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 21:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

USEP discussion

I thought you might be interested in the WMF post and my response at WT:USEP. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike! I dipped in to read a bit last night, but I started with the DYK stuff, which was depressing. The combination of off-Wiki conversations (which make me crazy), the problems with these educational programs, and the problems with reward seeking behavior via DYK made my brain hurt-- it's a marriage made in heaven-- one that makes serious editing so much harder. I'll look back in if I get caught up later today-- at least the discussion came on Wiki where it will may get more eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the WMF idea to recruit more Online Ambassadors who are IRC regulars promises to be very effective at bringing in content-conscious individuals. Right? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Look who doesn't miss a thing :) It's WMF perfect circular reasoning-- the combo of off-Wiki playgrounds for child editors and the "gender gap" as a reason/means to recruit more incompetent child editors to compensate for declining editorship, since they can't and won't deal with the real problems that led to declining editorship to begin with. More child editors to deal with problems caused by child editors that led to declining editorship. And they can all play on IRC !!! Talk about miss the point! Or maybe not ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Money, money money

Sandy, in a forthcoming article I need to convert GBP from historic (1998–2000) values to their current equivalent. Is there an accepted way of doing this? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There's {{inflation}}, but Fiflefoo will eat me alive if I don't point out the warning labels on the template's documentation about inappropriate use. It depends partly on what you're seeking to update - incomes or capital expenditure, for example, since inflating by the CPI (which is what that template does automatically) won't necessarily be best. For an example of the wording he and I devised to cover capital inflation from the 16th/17th centuries, see Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford; Malleus came up with a neat (and short) turn of phrase at notes 5 and 6, with their accompanying citations, at Gunpowder Plot. Hope this helps. Bencherlite^Talk 10:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a big issue over a 10-12 year period - 300 years is rather different. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both, I wouldn't dare dip my toes into the murky water of ancient prices, the template should be adequate for my purposes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that even over 10-12 years it makes a difference, as it's really inappropriate to use CPI for capital project inflation. I never use the template now, I always go directly to the Measuring Worth web site and use whichever measure seems most appropriate. Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Academy of Business/archive1

Obviously not near the standard required, so I've opposed and requested speedy fail. I've repeated my short points of advice on the nominator's talk page, so I would have thought that there's no reason not to simply G6 the nomination and reverse the other steps, but I'll leave it to you or one of your colleagues to decide if there's a need for the nomination to remain in the history and archives. Bencherlite^Talk 10:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Once a nomination has received feedback via a significant oppose, we don't G6 it-- we do archive it and add it to articlehistory. We db-G6 nominations that are withdrawn for being out of process-- for example, not a significant contributor. I'll have a look (and thanks for the helpful feedback above on the inflation issue). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Boys' own online world"

Hi Sandy,
I'm a WP:GNOME from some place where the seasons are all back-to-front, like in Gabriel García Márquez's Love in the Time of Cholera. Just thought I'd mention this. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to my page, where everything is all sideways :) Looks to be more of same faulty generalizations about women (like we're too stupid to understand computers), and lack of logical thinking (like why would some women want to do this anyway), not to mention the most glaring omission frequently seen in those analyses and discussions-- why is it that so many women conduct such a sizeable share of the process that puts Wikipedia's top content on the mainpage? I do wish the people who put forward this meme to begin with would show more clue about the real problems of Wikipedia[8] -- which aren't the interface or the way we interact here. Nobody's asked me, but I think women think differently than men on some things, and don't have time to spend on mindless futile arguing over worthless articles and they'd rather spend their time in productive ventures like the Featured article process. Maybe some women just have better things to do, or are too smart to waste time futily trying to clean up POV and poorly sourced articles, or mentor students with a high school command of prose or poorly behaved disrespectful children when they've already raised theirs (apprently I'm not :)

I can summarize all of the problems with at least a dozen reasons that meme is stupid and by asking why they don't ditch the unscientific surveys and consult:

1. SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs)
2. Karanacs (talk · contribs)
3. Dana boomer (talk · contribs)
4. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
5. Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
6. Maralia (talk · contribs)
7. Slp1 (talk · contribs)
8. Fainites (talk · contribs)
9. Moni3 (talk · contribs)
10. Bishonen (talk · contribs)
11. SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)
12. Truthkeeper88 (talk · contribs)
13. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs)
14. Awadewit (talk · contribs)
15. Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs)

Sure, there are many more men involved in Featured articles, but it is a process where female presence is felt. Maybe if the rest of Wikipedia worked like FAC, we'd attract more women. But since the WMF knows darn well that will never happen, why did they put up this silly propoganda about women?

At the arb level Risker (talk · contribs) and Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) do a fine job of compensating for other lack of competent females.

There's another simple factor: most neuropsychiatric conditions are more present among males than females and the number of editors who are on Wikipedia because of some serious psychopathology is disproportionate and noticeable-- you set up a dysfunctional environment, you're going to get dysfunctional participants. I may not run into many women on Wikipedia, but with a couple of notable exceptions, I run into a higher proportion of dysfunctional males. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been saying exactly this for ages. It's also relevant that our various forms of statistics can't distinguish between edits that basicly add prose and those that correct, improve, and hang fairy lights around that prose, with male editors surely the great majority of the latter bunch, who are likely to look more productive from the stats. The recent survey by Sarah Stierch, though in general rather confirming the meme, had a few heartening quotes from female editors who were unaware that there was supposed to be a problem. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find that? That survey was typically unscientific-- approached the topic with a pre-conceived agenda. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Wikimedia_Survey_2011 Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone ever pointed her towards WP:TLDR or WP:KISS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, read it-- do they have copyeditors on meta? It could be significantly tightened. Other than realizing that a) either they didn't tap in to typical Wikipedia women, or b) I'm not a typical Wikipedia woman, I did notice:

1. "Out of those 333, 4 responses were tossed due to questionable sincerity in their responses, so the data below represents 329 responses." I must have been one of those four, since I don't see myself in there. Kinda strange to pick and choose who to leave out of a survey (particularly those who are critical of the entire premise of the survey), but then it wasn't intended to be scientific.
2. A 12-year-old respondent? Oh my, where are the parents.
3. Educational background left out how many of us have advanced degrees (only gives Bachelor's or higher). It seems they would include that considering the claim of a typical Wikipedian having a PhD.
4. Best answer to why continue contributing: "Honestly, I'm not sure anymore." Will the guilty party please step forward.
5. Why women stop participating-- "The reasons vary, but a large portion of participants are busy going to school, working, or dedicating time to friends or family. On the flipside, respondents also find the community confrontational and argumentative, which makes for a not so welcome landscape." We didn't need a survey to know that a) women have lives, b) Wikipedia is dysfunctional, and c) this response is as true for men as for women.
6. If so many participants stop contributing because they're in school, why are we trying to recruit college students?
7. Most responses there say exactly what we already know-- women have lives and get tired of dealing with tendentious disruptive idiots (yes, they used that word)
8. Women do not feel assaulted or attacked on Wikipedia (well, any more than the norm I 'spose). So we can put that meme to rest.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know where Jimmy Wales got the idea that "the typical contributor [is] a 26-year-old male with a PhD". That's just about as far from my experience of other editors as it's possible to be. Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No kidding: "the typical contributor (outside of FAC) is a 14-year-old male who should be on the soccer field" instead of playing Myspace with automated tools on the internet. I'll read that TLDR survey result later. I still have to get through the long educational project debacle discussion linked by Mike Christie above; apparently those responsible for the brilliant "gender gap" solution to all that ails Wikipedia (WMF) decided to address the lack of female editors and the predominance of 14-yos by recruiting college community students to add content without having enough of those imaginary 26-yo PhDs to supervise, mentor and clean up. In the meantime, FAC keeps churning, apparently in another world from the dysfunction that is Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought "I still have to get through the long educatinal projct debacle discussion" was deliberate, and rather funny! Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a slow start this morning-- it finally dawned on me that I was not properly caffeinated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Best answer to why continue contributing: "Honestly, I'm not sure anymore." Will the guilty party please step forward.

Must you ask? Natch. Also, I'm putting away the alcohol and going right to hard drugs. Also, add Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) to your list of chicky FAC editors. --Moni3 (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, talk about not properly caffeinated-- I thought I had intentionally limited the list to a dozen (and mentioned that) so I'd have a CYA for anyone I forgot. Now I see my dozen is 14, so that's shot. I didn't see any distinctly Moni responses in there, what, were you on your best behavior? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is mine: "Christ, too many times to list. It's the way things operate on the Internet. Disagreement means the other person's an asshole. I'm guilty of it too....Makes me think I should go online with alcohol more often. It's more amusing that way."

I can't remember what else I wrote except for the "I'm not sure anymore" comment. I'm starting to get really uncomfortable with the "this is why women don't participate more often" arguments. And I don't know how much validity I would give to having Wikipedia be a more nurturing place for women and trans people. I have to remember how much I was nurtured here and if that was an element in how much I wanted to stay when I first started. Those memories are leaving me--I don't have a remarkable memory anyway. I may have to check my talk page archives. I don't remember being nurtured very much, but I did tell folks all the time for the first year I edited that I had no idea what I was doing. That wasn't a lie at all. I fumbled about incessantly.

I don't think Wikipedia is a boys' room. It's a room and it's on the internet where everyone argues. --Moni3 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only does everyone argue on the internet, but there are no women there, allegedly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That can't be true. After all, the internet is for porn! Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the things that grates with me is the corollary to the WMF's concerns, which is that as a male my presence and contributions are somehow of lesser value than yours, compounded by the fact that I'm not an Indian. But this supposed lack of females just doesn't gell with my own experience. I'm pretty sure that of the editors I have regular contact with a good 50% are female. In fact I'm currently helping the first two students from one US high school's AP Biology programme to get their articles ready for submission to GAN, and I'm pretty sure they're both girls. Females are everywhere on the project, and lots of them, particularly as SandyG says at the higher ends like FA/GA. And I'm sure that many more have decided that it's prudent for whatever reason not to reveal their gender. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat tangentially, one of the reasons I like to cite authors in refs I add with their full names is seeing how many people doing great research are women :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In my family it's my wife who has the PhD, not me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are not crazy

I read this article a few months ago and liked it. A Message To Women From A Man: You Are Not “Crazy”. I think a lot of it speaks to the way nuanced language is expected on the Internet (read civility, nurturing, supportive, etc.) when it would be easier to understand to say what you need to say in as few words as possible. I also love that it recognized the way emoticons confuse language. I hate using emoticons ;) No, really. I think they stir confusion where applied and communication on the Internet is already confusing :P

Stupid emoticons. --Moni3 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting article, but speaking as a man I'd say that we find it next to impossible to unburden ourselves to anyone; that would be a sign of weakness. But maybe I'm only speaking for Anglo-Saxon males. Certainly I'm sometimes horrified when I hear my wife discussing things with her friends that I wouldn't even discuss with a priest. Oh, and here's the obligatory :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Malleus using a smiley? His account has clearly been compromised and ought to be blocked immediately. Bencherlite^Talk 00:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I spent the 1990s online, and I am not going back into that quagmire of white bourgeois elites using identity politics to run courtesy policing. Good encyclopaedic process seems far more conducive to solving social power problems, than plumbing adjectives and personal conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

...spends several minutes contemplating leaky, dripping, stuck, clogged, and similar terms.... Decides it's probably time to get some sleep. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes

Hi. I just noticed that the article's FAC isn't closed. Was there a problem with the bot at the time or something? GamerPro64 01:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the bot choked on the last three archivals at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2011-- I wonder if it was the colons in the article names. Need to ask Gimmetrow (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything's better now. Thanks. GamerPro64 18:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Aloha

Hey, I don't mean to stir up any trouble here, but I've noticed, in general, that you seem to be somewhat abrasive and tense in your tone a fair amount of the time. In particular I noticed this at this WT:DYK discussion. I just feel that I should recommend, person to person, that you try to be (or at least appear) relaxed and easygoing more of the time because it appears you've been highly stressing out some editors. You don't have to take my advice and it may even be fully unwanted, but I felt that I should at least offer it on the offhand chance you take it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I really do hope that you're wearing clean flame-proof underwear, for your own sake. Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha I've got no beef with Sandy, it's just a recommendation person to person because I've been noticing people stressed about her. I've got no real interest in any of this myself other than I don't like people being stressed. Like I said, it's completely up to her whether she takes my advice, and I should certainly hope my advice now does not tarnish any relations later down the road. =) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And you're an administrator? How old are you? Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A lot younger than you as I understand, and you're not an administrator. Juliancolton (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, no, but in what way is that relevant? If you're trying to make a point Julian then have the courage to make it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was a reasonable assumption that you would also be a sysop by now, as you're clearly far superior to the rest of us wrongly appointed administrators. Why not throw your hat into the ring? You'd have my vote. Juliancolton (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Julian, stop behaving like a stupid child.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember asking you. Juliancolton (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I will instruct you to behave yourself, when you need disciplining. It takes a village ....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd made my position on administrators perfectly clear. I think the present system is corrupt and encourages the corruption we mere mortals have to put up with every day. My hat will never go into your ring, not least because I hate hats with a passion. And to be honest one vote in favour and 200 hundred against wouldn't be exactly encouraging. Been there, got the T-shirt, not going back. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Geez, Captain Bringdown. Stop harshing everyone's mellow and relax. --Moni3 (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, what great fun and drama. Prodego ^talk 03:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Auree ★ 03:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to be nice, or even civil, to be a Wikipedia contributor, especially at FAC. It's more a requirement here to snipe at admins, with least one contributor having an anti-admin rant as a permanent banner on his/her talk page. Why don't me, Cas and the other few hundred admins hang up our mops and let anyone add anything. That should really improve the content, especially on articles like Barack Obama, Abortion and Pornography. The constant low level sniping here p***** me off. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Administrators already do let anyone add anything, so nothing new there. Much more important to focus on naughty words and frustrated tantrums. Malleus Fatuorum 12:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd be more concerned that somebody passed K-143 (Kansas highway) as a GA with a one line history section . What were they thinking? Is it really GA quality? I would not pass it as GA put it that way. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I asked the nominator about it (at the GA review) and they basically said, thar's all there really is. It's as comprehensive as it could possibly be, for such a minor highway. HurricaneFan25 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus. Unless of course it's here, and you are not one of those editors licensed to insult because you provide good content and reviews. Result for a first offence was an indefinite ban, no email, no edit of talk page here. If you have concerns about individual admins, bitch at them (including me), don't tar us all with the same brush. I know this is the Internet, where you can say what you like without the sort of comeback you get in RL, but politeness costs nothing. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, you are surely not seriously defending an editor whose very username indicates that they are not here to build an encyclopedia?! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that post was from an IRC friend of the current OK crowd corral, but I take Jim's post to mean that admins are helpful to me-- which I don't disagree with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it time for someone to set up a Redirect to the latest cagematch at SG corral? Must I host these childish squabbles when my connection is slow and I have real work to do here? Let's see-- summary. A freshly minted admin who apparently spends too much time on IRC and has never been to DYK (based on the edit count on his RFA talk page and any evidence I can find) suddenly turns up worrying about "stress" on DYK defenders of the status quo who support and enable plagiarism and copyvio. Gee, do I really need to read this drivel? Ks0stm, I suggest you go deal with that faulty GA (see WP:BOOMERANG). In contrast to DYK, where defensiveness and intransigence reign, years ago, I criticized GA as I now do DYK, and some very good editors like Malleus heeded that criticism and did a lot to clean up GA so that we didn't see the same kind of sloppy work we see today at DYK, where friends passing friends' articles resulted in unworthy GAs. I suggest you not fret about the "stress" rumors you encounter on IRC, and instead engage the encyclopedia-- that happens here, in public, on talk-- not behind closed doors at IRC. Big hint: less time on IRC, more time on fixing your article may lower your unfortunate "stress". Last time I checked, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not copy other people's work-- so sorry if that stresses you or anyone.

Now, to the more substantive issue on this page: Jimfbleak, I'm sorry you've been made to feel that way. If the shoe doesn't fit, you don't need to wear it, and we all know there are many good admins out there, in spite of the bad apples that spoil the lot. I've been the object of admin abuse more than once. That doesn't mean I don't recognize how many good ones there are and how helpful they are to me, and FAC, specifically. Generally, after yesterday's cagematch at SG corral, I'm done worrying about the double standard and admin abuse, but in the event I need to comment on it sometime in the future, I will take greater care to point out that I recognize the good work of many admins like yourself. Please accept my apologies for any time I have failed to recognize the many good ones, including you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. Like I said, I've got no problem personally, I just thought I would bring it to your attention and suggest some person to person advice. Sorry about all the mess this dredged up above; I was trying to keep this as low-key and drama free as possible. I hope that you and I can have nothing but positive interactions in the future. =) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure (I've removed the calories lest Bishzilla come by hungry and devour the page). The best way to have "positive interactions in the future" with me is to 1) confine your commentary to diff-based evidence rather than IRC rumors, and 2) AGF. Asking for clarification will always get you further than passing along unwarranted and unsubstantiated accusation and rumor. Unless, of course, you defend the substantial amount of copyvio and non-reliable sources that occurs at DYK and think editors who tackle the issue are doing a disservice to Wikipedia? In the future, if you want to claim misbehavior on my part 1) causing "stress" isn't a good target when one is attempting to improve a process, and 2) specific diffs to anything inappropriate will help back your claim and help the target understand what your complaint is. Thanks for taking time between classes to vent your concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for supportive words (I wasn't fishing) and wise summary. I've got it off my chest, and I'll be sweetness and light henceforth. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Note

Just an FYI, I've replied here. HurricaneFan25 16:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Something to cheer you up

Sounds like things have been a bit stressful. Here's something to cheer you up, from the annals of abstinence-only sex education: [9]. Now that's keeping it real. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No stress here (don't be misled by the misinformed :), but sheesh, what a killjoy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Re this edit, you are quite right, I had no intention of doing that and was horrified when I looked back down my list of contributions just now and saw it. It's far from the first time I have pressed rollback by mistake, but I usually notice what I have done. Your contribution to this discussion is especially valuable because I think there has been a impression that the IEP has been the only student outreach program with problems. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No apology needed ... Ucucha to the rescue! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Added it, works, brilliant!! JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

FARs

Hi Sandy - I am hoping that you will have the time and interest to return to a couple of FARs that you commented on in the recent future, which are still open:

• WP:Featured article review/Law/archive2 - Mainly just hoping for a final comment from you - little work has been done on the article.
• WP:Featured article review/Caffeine/archive1 - The nominator has completed some work on the article based on other comments, but asks for further clarification on your thoughts.

Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Two highway FACs

I need some advice, Sandy, from one editor to another concerning my two FACs: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-185 (Michigan highway)/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1. The long and the short of it is that two editors (Pigsonthewing, Tagishsimon) have been pushing at multiple forums to include coordinate data in roadway articles, and it appears these two FACs are just the latest place for that debate to rage. On the other hand, you have a fairly consistent response from editors from the road projects that this data isn't needed in the article, and several dozen Featured Articles that don't include it. This discussion has been to at least three forums already: WT:RJL, WT:WIAFA , and WP:DSN without any resolution.

I have moved the conversation over to the talk pages for each nomination because I feel that FAC is not the forum to resolve this debate. The larger issues will probably take a site-wide RfC to resolve, but unless that results in a change someplace, there is no requirement to include the data that applies here that I can see. I'm afraid that these two editors will continue the debate in the FACs unless I cave in, and that if the debate is on the FAC nomination pages, not the talk pages, it will just drive potential reviewers away. There are several other criteria to consider about the articles related to whether or not the prose is good, the media has acceptable copyright status and licenses with proper captioning, etc., but allowing these two to continue arguing over a pedantic point will just disrupt the nomination. I'm afraid we'll have to restart the nomination at some point. If the nominations are archived, they'll be back two weeks later, still without coordinate data added, and the process will repeat as long as needed for each article to get proper reviews. Imzadi 1979 → 03:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's very disappointing indeed - verging on suppression of opinions that are found unwelcome. In my view it its quite legitimate for me to offer my opinion that a road without coordinates should not be featured, and to explain why I hold that belief, with reference to FAC criteria. I'm not at all happy that my opinion and argument has been moved somewhere else. That goes completely against what I understand to be a wikipedia convention, that you do not touch the posts of others. I'm well aware of Imzadi argument that there's no requirement that he/she can see for coords to be included; that's his/her opinion and he or she is as welcome to state that opinion as I am to state mine. I would not think of moving Imzadi posts from the FAC page, and would wish the courtesy to be returned. I respect that it is inconvenient to see the underlying issue thrashed out on multiple forums, and I agree that an RfC will be the only way to sort it out once and for all. But until that RfC is done and results in a mandate that we should feature road articles where we have done less than we're easily capable of doing, then it is for me legitimate to continue to oppose road articles lacking coordinates. Right now I think the handling of it - the removal of my post from the FAC page - is very shoddy indeed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's highly irregular that neither Tagishsimon or I were notified of this discussion, and have only recently learned of it by chance. I endorse what he says above, but with the caveat that an RfC is only needed to change the status quo; which is that the MoS already supports the use of coordinates in articles about roads; and that their use is custom and practice throughout most of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Election guide

Is there any chance that you might be willing to write an ArbCom election guide this year? NW (Talk) 01:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would read it reverently. :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be short: vote for these, don't for these (those who either don't know content or don't think abusive admins are a problem), but it doesn't much matter anyway, because the arbs can't fix what ails the Wikipedia (that's coming from the top down). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, two years ago I was almost completely new to this project. I clicked on the arb vote page and was lost; hadn't a clue who was who or what to do. But there at the bottom I found the handy voter's guides. I remember reading yours then and it was helpful. I probably had a few thousand edits, if that many, at the time. So for new editors, I think what you do is important. You know what to look for and you have a good sense of the direction we need to take. That's why. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please make sure it is written "responsibly, seriously and in good faith" though as apparently the bar for voter guides is at least equal to that for FA. Yomangani^talk 00:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There aren't seven good candidates, so how can I write anything other than humor, and why does it matter anyway-- what effect will a good ArbCom have anyway, considering everything the WMF does to undermine what Wikipedia pretended to represent (and never made it, but that's another story ... )? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think only so many battles can be fought at once, and we'll have an arbcom regardless so might as well choose the best we can from the lot. You've got good instincts, know who's who, and it's helpful to others. That's why. No pressure, but think about it. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What am I supposed to tell you? Vote for these four or five because they're the best of the bunch, and oppose the rest because they're <fill in PA of choice>? It was bad last year; it's worse this year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not me so much as people who haven't been around very long and don't know who is who. I can see what's there and am not happy about it. But people will be voting and guides are useful for newer editors. But if your heart's not in it, and I can perfectly understand that, then let it go. Just wanted to say that I've read your guides for the past two years. That's all. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've always followed one simple rule where voting is concerned, at least at the national level, which is what ArbCom effectively is; never vote for an incumbent. Just a shame it's not possible to register a vote against someone. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, I believe you can vote "Oppose". If a candidate doesn't get 50% support then seat remains vacant, so if you're focusing on just keeping bad people off the committee, "Neutral" works too. "Oppose" will just put them lower on the totem pole. But yeah, Sandy's right, there is nothing even close to 7 people who even marginally deserve to get elected. I can come up with ... 2 or 3 and that's very much scraping the bottom of my good will and understanding bucket. In a situation like this, it's even hard to write something funny, never mind serious. Volunteer Marek  08:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, all I'm trying to decide is whether to "oppose" some people I dislike but not passionately so, and hope that there won't be 7 with +50% so seats will remain vacant or "support" these non-passionate dislikes just to keep the total nutzoids from the candidate list off the committee. Volunteer Marek  08:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yep, and it's a decidedly unfunny predicament-- on the other hand, if we had a 60% support ratio for candidates to be elected instead of the 50% championed by Tony1, we might have a prayer of not ending up with the most dreadful ArbCom ever. There aren't seven, and electing candidates with 50% support doesn't give me warm fuzzies. And since there aren't seven, why should I stick my neck out to say who all I'll be opposing? Let's see, we've got one candidate who enabled a disruptive editor, one who endorses admin abuse, one who endorses content contributor abuse, one who enables DYK abuse, ... sheesh, it goes on. Oppose most of 'em, do it quietly, and hope that the 50% isn't met. We all know who the few good ones are, and I don't need to repeat those names. On the othr hand, thank heavens we got the committee reduced from 18 to 15, or we'd be electing ten from that list, with a 50% support threshold !!! Yikes, what were the proponents of 50% and a larger committee thinking? Well, may they live with the consequences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

...and BLP abuse, etc. It's like watching Valens being appointed emperor. 'Tis the twilight of the encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek  08:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I didn't intend to forget that one, which is a biggie-- we seem to have the full range of Wiki at its finest this year. The twilight started a year ago in my mind, but it's picked up serious steam with recent events, and the WMF hasn't a clue how to "fix" it, while the bottom dwellers are happy to attack the few who get it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In lieu of a guide, one can jot random notes and observations at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Discussion I guess...these pages are often pretty quiet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To what end, Cas? Another one (who was marginally elected by the way because the support percentages to be elected are too low) just resigned, so does that mean we now have to choose eight from a list that doesn't even have seven? And with 50% support to be elected, what hope is there that we'll have a competent committee? And with the WMF doing everything they can to shoot content in the foot, and nothing noticeable to support and encourage better editors and better articles, why does ArbCom even matter anymore? What can they do to stem the inevitable tide that is overtaking this place? We are certainly seeing the twilight of Wikipedia, trolls dominating, The Signpost editorializing, student editors recruited via USEP without enough supervision cut-and-pasting, one person holding down the copyvio fort at DYK, and can someone anyone please point me towards any WMF employee who has ever written one serious piece of content, since I'm not aware of any? I exempt Moonriddengirl from that, since she did what she did the best (copyvio), but why do we have a group of folks running this place who know nothing of building articles? Has a single one of them ever written anything of substance (never mind FA/GA-- just something decent)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose votes are very important. ArbCommers who were barely elected with more opposes and neutrals than supports can be reminded of their lack of support when they misbehave.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well... they hired Ironholds. He's written some stuff. You're right though, I don't hold out much hope for Wikipedia, not anymore. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

ah, ha, right-- thanks, and my apologies to Ironholds for overlooking that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite finished yet, but gave it a start:

• User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2011

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh. My. What decisions to make. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This year, I eschew the jokes and keep it simple: voter guide. Volunteer Marek  09:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Complying with WMF's directive to provide a supportive nurturing community in which women feel validated, I adapted a title by G.B.S. Shaw and wrote The Intelligent Woman's Guide to the ArbCom Candidates. It which agrees mostly with Ealdgyth, SandyGeorgia, Elonka, and a token male or two.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we're required to add the template (someone added it to me last year). Smart man, Kiefer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia,

You can the Perry White and Lois Lane to my Jimmy Olson anytime! :)

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. What happens if no candidate gets at least a 50% support vote? Malleus Fatuorum 13:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

See here; also the closing statement of the RFC, "A 50% support is required. Shortfall in successful candidates is acceptable." (I'm still dismayed at the 50%, so hope the unworthy get clobbered with opposes so there will be no chance of their appointment-- ArbCom can do just fine with less than 15 arbs, and in fact, will probably function more efficiently). Also note that, at the time of the RFC, six empty seats were envisioned-- now we're up to eight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

My "Election Guide" is more popular than my articles! :(

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

AV-8B ACR

Hi Sandy, I've nominated AV-8B for MILHIST ACR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, and because you commented on the article during the FAC, please comment on the ACR this time. I promise I'll keep my head cool.

On a different note, I felt that there's been a bit of Middle Eastern hostilities going on between you and I, so, if you don't mind, I'll set aside all the past comments made by myself and yourself, and embark on a new start. Would you like this to be mutual? --Sp33dyphil © • © 10:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't help you on your feelings-- I'm not responsible for those, and my "job" as delegate at FAC doesn't involve my "feelings", rather the article that is in front of me on the page. In the case of your work, I've had to engage several times because content wasn't vetted by independent reviewers and prose wasn't up to standard. Of course, it has been said that FAC delegates don't make sure that content is reviewed, curiously by the same person who commended your contributions and mentioned that your FA work has been a bit "rough". I hope you'll find the attention the article needs at MilHist Review, but the long-standing problem with aircraft articles has been the lack of independent review, and lately, Piotr has been pushing a citation density hobby horse at MilHist A-Class (which in three separate discussions did not gain consensus, yet he edit warred citation requests into an already cited ship article), so I hope you can avoid that. And yes, "grenade" is the correct term-- the appropriate place for TCO to have raised his (incorrect) issues with Ucucha's article work is on article talk, where TCO's mistakes would have been pointed out before he publicly launched them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Medical articles - Dysmorphic feature

Hi, I heard you like mmedical articles. There have been repeated requests for help on the Dysmorphic feature article, which might be a content fork or a confusion or something else. Maybe you or one of your talk page watchers could direct them appropriately? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous free full-text articles available on PubMed that discuss dsymorphic features in various conditions, and although I've never encountered the term, from reading what is freely available, it looks to me like our stub is accurate and the stand-alone article would meet notability. Where are these repeated requests for help? They're not on the talk page there, and I don't recall having seen this posted at WT:MED (but I can't always keep up there). If you can better clarify the nature of the concern (since I'm not seeing anything inaccurate there), I'll post over to WT:MED if you'd like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've explained better. An editor (identity unknown) came into the help channel describing how he wanted to alter Wikipedia's coverage of some syndrome because he (as a non-professional) had anecdotal experience of cases of it, and he wanted parents to be able to diagnose it themselves (via Wikipedia) based on his expertise; doctors were not the right people to make these decisions, he said. The whole WP:OR and "medical professionals are in the wrong" tone of it made my skin crawl, though I imagine it's not especially unusual in this topic area. Chzz gave him a lecture about how altering articles to emphasise one particular syndrome as being the explanation of symptoms that are far more often caused by other things, was dangerously misleading, but it seemed to go straight over his head. It never became clear whether the guy was talking about material he had already added or material he was going to add, but if you could watchlist you'll probably pick up spurious additions a lot faster than I would. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

ah, I see ... yes that sort of input is absolutely the norm for articles in the neuropsychiatric realm, making maintenance of them a never-ending chore. Just yesterday, I suggested at Talk:Asperger syndrome that we need to put up an FAQ so we don't have to keep beating the same dead horses, which are always just as you describe. OK, I've watchlisted dysmorphic features-- other than that, what is there seems accurate, and after exhausting my quota of working on articles this month that will never ever never ever amount to any "quality"-by-TCO-page-view-standards-but-I-had-to-do-the-cleanup-because-it-was-on-my-watchlist-and-students-edited-it (klazomania), I'm disinclined to do any further research to add to obscure articles by the new TCO standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

PS, while you're here, your name came up in this DYK canvassing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder why that talk page isn't on my watchlist? Oh, because the editor's activities have been obfuscated by posting as multiple different vanished accounts and IP addresses and god knows what else. Splendid.

Thanks for pointing this out. At least he's canvassing openly, not by email as some of the POV-pushers in the Israel/Palestine arena do for DYK. With all this going on, it's wonder that DYK produces such good quality output :-) But it's disappointing that after all the fuss made year after year, the message still isn't getting through - just because something is "available at the University of Michigan for free" does not make it acceptable to plagiarise it.

The canvassing was also misleading by picking out the least problematic of the paraphrasings as an example; in fact the multiple examples of close paraphrasing found by The Interior and Nikkimaria were much more serious than that example. The unseemly haste to push this sub-standard material onto the Main Page does not bode well (there wasn't only canvassing to obtain a "stamp of approval" review, but also earlier spamming of talk pages because the review wasn't happening fast enough after "Professor Gordon Campbell gave the thumbs up" - [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Were that writing articles came so easily to Demiurge1000 as obsessing over me! Of course, if Demiurge100 were serious in his allegation about "substandard material", then he would present a criticism to pull if off the main page. Demiurge1000 will need better luck influencing C. A. Patrides than he had influencing the articles on the American left, which no longer embarass WP with NPOV/COI/RS/BLP violations, despite his enabling bad edits.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If this is a cagematch, wake me when it's over. Oh, and peace be with you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes :) Let's see, there's TCO, TCO (renamed), two different RetiredUsers, and a series of IPs I've yet to list. Have fun with that :) Why is it that what was not good for Rlevse is good for TCO? Was reminded of this today, while thinking of an arbvote guide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't even get how anyone can RTV more than once, never mind the rest of it. Bleh.

I was planning to have my little satirical essay and its talk page deleted, but I forgot... perhaps the next two hours wouldn't be the best time. January, then. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"Gender gap", uneven admin actions, et al

OK, nap-time is over! Well, not quite. It seems that TCO felt moved to explain his behaviour, so the "mercurial" part of it is no longer a mystery. I guess you knew that already, but no-one ever tells me anything :P

Slightly more constructively, I suggested at WT:DYK that the approach used by you, me and others was too gentle, and that we should wear bigger boots when dealing with questionable submissions. Make of that what you will. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I do that already, with close-paraphrasing stuff - check out some of my additions to Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed. If you feel it's an important enough issue, then you can do that, but be prepared for people to disagree with you. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what motivates or leads TCO to the kinds of behaviors he displays on Wikipedia, but I do see he is still calling other good faith editors "mother fuckers" and "crufty rule mongers" in an edit war (the kind of behaviors that led to his block log). On the other hand, he may have been aiming at my reference to waiting for another editor to be sober, which was a response to her "why am I still sober" after a rather incredulous exchange. But, as answered on that ANI, we judge by the edits, rather than speculation (on that basis, TCO has room for improvement, whether drunk or not).

On DYK, I've not read the page for days, hoping that some of the current efforts to improve the situation will bear fruit, but I've never understood why the DYK nomination subpage isn't included in the prep area or queue area so that admins who pass the queue to the mainpage are tasked with reading the review to make sure everything is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

How come TCO gets away with "motherfucker", but I get canned for "ignorant arse"? Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus, you yourself asked the appropriate question, long ago: "Is it because I is black?"  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would've expected "Whole place has pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack" to get at least a little attention from the gendergap police, but maybe allowances were made on account of that particular edit being the point in his ranting where he was most obviously a little bit "tired and emotional". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You boys are just silly. We can imagine that TCO can say things like that, and Malleus can't, because Malleus doesn't have the "support" of the right "clique" (according to TCO et al, in this case, the right "cliques" being The Signpost, the civility police, and the "gender gap" fans). But I suspect the right answer is more to be found in TCO's urging those who watchlist his page to post to his page- no one (except The Signpost) reads TCO's page or cares about his misogynist attacks. Works for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WMF

Where does this WMF "have decided to take aim at FAs as the indication of the problem of "quality" vs "quantity"" meme come from? Certainly not SG's presentation in London. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Only partly-- the other part being the drive to get more editors for more (never-to-be-read stubby) articles via educational projects, at a cost in time to other editors who have to clean them up, causing a tradeoff in more articles more editors relative to better articles better editors. Why do you think Sue Gardner's statements don't feed more of same? The video is mostly indecipherable, but here's what I heard. Someone in the audience brings up the more stringent reviews (sometimes) now occurring at DYK (but mostly only when Nikkimaria gets to them) because of the long history of it being a breeding ground for cut-and-paste editing (or course, not mentioned by the person bringing it up), Sue Gardner (sorry, on this page SG is moi) completely glosses over the DYK problem (which she likely isn't even aware of, WMF being what it is with respect to content creation and how articles are actually built) and jumps to some "so what" statement about "she's heard" (groan) some articles are not eligible for FAC because of the nature of the sources (and? her point is?), and then progresses from there to the drive for quality being related to overreactions to the Seigenthaler and Essjay incidents-- as if that was a bad thing. That's what I heard. Add that to the ill-conceived educational projects, and The Signpost editorializing in favor of a "quality" problem, and it doesn't look good for anyone who aspires to build a serious reference work. It is further ironic that TCO takes aim at FAs, suggesting we need to provide more incentives to work on articles that get high page views, while at the same time we have to work on ridiculously unimportant articles like klazomania because of the push for students to edit obscure neuropsych stubs. That article is in the suite of articles I edit and watchlist (related to TS), and every minute I spent on it was absurd because a) it is unlikely any of the students learned anything or will remain as long-term Wikipedia editors, and b) it will never get more than five page views per day. What is the measure of quality we want, in editors and in articles? TCO and WMF are singing two different tunes, but the constant in both messages is "shoot the FA writers". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Even on that rather misleading account its a long way from WMF "have decided to take aim at FAs as the indication of the problem of "quality" vs "quantity"" or "shoot the FA writers". Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me why you think it's misleading? (One thing I learned in corporate speaking classes was to not wave your hands around when talking to a group or making a presentation. Now, I still do a lot of gesticulating when in a group of hispanics, but I admit I may have missed some of what she said because of her most irritating flailing of arms and "I've been tolds". Please correct me on what you think I missed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy -- I don't keep your talk page on my watchlist (way too busy) but I happened to see this. I agree with Johnbod that I don't see the WMF as taking aim at FAs. I agree with you that Gardner would probably revise her views if she were a more active contributor, but her comments seemed to me aimed at how difficult it is to bring new editors on board. I haven't rewatched it before posting this, so perhaps I misheard, but that's how I recollect that part of the conversation. Please don't make me go and transcribe it! Regarding the USEP, I understand that it's had the effect you describe, at least for the articles you're working with, but it's definitely not the case that the WMF is pushing the USEP with a mindset of "more quantity at any cost to quality". In fact the validation metrics they used for the PPI initiative were specifically about quality -- they measured quantity too, but didn't regard it as validating the program. The goal is to bring in more content editors, with a side benefit in the case of the USEP of engaging subject matter experts in the form of the instructors. That's why I've been arguing at WT:USEP that engagement with the best instructors is the right way forward there, and I don't see the WMF opposing that point of view, though they've not made any decisions on how to proceed next semester so I suppose they might. This all seems to me like reasonable efforts to improve both quantity and quality -- mistakes have certainly been made, but you seem to be criticizing their intentions, more than their results, and I can't see that myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make me go and transcribe it! OK, well that's what I heard, so unless Johnbod corrects me, I'll have to go and re-listen myself (not a prospect I look forward to). Add that to everything else, and I'm not seeing anything that's helpful to what should be a reflection of what are supposed to be the pillars of the project (vis-a-vis quality in sourcing, for example). On the other hand, your perspective is always valued; on related matters, I mentioned you at WT:FAC (do a search on your name). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I did see it, but though I would very much like to have a role in conveying to the WMF the needs of the content creators here, I'm not quite sure how it could work -- were you thinking of the role as that of an emissary? Surely having the WMF engage on-wiki would make more sense, and avoid any possibility that an emissary might incompletely represent the point of view of the content creation community? I haven't commented there because I felt it would be immodest to do so; perhaps nobody will pick up that thread. So I was just going to wait and see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I threw out the idea just to see if others would brainstorm it into something useful-- I don't know how it could work or what form it could optimally take, but something is needed, and I doubt that anyone who follows FAC (or anything) would suspect you capable of "incompletely represent[ing] the point of view of the content creation community". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to raise this, but is there a transcript of the London talk. My google fu is failing. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC) adequately summarised above. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Best. Edit. Summary. Ever.

[23] I just laughed so hard the person in the next office wanted to see what I was looking at... Risker (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, gee ... how long do you think it will take a certain indeff'd user to indulge her obsession with me at and report my ditziness at WR? I'm glad you and your colleagues enjoyed it ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice. That helps to counteract stuff like this, at least. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't decipher that gibberish. Well, whatdya expect from a woman, anyway-- we're all irrational and emotional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Snarky! Fantastic word. Let's see how polite I can be in my reply, though (note to self: try actually replying to things on own talkpage in less than a week). "Mr Demiurge" indeed - maybe I should have my own version of Dr. Connolley's irritated guide. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreement

It is nice to post here again: it has been a while. I found it heartening that I was not the only erstwhile alleged "defender" of Malleus who found Kaldari's post on MONGO's page somewhat, erm... lacking in clue? Perhaps there will be a side-benefit, and MONGO will see that we both contribute with integrity, and that this is how all editors should contribute to the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 23:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hope so ... coming in with warnings in an emotionally charged environment isn't likely to be helpful. It's always so good to see you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent developments have been fascinating. I couldn't have staged it better myself. No, I take that back, I could probably have improved on the timing, but only with more advanced warning. Geometry guy 23:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If only we had more than one Gguy, and a lot fewer idiots. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. Maybe someone is trying to make a point here: we shall see. Geometry guy 00:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. As in, let's see if Sandy (or anyone) also defends Mongo the same as Malleus sort of thing? I bit. Well, there's something to be said for a clean conscience, doing the right thing regardless if I was baited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Time has passed and I'm no longer convinced there was baiting involved, but even if there was, you are quite right that responding with a clean conscience and trying to do the right thing effectively provides you with global immunity. I aim to contribute to WP on a similar basis. Geometry guy 03:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy, like any rational person, MONGO must have read and been instantly swayed by my affirmation of your being a man of above average moral fiber. Relax!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

funny how those "men of above average moral fiber" never seem to toot their own horns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed Gg's answer to MF's question?

What did George Carlin say about how he envied his dog's ability to toot his own horn?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please please please

Please have a listen to Sue's talk at http://bambuser.com/channel/pigsonthewing/broadcast/2140682 - I share her views exactly, and that's why I'm trying to make DYK more friendly and open. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

BTDT, well discussed on this page and other places already-- a most disappointing talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested on your views re:Eternal September - do you agree that we're experiencing something like that? The Cavalry (Message me) 19:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, we passed that stage long ago-- we're more at the stage where Linda someone-whose-last-name-and-various-nyms-I-can't-remember had trolled UseNet so badly and so thoroughly that it. was. clearly. done. Stick a fork in it. Folks moved on to other places, and many very good Usenet groups just gave up. Wikipedia is at that stage, except that FAC is the last thing that still works, hence, folks taking pot shots at it instead of looking at the broader systemic problems. If something comes along that replaces Wikipedia, it will crumble-- and the folks taking pot shots at FAC (and resisting efforts to bring DYK into better repute) will share responsibility with those pushing silly efforts to recruit more women and students, while ignoring the broader failures (things like POV). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In its desperation to recruit new editors Wikipedia (WMF) is in grave danger of losing the core volunteers that have glued this project together for so many years. I have read or listened to the bollocks currently being debated here and here. FAC is an easy target for criticism of how Wikipedia works (which it does and does very well) because of its high profile. Ironically it is last thing that still works. And at this crucial time, we need to respect our content creators who either write articles from scratch or, after hours of hard work and creativity, drag copyvio-ridden DYKs and stubs to GA and FA. To be blunt, I am losing faith in the project; Wikipedia seems more concerned in quantity (hits) than quality. No wonder gifted writers and editors like User:Tim Vickers and Moni have all but moved on. Will treasures such as Brian and Malleus be next in line? Retention is more important than recruitment. Graham Colm (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Which was exactly what Sue Gardner was saying. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I just didn't see what you saw in Sue's pronouncements at all, I saw what Graham and SandyG saw. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Johnbod, was this in response to the question to her about increasing 100,000 editors to 200,000 editors? If so, I recall she used the word "fuzzy" and was not exact at all. She talked about "absorption" by which I think she means training the newbies in our policies. At what point in the 1:22:34 video does she say that retention is more important than recruitment? Graham Colm (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

1.16 and following on retaining new editors, where she discourages large recruitment drives (obviously that tanker will take some time to turn round), and earlier re retaining established editors. The 200k target is for 2015 (from the 5 year plan) & she was very clear that retention of new and old editors needs to be got right first. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard it's worth remembering this is an encyclopedia as well as a social club. The content creation and review processes are critical. Think of the best quality material as a portfolio that is developing. Seriously. The main message I got that I am concerned with in Sue's video was the drop off coinciding with automated messaging - but whenever these salient points arise, other editors who have been in disputes obfuscate the picture by pointing the finger at past disputes (so discussion on civility to new editors gets derailed by established editors who've been an arguments with other established editors they perceive as rude etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a recent proposal here on the English Wikipedia that would have minimised the need for new editors to be discouraged by receiving an automated message telling them that their brand new article is about to be deleted because it doesn't meet the notability criteria or whatever. Which was that new editors ought not to be allowed to create articles at all until they've reached some minimum threshold of edits, maybe as few as 10 or 20. But the WMF foolishly stamped on the idea. They will get the Wikipedia they deserve. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I had never heard Sue talk before (right?). My God, she really does unleash words like a GAU-8 (right?). It's tiring to listen to someone go on like that (right?). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

GA also still works, and seems to be delivering on its promise to be a scalable process for driving content improvement, even if (and partly because) it does not always get it right the first time. It benefited enormously in the early days from receiving critical scorn, then having critical friends (like Sandy), so that it could adapt and improve while staying true to its basic concept. Geometry guy 23:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a great waypoint for articles to get to before having a rest in preparation for climbing the FA pinnacle :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree: it is fantastic that GA and PR are used in this way. Having even a single independent view on an article can work wonders for content improvement. However, GA has always aimed to offer more than this: not only a staging post, but also an end in itself, in which articles are improved up to an acceptable standard where they become a useful, if not always perfect, resource for readers. Geometry guy 00:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No disagreement from me there. Group hugs all round :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Content review on Wikipedia is better now than it ever has been. So if it gets blamed for the many structural problems Wikipedia needs to address, what are we to infer? Geometry guy 01:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very interesting question, and one to which the answers will be equally revealing. For me it's a clear case of "Look, you need to make it easier for complete incompetents to write articles. And FA/GA/PR get in the way of recruiting more incompetents, as it demotivates them". Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to all: in my haste this afternoon, I mistyped and have struck. I agree with Gguy that content review is better now than it has ever been, and that includes FAC/FAR, GAN/GAR, and also PR (and maybe we can even turn DYK around)-- in all of those areas we have (too few) exemplary volunteers holding down the fort and doing excellent work day in and day out, driving quality up. Sue Gardner's comments against the drive for "quality" were so demoralizing and off the mark that I hope she's prepared to groom her thousands of recruited students to replace the experienced core writers and reviewers, who don't have enough time to deal with all of the copyvios from these recruitees. I think the bottom line on the response to the TCO pseudo-presentation is that it would have gotten no traction whatsoever if so many people weren't already upset about Sue Gardner's irresponsible presentation and words. Yes, content review across the board is better than it's ever been, and if Sue Gardner thinks the drive for "quality" is a problem, her standards are too low or something is amiss there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice, neutral title (in case Johnbod still thinks we got it wrong). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What, you think the "enemy within" is FAC?? As for death spirals, you do a fine line in those yourself. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Many have noted, as I did here, that it is Wikipedia's open invitation, for anyone to contribute and freely license any knowledge they have, that lies behind its extraordinary success. Geometry guy 02:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I was really disappointed with the parts of Sue's presentation that dealt with article reviewers. But I imagine she's gotten an earful by now, and I expect she'll take the criticisms on board. I guess we'll find out the next time she gives a talk to a chapter. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Watching it again, now it looks to me more like an "if the shoe fits" comment than a scattershot attack. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would you expect her to take criticism from the free labor pool on board? Just curious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My sense from watching was that, by the end of the talk, she knew that it hadn't gone over well. She gives a lot of talks, so we shouldn't have long to wait to find out if her position is evolving. If it's not, then maybe we could start some kind of dialog with her in the Signpost and see if we can figure out how we got to be the bad guys. - Dank (push to talk) 04:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Dank, surely you jest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, bear in mind I almost never read stuff by or about Foundation people (I'd love to, but I'm too busy with articles), so I don't know. I guess I'm just going by my general impression that there are few truly unmendable rifts on Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 04:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality increases by itself! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You sure about that? User:Resident Mario/sandbox (draft for The Signpost). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I implicitly trust Canadian ex-journalists paid by cliques of functionaries (Gardner 2011-11-19 in London, 1:20s–1:30s). "[There are lots of people focused on increasing quality like taking photos of large outdoor objects with the lottery motivation of a gong and some non-convertible commodities.]" I notice that the website can't get basic whitespacing correct   . Fifelfoo (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't ever get an FA? 20:00 op cit. "Because the nature of the topic doesn't lend itself to the nature of the citations required. … But I think it is part and parcel of the same thing … the projects were changing and not all the changes are good" Well fuck me with a pitchfork for demanding some fucker actually cites a work so we can locate it. She also has a view that Wikimedia and that neck waiting for a guillotine Jimbo actually influence us. (24:00). Fifelfoo (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Our community…is really really change averse and because we operate mostly under consensus decision making it is really easy to revert to the status quo…we cannot continue to move at the speed of community acceptance [so either we're going to have to lower the bar for acceptance]… or folks are going to have to help us achieve acceptance…which means…[running roughshod over the community by being a cadre organisation and lying to the community about what changes constitute]" (44:00) This is the most awesome sauce example of Professional-managerial class Leninism I've ever seen. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI on this, we're planning a Special report on Sue Gardner's address linked above in next week's issue, and have been offered an interview with said Executive Director, so any questions you'd like to put to her on the "drive to quality" and the editing community death spiral, or any other objective input on the issues, answers on a postcard. Skomorokh 04:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Groan ... speaking of spirals, I can see the discussion over that one spiraling down. Thanks for the heads up ... I guess I'd rather find a discussion page than send email, can anyone recommend a page where her talk is being discussed? - Dank (push to talk) 04:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, presenting the issues in a detached, non-divisive, non-incendiary way is the crux of the problem. It's another topic that lends itself easily to finger-pointing and personal feuding. Skomorokh 04:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The (extensive) list of questions submitted for the Sue Gardner interview are here. Only two of them really relate to the concerns expressed relating to FAC etc. ("Are there areas in which standards need to be relaxed in order to promote accessibility and new editor engagement?" and "What would you like to say to editors whose focus has been on quality and who may have taken the Foundation's recent pronouncements and initiatives as an indication that their contributions aren't valued or that they are part of the problem?"). Further suggestions welcome, time is short. Skomorokh 22:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sk-- I've fallen behind here, but those two questions seem to cover the territory very effectively. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is probably going to get lost on the DYK talk page

But may I draw your attention here for opinion? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 02:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow-- very nice stuff! I see you're not intimidated by Wiki markup :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you're a girl Panyd? I'm not sure a girl could have done that, but anyway, I want the submit box to be yellow. Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I ought to add though that that's pretty much the kind of thing that's needed all over Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• checks her women's outreach presentations* Yup! The insinuation that women specifically are put off by markup is still sexist. And no, I am not putting in a big yellow box. :P Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 02:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[24] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You have my wiki-love :) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 03:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sandy, I don't want to flood Moonriddengirl's talk page, and you're right, the DYK page is getting a bit busy for discussion. Seems to me that I'm just going to have to barrel on with this and then present it to people. What do you think of my suggestions here? I think we should have a short essay as well but I feel the more we can automate the 'tools of the trade' the more we can weed out newbies or the easily distracted. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to be convinced still, but I'm not yet entirely sure you're on the right track. I find automated tools to be of little use in detecting problems (I use the same method Nikkimaria uses-- read the article, read the sources), and worse, editors can learn to work around the duplication detector while still copying structure (we see that in sports bios). Someone who is a determined reward seeker and gets hold of the idea that only automated tools are used to review can simply alter a few more phrases, so ... not sure that's the way to go. Also, I'm concerned that the fundamental problem at DYK is one of volume combined with obligatory (quid pro quo) reviewing. As long as you have QPQ reviewing, we'll have faulty DYKs, and any automated tool that makes submitting a DYK even easier may drive volume higher, rather than quality higher. It's a cultural difference, perhaps, but I've never been clear why some folks think that Every New Or Expanded Article Deserves Its Time On The Mainpage No Matter The Quality. So, I'm worried about any increased automation, both in submission and in reviewing. Not to discourage you, because I'm most pleased to see you putting your considerable talent, good faith, and experience to work on these problems-- just food for thought. To me, the best way to find copyvio issues is by reading the article and reading the sources-- duplication detector will not pick up copied structure, or cut-and-paste done by an editor who changes enough words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I hear the developers like straw polls and a link to consensus before they help with anything so I've made one and explained my views on why I think this would be appropriate here. What I'm trying to do is set out a basic level of criteria for submission, which we technically have at the moment but which many people (especially new editors) seem to overlook. I can see why as well seeing as we don't have many barriers to submission other than Can you work out markup? What I hope this will achieve is simultaneously reducing the number of submissions by putting up more sensible barriers to the process, which I feel would raise the bar for more so that reviewers may spend more time on the technical/fine side of things (e.g. copied structure etc.), but also allowing ease of access so that people aren't put off the process entirely. It's a fine line to walk but I honestly feel that the addition of these simple tools (assuming we can get consensus) would really help to achieve both of those aims.

P.s. I don't like a reward culture but I think that DYK is an excellent platform for new articles to get more attention and they're fun factoids for our readership (at least that's the theory). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

P.p.s. Thank you for the kind words. And thank you very much for your attempts to reach out to the DYK community over the past 24 hours. I really feel like we can move ahead now. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am warming to "wizard" type boxes - I have been using the upload wizard at commons alot since it appeared there and it has mad uploading alot easier. Good work Panyd in looking into solutions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Casliber! :) Sandy, I'm trying to get input on this from people who aren't in the "DYK crowd" but would be interested in the process. Do you know anyone relevant? The village pump just came back and said it was actually feasible and I want to move forward as quickly as possible. (I have also left messages for the top 10 editors to Wikipedia talk:Did you know as well as the village pump proposals. I don't want to fall afoul of WP:CANVASS but I do want a good consensus) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add any classes editing medical content here

[25] We are going to need to keep tract of these students. I have written both the WMF and the prof in question. Would rather write GAs than clean up after students.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you or one of your TPS can answer/elaborate on the questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Homework guidelines?. Is there a more central place where our concerns can be raised that a user or project talk page? Colin°^Talk 20:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of research

Have you read through the presentation Sue Gardner gave about declining contributors and quality? It's wmf:File:UK_BOARD_MEETING.pdf, and you might be interested in looking at the underlying research: meta:Research:First edit session and meta:Research:Communication to New Editors 2004-2011 for starters. I have my own critiques of how the data are being used here but I would be interested in what you or your talk page stalkers spot. Skomorokh 05:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could figure out how to pronounce your name so I could learn how to spell it-- sorry for just calling you Skor on Ceoil's talk-- your name wasn't in front of me and I couldn't remember the spelling, so shortened to there. I do have to finish Christmas preparations and begin travel prep, this latest "business" with TCO has taken time I didn't have, but I didn't feel I should stay silent with so many good editors so upset ... I will do my best to look at it as soon as I can (hope it's not too terribly long). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sk, I've taken a very quick look, because if I don't get to it now, I won't get to it until after Christmas. Before looking at the data, I employed my own N=1 analysis:

I looked at my own first edits, to see if the notion that things have gotten worse over time passes the duck test for my experience. My first edits were clearly clueless on Wikipedia markup, but knowledgeable and helpful (four edits in one session). I didn't receive a welcome for over two months, and the first two instances of feedback on my talk were faulty warnings. So, no change there from what happens today.

On another issue, I know of many editors who have simply given up on Wikipedia, and only edit as IPs occassionally to maintain their articles or revert vandalism. It is always illuminating to see how they are ignored on article talk, receive faulty warnings on user talk, are reverted even when correct, etc-- so disrespect of knowledgeable editors and edits, and mistreatment of IPs, is an issue, most typically in my observation coming from the Huggle/Twinkle crowd, who most often know less of Wikipedia policies and guidelines than some of the IPs. I'm not sure if the same occurs when redlinked accounts edit, due to an assumption of socking.

My gut, personal experience, and N=1 tells me the conclusions are wrong. I was reverted over and over when new by a POV pusher adding non-reliable anecdote (when I knew the research through and through, even if not how to defend it on Wikipedia), which led me to register an account specifically so I could engage in dispute resolution. Maybe I'm not the average bear :)

Now, turning to that data:

I can't figure out how to access the first PDF (??) I could access your second two links. They seemed to use good sample sizes for the overall analysis, but not sure that the 155 is enough of a subset for a real look at real edits (and did these researchers honestly dig out all the sources and study every article in their sample to ascertain accurate, good faith edits?), but what most stands out to me (and fits with common sense) is the increase in vandalism and unhelpful edits over time as Wikipedia has become more popular. Of course there are more warnings now. My own experience tells me no different than how I was treated when new six years ago, and my own observations of IPs tells me it's a problem. I haven't looked at any of the statistical analysis, because a) I don't have time, and b) I'm too rusty to deduce anything from a quick flyover, when I can't even access the first PDF. I wish I could see Sue Gardner's PDF, because my intuition is that, along with more vandalism, POV pushers, trolls, socks etc, we're also attracting more and more immature editors who don't really know sourcing, good research, have a mature approach to editing, and they are more likely to huggle, twinkle and warn rather than engage, but I'm unclear if the data shows that or looking only at 155 edits is sufficient to draw conclusions about how may first edits are good faith. I hope some of the statistician TPS here will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My talk-page voter guide

Sandy, I raised it at the coordinators' talk page, but they must all be asleep in their time zones. You may wish to raise the matter at the actual election talk page. Tony (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If you've asked, I won't trouble them further ... just doesn't seem like a good precedent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	To SandyGeorgia, for maintaining the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia's articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to see your frustration with some new contributors' good-faith attempts to edit Wikipedia. I appreciate the effort that you take to ensure Wikipedia's standards. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Klazomania(Round 2)

Dear SandyGeorgia,

I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you, I've been very busy with midterms and the holidays. I hope you had a wonderful thanksgiving. I would love to hear your ideas on how we can put the finishing touches on the article and make it better. Please let me know and again I apologize for the delay. Thank you! (Adondaki (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC))

When I didn't hear from you, I went ahead and did what I could, because I'm not likely to be around when your term finishes (going skiing). The only thing I couldn't do is I don't have the Howard source. Since it's a 1987 case report, I'm not sure if anything more can be gleaned from it, but you might want to go through it. Please do commend for me your work to your professor, and let me know soon if you have any further questions. Have a happy holiday! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will do my best to get the Howard source quickly and see if I can add anything from that to the article. Thank you again for all your help and I will try to let you know in the next day or two if there are any final questions. Have a good ski trip and happy holidays! (Adondaki (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC))

Fools rush in

I wrote a reply to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Opinion desk/Vital articles debate. Tongue in cheek: Despite having read your 20 twenty 20 point evisceration of the current text, I added it anyway. Rather than list my myriad faults fell free to edit. Gerardw (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's 20, FYI :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You forgot the hyphen! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

20-point? Gerardw (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You passed, you must be a star collector. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Strictly Dabbler class. (Ya think Print butter is on their "vital" list?) Gerardw (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ya learn something new every day! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks. I don't really have time for this and am cramming in too much. Anyway, I'm done for now. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought the unintended combination of Grand Central Station and Central Park made a most effective point :) Take care there, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a great shame that TCO's personalised bollocks came out at just about the same time as Sue Gardner's bollocks, as the two have become intermingled. The more important, I think, is Sue's "Wow, I've been told that some articles can never be FAs," which I notice wasn't challenged by the Wikimedia UK board members at her presentation, and the subtle transfer of the blame for all of Wikipedia's increasing distress onto the quality processes. As the Italians say, fish rot from the head. Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As I recall it was challenged (by moi, not a board member but present). FAs were hardly mentioned in the presentation, and the "transfer of the blame for all of Wikipedia's increasing distress onto the quality processes" was far too subtle for me or anyone else there to notice. There were a lot more problems than solutions set out, and I suppose people can seize on whatever single thing they fancy out of all those that cropped up as having been designated the cause of all evil. Personally I choose big citation templates, which received more time and far clearer blame. Enjoy your skiing. PS I broadly agree about the TCO thing in the Signpost, which should not be covered as is proposed, though the fuss it has generated makes some coverage inevitable. It's very unfortunate the TCO effort has come out at the same time as people are becoming aware of the Sue Gardner talk, and the two formed an unholy alliance in some people's minds. I see them as very different. Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not really clear what Malleus and Sandy heard that was so negative in Sue Gardner's comments. Malleus, I did hear her say something to the effect that she was surprised to find not every article can be an FA, but that was a huge topic of conversation on WT:FAC a year or two ago, and you could certainly find some of our best writers arguing that FA wasn't always possible for some articles. It does show that she's not familiar with WT:FAC archives but I don't see why you find it so annoying -- can you clarify? Sandy, I just don't see what she said that sounds to you like an attack on FAC -- can you quote for me, or at least point me to the place in the video where I can listen again? I guess I will transcribe it if you like, so we can look at the results -- I'm very curious to know what was so irritating. And like Johnbod says, enjoy your skiing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike, I don't recall using the words "attack on FAC" to describe Sue G's presentation (have I?); if it was an "attack" at all, it was more on quality in general. The bigger concern about Sue G (and the like) is that we have people who have never built content, have no idea of the issues in engaging the Project at the content level, waving their hands and making vague "I heard" statements, or multiple published articles ("research") that don't account for the fact that most articles below the GA/FA level on Wikiedia are incorrectly assessed. It would boggle the mind, except that one remembers that this is Wikipedia, and the parts of it that try to be serious are the parts under fire for "quality". It's the internet, for gosh sakes-- there was a time when all of the publications were about how Wikipedia needed to improve quality to be taken seriously. It's still not, but FAs hold up well to external review (as far as I know). If WMF wants to shoot themselves in the foot, no skin off my back, but a shame how they (they being the combo now of The Signpost, Sue G, TCO, etc) are alienating the very folks who can build quality articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The flow of the discussion was, to compress and paraphrase, "Wow! I've been told that some articles can never get to FA ... Jimbo's pronouncements on the need to focus on quality in the wake of the Seigenthaler incident have been widely misinterpreted ... the processes [such as FAC] put in place to deliver higher quality are discouraging to new editors and are therefore 'bad'". Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, no. Obviously FAC is not new from that period, and is hardly a worry for new editors. This really isn't what was said; the focus was very much on the first few hundred edits or so of a new editor. I suppose we'll have to ask her office for a transcript, with the slides, then we can get down to it like New Testament scholars. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, Malleus, it's before that ... the original question was about DYK (completely missing the drive to clean up the substantial copyvio issues there, which most certainly should concern Sue G more than dissing quality), and Sue G glossed right over that (DYK) and went straight on to FA (as mentioned by Malleus). In other words, even rampant copyvio at DYK was glossed over in the rush to the discussion of the "quality" issue at FAC. Agenda was already there (right?) ResMar and The Signpost have fed it, and TCO was purely incidental. (Thanks for the skiing well wishes, but since there's no snow, may have to cancel-- still undecided.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There's snow up here! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, make me feel bad-- got a free timeshare? And I neglected to visit you last year when I was at Whistler/Blackcomb-- how STUPID of me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've pinged Sue Gardner (talk · contribs). There are two things I'd like to know in this mess of confusion between her statements and TCO's pseudoanalysis/attack page. 1) Why are quality articles "at the top" a barrier to "new entry" editing (presumably or at least not always at the "top")? Related to why aren't we doing more to educate editors about copyvio, which is pervasive at DYK, which is an entry point for many. 2) Why does anyone think FAC (or any entity) is in a position to drive editors to certain "important" topics? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks to their other ventures, I've now cleaned up the writing of everything that can be written on klazomania, so gee, let's make it an FA because it uses all the sources available (and then we can tie that in a nice bow with TCO's five page views per day). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been what, a week or so now? But I still feel as if I've been shat on. I can't begin to imagine how you must feel. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no different than usual ... has always gone with the territory, but I've always tried to defend the writers and reviewers when they are unfairly attacked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's good that you're aware of this. I am, officially at least, the opinion desk coordinator. I've tried to kill this from running multiple times, because I think the study is immensely flawed, however it's been overruled from above. I also wanted to ask you to do the rebuttal, but I've been overruled there as well. Thankfully the one thing that I have been able to do is ensure that it dosen't run without a rebuttal. Don't blame me for this nonsense, there's literally nothing more I can do. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You're the opinion desk coordinator and you aren't in charge of opeds? How very strange. Well, now that is interesting. IRC must he hot !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

O Really? If the volunteers may know, who overruled? And who is/are writing a rebuttal? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some pieces: [26] [27] (HaeB is former editor of The Signpost, whom I've criticized in the past). I've never been a fan of IRC, et al, so don't know the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is only one position that can overrule the rest of the staff at the Singpost, and that position is currently shared by two people. I almost resigned over the TCO piece running. (in fact I did resign, but it lasted only for about 12 hours). As for who is writing the rebuttal, no one has come up with a (1000 word or so) rebuttal to the piece. The piece isn't running this week, and shouldn't run without one. If you're thinking of not writing anything in order to not have it run at all, don't think that. The report will eventually break somewhere, and it's better for people who oppose it to have it break on the Signpost, with a rebuttal. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, a lot of stuff is done over the IRC, because talking in real time is much easier, especially with scheduling, (and also because sometimes frank statements need to be made). Just because a lot of planning happens on the IRC dosen't mean it's all nefarious though. #wikisignpost is a public channel too, if you're interested. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you would also have trouble for a writer for a 1000 word rebuttal to Do you still beat your wife? As long as the question is cast in such POV terms, there's not that much to say. Gerardw (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sven, perhaps you take The Signpost too seriously? For example, why is it that both you and Tony1 have (temporarily) resigned over issues, but we're still subjected to ResMar? And what is behind the drive for Drahmaz (other than, that's what feeds journalists)? Since its turn towards more editorializing and less reporting (which started long ago with ArbCom bashing), The Signpost barely gets any views, and with writers that need this much correction, that's no wonder. The Signpost spin on the TCO story is more interesting than the TCO story ever was, and why worry about who might pick up a story that TCO already spread all over the place-- I think we trust thinking people to think. Really, let's review some FACs-- when you're at "the top", potshots go with the territory. Perhaps Sk will turn The Signpost around (Ragesoss was a good editor); it's still early to pass judgment, but the evidence so far isn't in his favor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, and a bit late too, but where is this "20 point evisceration of the current text"? - I wants to see it, this thing's been bugging me ever since it came out. Volunteer Marek  09:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[28] Gerardw (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Marek, it's not even close to a "20-point evisceration of the current text"; it's mostly a copyedit of what was on the top of The Signpost page at the time I looked at it. I haven't even begun to "eviscerate" TCO's actual PDF, because it's not worth it, and will lend the shoddy work more credibility than it deserves. Anyone with two fingers in front of their face can see all the problems, agenda, and personalization in that piece-- the thing that needs to be addressed is The Signpost coverage of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? And here I was going to start devoting all my energies to ensuring that True Blood and Justin Bieber (which google tells me are the most viewed Wikipedia articles are and hence most "vital") make it to FA in order to correct this great injustice. I think the premise just looses sight of what an encyclopedia is.  Volunteer Marek  19:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, that meme was first promoted at FAC by Mattisse (who spends most of her time in exile talking to-- and answering-- herself over at WR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I was interested to see the German coverage of her visit there. A slight difference of approach. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I seem to remember someone on this page saying something about taking The Signpost too seriously, but what would I know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey folks. I am here because SandyGeorgia pinged me on my talkpage. I've read the discussion here, and the other one that references me, above. I am not sure if there have been other conversations about my talk in other places -- if so, I haven't seen them.

So I am getting the impression that some people here have been interpreting my talk as an "attack on quality" -- am I understanding that right? That's not a correct interpretation. The purpose of my talk was pretty simple: to go through some of the editor decline data, as well as some of the projects the Wikimedia Foundation has underway that are aimed at increasing editor retention. I did argue that over time Wikipedia has become more closed to new contributors, partly as a result of normal Eternal September effect, and exacerbated by response to the Seigenthaler incident. I don't think that's really controversial though: I think reasonable people could disagree about the details, but the general shape of what's happened (reduced openness) is pretty clear.

I'm assuming maybe people thought I was attacking quality because I was arguing in favour of participation? But, as I said in the talk, I don't believe that quality and participation are inherently oppositional. I actually believe the opposite: participation increases quality. I think that's proved by .. Wikipedia's very existence :-)

I am not sure if anybody here wanted to talk directly to me, but I'll watchlist this page and check back, in case you do :-) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and for watchlisting. The issue of what you said or meant in the video is being confounded by The Signpost planned (draft phase) reporting of the issue. Perhaps you could take a look at a draft of an opinion piece planned to run along with an interview of you in next week's Signpost, to see how your work is being used and interpreted with respect to featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I can't help myself and I don't want to be the one to start the talk page for that draft, so here:

And yet, despite our success, trouble is brooding on the horizon - stupid trouble, always brooding about stuff. Brooding about essence. Brooding about existence. Brooding about the daily gas prices. Brooding about lunch. Brooding about wall paper. About daisies. And clouds. And lost keys and unwashed socks. And about the Manicheans. And always doing this brooding on the stupid horizon! Stupid, stupid, trouble.

Wikipedia's system, though highly successful, created an intrinsic problem of openness, exposing to the crowds that built it to where it is, versus quality - who's the sicko that's been exposing versus quality to the crowds? Isn't that kind of thing illegal?

that slippery phantom that asks the question, "So it's big, but is it right?" - wth? My slippery phantom always asks the question "what's for lunch?". And I still haven't figured out why it's so fucking slippery. Something's up with that. Fer sure.

Insomuch as making Wikipedia more accessible, you risk poor information, poor writing - the truth.

Let us take this statement as an axiom...There are several reasons for this conclusion - sorry, axioms go in this green bin over here, conclusions go in that blue bin over there. We don't mix'em, lest we rip the fabric of the universe apart.

In younger times - in permuted milieus, this might just slightly qualify as legitimate, though hella awkward metaphor.

According to this perfectly accurate graph - Hold on, someone's trying to pull a fast one on me here. I demand to see the perfectly inaccurate graph, the imperfectly accurate graph, and the imperfectly inaccurate graph as well. Just to get the full picture(s).

But this doesn't make any sense! - the truth. Again!

Not. one. What? - is this like a Call and response thing? Also weird shift from apparent seriousness to apparent sarcasm... except I can't tell where the first one ends and the second one begins (it's like building a sand pile out of sand grains)

I like to think of Wikipedia as a tree, and editing as a ladder. - I like to think of a Wikipedia as a plugged in toaster, and editing as sticking a fork in that toaster. At other times I like to think of Wikipedia as a hitch-hiking hippie and editing as his greasy thumb. And yet at other times I think of Wikipedia as a Law and Order rerun and editing as huffing glue from a paper bag... where was I?

I'm not even gonna get started on the argument of that text. Volunteer Marek  04:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd barnstar you, but Moni3's got the only one in the universe and I'd have to rip it out of her clenched fists-- it would be rude to that to her before she's sober. (And this is the writing that The Signpost wanted to put forward in The Dispatches, that led to it being cratered when Tony1 supported. It makes me feel good about my own stinky prose, "irregardless".) I guess we've gotten off of that "BrilliantProse" kick, huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. (Outdenting for readability.)

I read that editorial quickly, and I clicked through to the Special Report the Signpost is putting together. Thanks for pointing me there. Both are just drafts right now, and, for that and other reasons, I don't particularly want to offer any comment on them. But I would like to be clear up-front about what I said in my talk, and why. Essentially my talk took the path I laid out above. I spoke first about all the research and data that suggests Wikipedia is getting less receptive to new editors .. and then I talked through some of the Wikimedia Foundation's activities designed to help improve the new editor survival rate. Then I posed a challenge to the Wikimedia UK Board: asking them to take up this issue as their own, and work to help solve the problem. That was the gist of my talk. And I have to say, I am a little confused by the reaction to it. I have no quarrel with the FA team: why on earth would I? I like to read good articles, like everybody, and I also, like lots of people, use "number of FAs and GAs" as one of my informal yardsticks for editor value. (I don't mean to imply it's a perfect yardstick or the only yardstick: of course it's not. All I mean is that if somebody has lots of FAs and GAs, I know they're contributing significant value.) So, I am wondering if there is some broken telephone going on here, or if anybody wants to ask me a direct question about anything I said?

And, I have a quick question about Marek's parody/commentary above. Someone pinged me saying Marek was making fun of my talk, but I don't think that's what he's doing -- am I right? At first I thought maybe he was, but the actual quotes and narrative line he's parodying don't bear any resemblance to what I said. So I'm assuming/checking, that he's parodying something else. Thanks. Sue Gardner (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe he was responding to [[29]], not your talk. Gerardw (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoa I made somebody ping somebody. Volunteer Marek  00:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Katarighe (or Mohamed Aden Ighe)

Sandy, I'm unclear why you added a link to this user's other contributions at the articles he has supported for FA. They don't look like vandalism, and this user's deleted edits all consist of adding speedy deletion tags to articles which were, in fact, subsequently speedied. Unless I've missed something, this looks like highlighting the user's inexperience, which is a bit bitey. There is no minimum edit requirement to comment at FAC, and I would assume that a support without detailed review by an inexperienced editor would be given appropriate weight by a delegate; the rest of us don't need to know. Apologies if I've missed something obvious Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant this diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It did seem rather blunt. But, on the other hand, if you accept the assertions made in this comment in an editor review, then the editor's contributions might fit a stereotype of behaviour that Sandy finds concerning. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think what Sandy is reffering to is the user's lack of real judgement. Katarighe seems to go and "drive by" AfDs with "I agree" or "it's good" or "bad article" kind of comments. HurricaneFan25 14:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I said they were vandalism (????), or that I meant to highlight inexperience (haven't noticed that, wasn't aware of Demiurge's links or Hurricanfan's AFD feedback), but there is a question in my mind of how he reviewed those two articles in that amount of time. When I see two back-to-back, rapid-fire Supports on subsequent FACs, with no analysis, I check the contribs, and leave myself a reminder of the contribs. That doesn't negate the support, or say anything about the Supporter, but it is something to factor in the event other reviewers later come in and find significant issues. I don't typically close (quickly) a FAC with supports, unless others demonstrate that support was unfounded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I just didn't "get" the reason for the tagging, I suppose taking it as read that he hadn't done a thorough analysis Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't know that for sure (we don't know what he did in his off time, but a country article typically takes a *lot* of time to review); it's just a reminder for me, to consider along with other factors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

An awful lot of time. As I said at the review, I think they're among the most difficult to write. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Weather

Yeah it's nice here right now, but not nice for skiing. Yesterday it was in the 60's this morning it was 27 but no sign of snow. Bummer.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Dang it. That's what I thought-- will have to cancel. Thanks, Mike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, sorry, it would have been great to see you. Maybe next time? By the way, I have 2 pieces I'm considering putting up at FAC: one, Charles B. Gatewood, just got GA this morning, it was a stub and I expanded it a few months ago; the other, John C. Colt, I wrote from the start, has been sitting over there for months. I don't think there's much more I can do on Colt, but I might be able to expand Gatewood a little. What do you think?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if they'll be a next time (this year anyway)-- I was offered a timeshare (free), which was bringing me there, and later in the year I'm more likely to ski elsewhere ... really a bummer. I've got to get someone to the airport this afternoon, so I'll look at those tonight or tomorrow. Please ping me if I forget-- there's a lot going on right now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Mike ... got caught up elsewhere and then got plum tuckered out. I just looked at Gatewood. What I usually look for in GAs is who passed them-- I'm not familiar with that editor, so I can't say what the GA means. My suggestion is that you next take it to MilHist's A-class review; they can be helpful in polishing it up to FA standards and highlighting any deficiencies. (Decided to go elsewhere to ski in January-- still a bummer, but Mother Nature isn't cooperating.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jivesh Here

Hi Sandy. Hope you are enjoying good health. Sandy, i need your help. Can you please direct me to a very good copy-editor? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dianna is the lead coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors, so I'm sure she could be of assistance. Regards, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 04:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, i cannot count how many times i have asked her for help but she is always busy and i understand. Can you please suggest someone to me? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Lfstevens, User:Aircorn, User:Chaosdruid, User:Jezhotwells are very good copyeditors (User:Wehwalt, User:Brianboulton among others are busy, but you can try asking them).--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you thought of asking Malleus Fatuorum? In spite of his "admin-inspired" rap, he is often willing to help out-- just about anyone who asks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I know Chaosdruid has been taking care of RL concerns lately, so he probably wouldn't have the time either. I don't know how active the other three are. Malleus is one of Wikipedia's finest copy editors, so he's probably your best bet. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I never thought so many people here would help me put. My heartfelt thanks to everyone, particularly to Sandy. Happy editing. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jivesh, it's always possible that it's only me and my terrible eyesight, but your former sig literally made me nauseous with all those contrasting colors, and if that affects anyone else as it did me, a subtle sig may help you get more attention to your FAC :) I was physically unable to read that page-- my eyesight may be finally getting the best of me. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Aww thanks a lot Sandy. Take care. Happy editing. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why

[[30]] Because the wikimedia software is kind of crappy with regards to references. Gerardw (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it irritating as all hell to have to separately and differently format citations on talk pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

halp!

In the 53 million WP: pages on Wiki I don't know where to ask the following question, so I might as well ask here (Malleus's page is watched by many but I suspect he gets sick of that orange bar sometimes). Why have half the blue icons above my edit window, containing the "hidden comment" button and similar, vanished? Parrot of Doom 16:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following the question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See your edit window? B, I, AB, etc? The little blue buttons? Most of mine have vanished :( On two PCs, too, one running Ubuntu. Parrot of Doom 16:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the junk directly above the edit window, I dn't know what you mean by AB ... I have B I then a monitor image, then a scribbly pencil thingie. If that's what you mean, they're still here (and they still suck, since I don't even know what they are and have never used them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah all that stuff. I used a few of those buttons, and now they're gone. I don't suppose you know where to ask the technical people? Parrot of Doom 17:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:VP/T. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta. Parrot of Doom 20:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez

About Talk:Hugo Chavez, what is the early point that you want to revert to?

And if Midnightblueowl/etc reverts I will tell the noticeboard to revert any changes restoring the POV, to prevent anybody from "enforcing" it.

Nothing has happened to the article in the past few months. It needs to be reverted to an earlier version. Then we can "add back" disputed sections in child articles (like how Barack Obama has child articles)

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh ... I'll have to go way back to find it now. The article was not necessarily any good then, but at least it was before Midnight chunked it up with biased sources and poor prose and excess length. It only provides a starting place for consensual discussion of planned new text-- what makes you think that will ever happen at Chavez? There are three or four editors there who will revert on sight anything that is not pro-Chavez? I'll go spend the half hour to find the diff only if you can convince me I won't be wasting my time :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, you will not regret it once you find the earlier version :)

The noticeboard is there to prevent a group of POV-pushing editors from taking over an article - it means more people will be involved

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What noticeboard? I'll go find the diff, but I don't have time to engage the issue otherwise-- for gosh sakes, why does Wikipedia always have to heat up during the holidays? Is that because students are off? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Read here; it's just before Midnight chunked in a bunch of biased sources (and still, no one has added alternate POVs). The discussion of the biased sources, and the diff, are all in that section. The diff is just before Midnight doubled the size of the article by adding partisan sources. Two things wrong: most of the text belonged in daughter articles, and unbalanced sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Hugo_Chavez WhisperToMe (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Just after I made the post... Jimbo Wales appeared. Let me read his comments [31] WhisperToMe (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my, there must be a cabal !!! He's asking Midnight if he'd take a voluntary break (doubt it, besides, the problem is how the other talk page watchers enable him and let him do the POVing so they can't be sanctioned), and Jimbo brings up the food issue in Venezuela as one of many mentioned by reliable sources but excluded from our hagiography. Jimbo's right. By the way, it's not only food and not only the poor -- the serious shortages also affect small business people. If you're a dentist, you need paper towels and toilet paper to run your business, but you can't get 'em. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"the problem is how the other talk page watchers enable him and let him do the POVing so they can't be sanctioned" - One could say "they are meatpuppets, treat them all as if they are one person - And apply 3RR to them as if they are one person" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

One could, and there are previous arb precedents, but how do you prove it? They've all so cleverly avoided doing any actual editing, resulting in a situation where if there were to be an arbcase or ANI, they could let the newbies take the fall. They did it to others before Midnight appeared. They just take turns supporting any newcomer who will POV the article-- that started as soon as they realized I was gathering the data for an arb case. And since no one wants to edit war-- knowing it's likely to go before the arbs-- no one reverts the POV they facilitate.

It gets better. You're unlikely to get any takers on your NPOV noticeboard post, because the article has been ripe for arbitration for so long, that admins ignore it, not wanting to get involved. The only admin I've ever seen to say anything at any dispute resolution forum was NuclearWarfare, and he too was resoundingly ignored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"They've all so cleverly avoided doing any actual editing" - AFAIK you can still treat it as a meatpuppet. Meatpuppetry can come in discussion too.

Can't I just keep re-posting it until I get a response? Or if that doesn't work, keep forcing it to the bottommost part as a way of telling the noticeboard people that there is no choice but to get involved?

"And since no one wants to edit war" - An edit war doesn't have to happen - One can pull an RFC, or go further and take it to Mediation, etc

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what to advise you-- people don't touch it because they're afraid of it. You've got some very effective POV warriers in there. Mediation-- non-binding, doesn't work for anything, is nothing more than a stop on the road paved to ArbCom. RFC, same-- the pro-Chavez folks will dominate the RFC, others will stay away, afraid to get involved. Unlikely to be solved short of ArbCom, and not even clear it will be solved there, since ArbCom doesn't do content disputes, and most of the editors there have cleverly avoided any behavioral issues, while letting sporadic newbies POV the article. Not fair for the newbies to be sanctioned for abusing sourcing policies when they are egged on by experienced editors, which included an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the big turning point is Jimbo Wales. Wales has just made his stance clear. I don't think any of the "POV warriors" will be able to argue against what he says.

If necessary I will say point blank on the noticeboard page to say "STOP BEING AFRAID"

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In this situation, Jimbo is just another editor (albeit one that is harder to ignore). He got involved at Che Guevara years ago, and I don't recall that his input made a big difference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the Che one quickly, it's now a "good article" and I don't see a POV tag on it. While in theory he is one editor, and has as much rights as any other editor, in practice he is well respected, and his actions could motivate other people to get involved. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to Talk:Che_Guevara/Archive_12#NPOV_dispute ? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have another strategy...

1. Which sub-articles should be created?

2. Which sub-articles exist that can take the excessive content that is in the Chavez article?

I could create the sub-articles and make them for the purpose of absorbing excess content

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody posted a reply to the noticeboard WhisperToMe (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Catching up belatedly, several thoughts:

• I don't know that Che is really GA-level, or who did the review, but based on the work that was there the last time I looked, I doubt it. Perhaps Malleus or Geometry guy will have a look and opine?
• As far as I know, all the sub-articles needed for Chavez are in place and there is a template at the bottom of Chavez, but one of the sub-articles is an FA, so please don't let it be destroyed by chunking over poorly written text from the current main article to them-- it will end up de-featured if that happens.
• Again, Jimbo is only another regular editor wrt Chavez. I'm sure he (as we all should be) is likely embarassed by the poor state that Chavez has been in for five or six years, as that evidences a failure of core Wikpedia pillars and dispute resolution, but that doesn't mean he in particular can help fix that.
• The NPOV noticeboard is unlikely to be of any help: the only feedback you got there (Fifelfoo) likely came from him watching this page (he may like to clarify).
• There is NO good version to revert to-- the article has been POV as long as I've been on Wikipedia. The suggestion of the previous version I gave a year ago was to eliminate the poor writing and excess length and overreliance on one source that had crept in, but that version is not any less POV than the current version.

Other than that, I don't have time for a hopeless article. It's a sad commentary on Wikipedia that the BLP of a world leader has been in such poor shape for so many years, but until/unless enough editors care to fix it, that's the status quo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I watch this page, and became interested in the noticeboard as a result of this discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

TFAR

(Gosh, a message from Sandy on my talk page, and a compliment as well – I'm twice blessed!) Yes, I guessed that there was something setting off that thread related to the recent discussions, but didn't know where in particular it had been sparked off. Am I missing something, or is Wikipedia still "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit but nobody is forced to do anything"? If we the community want 998 FA-standard vital articles, we need more than TFAR points incentives: we'd probably need full-time paid authors. Not for me, thanks. I suspect I'm not the only one who is quite happy dabbling in my spare time with uncomplicated topics that interest me; I'd much rather get some of articles on historic Anglesey churches written and up to a decent standard than, say, try to get the core topic articles of Fiction and Health up to GA or FA standards. Life is too short and no incentive is enough, be it pseudonymous fame or TFAR points, to deal with the hassle that that would involve. So I guess that makes be guilty of using Wikipedia as a "vanity publisher"... Bencherlite^Talk 17:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you telling me this is the first time I've "talked" with you? If that's the case, well, I guess that proves you just do too much good work that doesn't require feedback or engender drahmaz, because I feel like I've always known you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Aw, shucks! (Checks his talk page history back to the very start in Feb 2007, discovering in passing that I've been an admin for one more year than I thought...) No, that was indeed the first message from you on my talk page; I tend to visit you here, not vice versa, or we interact in passing elsewhere. Bencherlite^Talk 18:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

hmmmm ... well, I'm going to wander over and see if I supported your RFA ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bencherlite. No. Few people did... Bencherlite^Talk 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I was too ashamed to admit it ... must you shame me so publicly? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)