User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch88

Electrical engineering

An RfC has been opened atat Talk: Electrical engineering#Unsourced material on a subject on which you commented on that page. SpinningSpark 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Responded there: I'm a bit concerned about the amount of misinfo that crops up now and then wrt WP:WIAFA-- I hope current and incoming delegates will have a look there. We have the "where appropriate" clause for a reason :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Fix PumpkinSky "copy-vio"

Please turn your observant eyes to my attempts to rephrase, limited by my lack of English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Responded there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Reconsider

I hope that you will reconsider and that you don't resign, but stay on...Modernist (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought, Modernist, but please don't even go there. FAC has been through enough, and just the fact that you have raised this here will reignite the disruption. See Shermanesque statement. There is plenty I can do in the background to help the new delegates, but more significantly for me personally ... this all happened to FAC because of indifference, and because some folks are in fact "star collectors", and never understood the selfless work of reviewers and delegates. It was hard work, and more and more, I found myself doing it alone (with exceptions, won't start naming them because I always leave someone out, but they know who they are and they know I know who they are). Once I realized how much I gave up my own editing to feed some "star collectors" (which is not to say that all or even most were), the fun in the "job" was gone. When you're a delegate, you have to do it all with impartiality; that means you sometimes have to promote articles that put you to sleep when trying to read them, because consensus says so. As a reviewer and helper, I get to work on only those articles that interest me, or FACs from those nominators that aren't just part of the Reward culture. I became part of feeding the very "reward culture" I so dislike. By reviewing instead, I don't have to do that. Nope, I'm done. And if other folks don't pitch in and help rebuild, help launch a Newsletter, help do all the things that are needed and were needed when I initially tried to start a discussion at the beginning of the year, I've got plenty else to do elsewhere-- the community gets what it wants on Wikipedia, and if they don't want a strong FAC, so be it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work Sandy...Modernist (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And from me. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both; you are very welcome :) In my time, I got to read some outstanding articles, work with some outstanding editors, make some great friends, and remember who my true friends always were. In the long run, I'll remember those more than the others who didn't appreciate all the work that "FAC leadership" did to give them their rewards. And if I had it to do all over again, I'd still defend the good writers and good reviewers every bit as vociferously as I did during my term. Raul's style is better overall for the process than mine was (and that's why those in the know defend him), but I am who I am, and I did it my way. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think, Sandy, you are probably doing the right thing, for yourself if not for us. A rest from your labours is overdue; I am sorry that my articles put you to sleep, though I'm not altogether surprised since many of them sent me to sleep, too. You will of course be greatly missed at FAC; I sent my first article there not too long after you became the delegate; this diff is your kindly admonishment as I blundered around in ignorance of the one nom at a time rule. Those supportive words, and help in those early months from Yomangani, Awadewit, Mike Christie, Ealdgyth (then a relative newbie herself) and many others now departed, gave me confidence and made me want to stay, and I will always be grateful. I look forward to reviewing some of your work at FAC when it gets there, and I will always value your opinions on mine - I promise I'll keep the Zzzzzzz factor to a minimum . Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You silly goose, your articles never put me to sleep ! The ones that did got a prompt from me on the FAC before I eventually promoted ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Other socks

Sandy, if you think anyone else is a sock, put in an SPI and I will personally see that it gets investigated. Contrariwise, if you're not prepared to put in an SPI, you have to stop saying that X is a sock, because it just becomes a personal attack. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

First, there's a difference between socking and abusing of CLEANSTART (have I said someone is "socking"?), and second, I'm unclear how SPI works on issues of CLEANSTART when data is stale. Third, the data and evidence is voluminous-- where does it belong, since CU data is most likely stale? Specifically, I am unclear if the evidence belongs at SPI or in an RFC/U. And if the party ceases and desists from breaching CLEANSTART, and considering the severity of past ... ugliness with the previous accounts ... what is to be gained by presenting evidence when CU data will be stale? We've seen the effects of arb intervention in cases of inconslusive CU data, and I'm uninterested in those drahmaz if the party ceases and desists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK Sandy, I'll make it simple for you. Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust. It is primarily behaviour that will reveal if he is a previous editor, not a technical tool. If you can show editing similarity, that will be enough to investigate.If you are having problems with an editor, and you believe there is some relevance to a previous account (repeating a bad editing pattern, previous disagreement) then you are free to say that you think this is editor X, and he's trying to dodge his previous editing history. And someone will look into it - bad editors don't have the right to duck out, come back as someone else, and start up with the monkey business, no matter who they are. (Moni was quite right to block the Pumpkin Sky account on entirely these grounds). What is not fair is to keep dropping dark hints that the individual is 'abusing' cleanstart, you know who they are etc, but never actually put it up for investigation. There's nothing wrong with starting by explaining your suspicions to the editor in question, in the hope that he'll stop, but if he doesn't, you can't just keep saying it, because it just turns into a personal attack. So do you want to tell me who you think the guy is, and why, and why you think he would like to avoid being associated with a previous account. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to make it simple enough for me, but you haven't :) Does that sort of evidence go in an SPI or in an RFC/U? And what happens when a former arb comes along and craters the case (as in the Barking Moon scenario) with some vague mumbo-jumbo in an SPI (as would likely happen here) or an RFC/U is taken over by like-minded; in other words, why go to the effort if the editor refrains from revisiting old grudges henceforth? Isn't it better to let it go if the editor ceases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

First, wind down the conspiracy theories. Nobody "cratered" the BarkingMoon case - BarkingMoon left off editing while there was still a debate going on. Rlevse swore on his granny's grate it wasn't him - obviously those who knew him would prefer to think a former colleague wasn't a completely mendacious git (your view may vary, but it's a common reaction of folks, and I think you have to accept that it's normal social behaviour not a conspiracy), so were trying to work out how they could somehow definitively tell one way or the other when the account creator baled. I think now, the community at least will be more incline to err on the side of it being him - I don't see the defenders of ScottyBerg arriving in force to advance arguments about having to disprove a negative.

Second, RfC/U would be useful if your primary aim is to get him to reform his behaviour, so you also want to raise issues with the editor's current editing. If the previous editor left to avoid a block or other unpleasantness, and you think that putting the two sets of behaviour together should result in a sanction, then you can use SPI, or even just post on my talkpage with your evidence. People do that as well, and I will investigate if I think there are reasonable grounds.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Elen, friendly banter and a suggestion ... first, wind down the compliance officer speak. I am not a child, nor am I a delinquent, nor will I respond to being talked down to by an arb or anyone else. Have you ever seen the movie, Spanglish? It's charming. At the end of the film, Cristina's college application essay is quoted:

I've been overwhelmed by your encouragement to apply to your university and your list of scholarships available to me. Though, as I hope this essay shows, your acceptance, while it would thrill me, will not define me. My identity rests firmly and happily on one fact: I am my mother's daughter. Thank you, Cristina Moreno

From the daughter of a strong and competent mother, that's how much I need anyone's validation. We are all volunteers here, and I for one don't need this place for validation (of which I get plenty in real life), so speaking to me accordingly will get you much further. I'm well aware that I'm in good part responsible for the election of a good number of the current arbs, so my first responsibility is to those who read and followed my voter guide-- that is, the community. And I'm not much prone to unfounded conspiracy theories.

Second, I don't know a thing about Scotty Berg, who he is, what the case is (so thank you for not labeling me a "conspiracy theorist" based on some other editor's input at talk), but I do know that no one should blindly believe what a suspected sock says.

And finally, thanks for answering the question-- I was sincerely unsure how to handle such voluminous evidence, with stale CU data, and a situation likely to become very acrimonius if previous behaviors are any indication. I will watch and see if the behaviors subside for now. And do try to remember that it wasn't me who raised it in the arb discussion that brought you to my talk, so please-- again-- refrain from speaking to me like a delinquent. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not a delinquent, and you're certainly not like the conspiracy theorist who has been emailing me his theory that flying an aircraft over a national monument generates a psychic tornado that will cause the next world war (and it isn't fair that he isn't allowed to use Wikipedia as a site to publicise his theory to the governments of the world). But I don't think you realise that persistently accusing another editor of something that you never substantiate is, on the English wikipedia, considered a personal attack that can lead to a block. If someone does it to you, I'll block them. If you do it to someone else, I would with regret have to block you - something I hope never happens, hence my advice. If you don't think you raised it at ANI (which is where I noticed you doing it), then you are doing it without thinking about it, something you perhaps need to watch, as I am sure that you are normally completely completely deliberate about what you type in the edit box. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya know, there's a difference between "conspiracy theorists" and recognizing incompetence-- the evidence on BarkingMoon wasn't all that difficult. But, I guess I'm just odd, after all. A block log wouldn't trouble me in the slightest ... after being hammered by The Signpost, do you think I'm concerned about some ASCII characters associated with my "good name" on Wikipedia, which is just a website (albeit one dangerous enough wrt misinfo that it can't be ignored)? Better yet, since you feel the need to threaten me as if I were a delinquent child or random troll ... why not strip me of my bits? Or relieve me of my FAC duties from which I derive so much "power and glory"? Oh ... wait ... well, whatever!!! I'm becoming more and more aware that when the arbs decide to protect someone-- or not-- no amount of evidence makes a difference anyway, which brings us back to the original question. Why spend a month writing up and putting up voluminous evidence when conclusions are foregone anyway? I believe I've already given you my answer, yet you pretend to lecture me. Now, that is odd for sure. So, carry on keeping the Wiki safe for the children in Africa. I think I've done my part, at least with respect to the mainpage, although the place is still 80% POV poorly sourced, copyvio, and misinfo. Since I see little concern here for what FAC-- and the editors who work to create top content-- has been through for more than two months-- when you all had the chance to stem part of it with BarkingMoon right in front of your eyes-- there's little reason to believe that either the WMF nor the arbs nor any part of the governance of this place is concerned about content and the people who create it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just making you aware of what has become a community norm that I've found myself enforcing, that you might not have been aware of, and offering my assistance if you have a problem with another editor. The things I say are factual - I do not routinely lie. It is not my responsibility if you choose not to believe me. If you rather interpret this as a threat, or prefer to believe I'm part of a conspiracy against you, I have no control over that either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you for informing me; I'm such an ignorant dweeb I couldn't figure out any of that myself, and the world is so much safer now I've been made aware. Perchance the next time you see editors destroying FAC, you'll feel compelled to have a little chat with them as well. Now, if you think there's still something that's isn't getting through my thick blonde brain, how about asking Kirill to come over and chat with me? You see, we go waaaay back, and he's never underestimated my goodwill or talked down to me. Best regards, always yours, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you point me at an editor who is destroying FAC, I will. For the rest, I would recommend that personalising everything I say as an insult probably isn't helping here, but you'd probably take that as an insult. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, no insults-- just two adults having a conversation. Sorry, there should be no need to point anyone to anything, considering how long it's been going on, and how many were silent every time it came up at ANI. But all's well that ends well, and you can't make this stuff up: the Rlevse ending was just the icing on the cake at what we've had to put up with for months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that Will Beback's information has come to light, perhaps you (Elen) can understand my attitude: you all let FAC pay a price. Having reviewed your earlier responses on the arbcom talk thread, I wouldn't be at all displeased if you acknowledged that you've lost (at least this part of the community's) trust, and resigned from Arbcom. Your responses on the arbcom talk thread stand out as having declined to see any possibility that BarkingMoon might be at least a meatpuppet for Rlevse, in spite of you all knowing the connection. Convince me you weren't being deceptive-- or at least coy-- in those responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm not sure how you've come to some of the conclusions you posted yesterday.

1. You implied Rlevse leaked the arbcom-l content -- from all I can tell that's not plausible since he was removed from the list way before the leak, and would not have had access to some of the material that was leaked.
2. allegation that BarkingMoon was a family member or associate, ArbCom failure to act -- As has been said before, checkuser data was apparently clear that they are not the same, so this was not a clear cut case. When BarkingMoon left there wasn't really anything left that /needed/ to be done in such murky circumstances. The SPI was closed by an SPI clerk referring everyone to start an RfC instead; that part was in my opinion a mistake (and Hersfold enforcing the close was also bad) since the suspicion on multiple account abuse should have been led to a conclusion there. But in reality it made no matter: It was clear to everyone that if Rlevse returned all those concerns would need to be addressed, and Rlevse knew that it was expected from him to address any open issues if he returned -- I even made that explicit to him back then. I'm interested to know what other action should have been taken here by Arbcom?
3. you all let FAC pay a price -- Closely related to the above, what action could have prevented PumpkinSky to appear, edit like he did, and continue old disputes at that FAC RfC? Arbcom could not have done anything here.
4. [Elen or Arbcom has] declined to see any possibility that BarkingMoon might be at least a meatpuppet for Rlevse -- In Elen's first reply she acknowledged that it was known they were "related in some way". A suspicion of meatpuppetry or editing by proxy (human or IP) follows from that automatically. How do you figure that anyone declined the possibility?

Amalthea 11:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've responded at WT:AN [2]-- seriously, I understand this is moving fast, but y'all need to get on the same page and stop what looks like intimidation of those trying to sort this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't imply that I'm in any way intimidating you. I'm not. My interpretation of your comments from yesterday is that you suspect a huge conspiracy behind this. To the best of my knowledge, there's no such thing. I'll reply to your question of what got me into the whole thing at WT:AC in a few minutes, and I would appreciate if you would reconsider answering my questions in return -- because I honestly think you're up a blind alley by chasing after Arbcom here. Again, to the best of my knowledge, they are giving straight answers, at least as straight as they have them themselves. Amalthea 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say the intimidation tactics were coming from you (I'm sorry my threading left that impression, I can see why it did), nor do I suspect a huge conspiracy. I do suspect a healthy amount of incompetence combined with a fair amount of being overworked and not caught up with the community, and a failure to extend to CLEAN users the same deference that is extended to CLEANSTART and RTV users. Yes, they're giving straight answers, but they're also behind, and I'd appreciate having the same courtesty extended to me and FAC that is given elsewhere. Specifically, I don't appreciate EotR coming over here to tell me to give them the goods or shut up, when that hasn't resulted in anything but a mess of conflicting information in these cases, with the community being told by Keegan to lay off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that only took an hour. Have you considered giving replies to my four specific questions above? Amalthea 17:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed :) OK, which of the questions above did I not address in my responses over at the arb talk page? I was hoping not to repeat it all over here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In the link you gave? None I think. 1) You implied (and stated elsewhere) that Rlevse leaked the arbcom-l list, which I'm certain is impossible. Ok, that's not a question. 2) You allege that Arbcom failed to act. Despite the confusion, I think an arbcom member did one thing too many: They enforced the SPI close. As explained above I think they had to kick it back to the community to decide per behavior, but there wasn't anything else to do. What do you think they should have done back then, specifically? 3) You say they did something to allow PumpkinSky disrupt your FAC RfC. What could they have possibly done to prevent that? 4) You say that Elen or Arbcom dismissed possibility of meatpuppetry, but I see that she has acknowledged that with her first comment. How do you come to that conclusion that? Amalthea 17:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

← And the hilarious thing is that Raul and you keep saying/implying that arbcom is deliberately refusing to answer your questions, when it proves to be just as difficult for me to get answers from you. Amalthea 17:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was behind when I replied above "I noticed" (I thought you were referring to the boomerang 3RR having taken you away, and hadn't yet seen your response on the arb page, which I now have seen). And to echo Raul, yes, thank you for your diligence and good work on the PumpkinSky/BarkingMoon issues.

On 1, I've added more followup on the arb page about the arb leaks, it's now clear to me, wasn't before (because to my knowledge they never stated what has now been said there-- if they have, I've never seen it before). On 2, I spose it's unfair to say arb, when it's a former arb who gave out the non-answer on BarkingMoon that shut things down (which is my concern-- the community being shut down and prevented from further investigation when technical data is inconclusive). I'm not concerned about what they did or didn't do with Rlevse: I am concerned that they look into any other instances, or allow the community to do so without threats. On 4), Elen's very first comment refers to a "sock", and I responsed to that. I'm not inquring about socks, I'm inquiring about CLEANSTART. And on your final point, the only arb to address that has been Kirill, who basically said they haven't looked. Kirill is talking "to" me, addressing my concern, while Elen was talking "at" me, missing my question, and Kirill I think knows me better than Elen. So, I think all that was already answered by me, either here, or on arb talk, and don't think your "hilarious" final statement is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not warranted, really? I find that you keep evading or misunderstanding or skipping questions I ask. And you say that arbcom is evading or not answering your questions. When that happens to you, you get angry and suspect a deliberate act or incompetence (that's my impression at least). But you do the same thing (in my impression at least). For example, you still haven't answered my third question (what could arbcom have done to prevent PumpkinSky), and I've asked you four times already.
Not that the exact answer matters too much, the actual point I was trying to make is that you are attacking the wrong people, with what I think are incorrect assumptions. Being on guard is one thing, and questioning matters and especially authorities is always good, but the fact is that everyone at arbcom means *well*. Yes, everyone, and yes, fact, at least based on every insight I ever gained at any point. Mistakes are made, particularly in hindsight, but they are doing their best. When you say "they just sat back and watched us squirm" you imply they are sadists, and working against you -- and you have zero basis in fact, since they didn't know, and couldn't possibly have prevented PumpkinSky from editing (at least not without sacrificing privacy policy and routinely checkusering everyone).
Amalthea 17:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh goodness, I missed one of your questions because I was reading and responding in edit mode! Please don't pretend that you know everything, or that you know what I'm thinking or what my motives are (sadists, indeed, for goodness sake, try Hanlon's razor instead). Rlevse is not my primary concern, and perhaps there are issues you aren't aware of. It looks to me like you're stirring the pot as the rest of us are trying to make peace, acknowledge that mistakes were made, and move on. Ok, good-bye, it's been nice talking with you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
just briefly touching base again. It seems the above discussion went from one misunderstanding to the other, and I'm sorry for that. It's somwhat ironic since during these days I pretty much exclusively wanted to correct misunderstandings and clear up what I thought were misjudgements. I felt partly responsible for how the whole situation developed last week, and it was frustrating to see people blamed who I thought were completely blameless.
Anyhow, see you around. Amalthea 17:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello

When an FAC fails, do you have to wait 2 weeks to re-nominate just that article, or can you nominate a different article before the 2 weeks is up? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That restriction applies to any article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks. What are the rules for when an article is promoted? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

then you can put up another one right away. In fact, if you have an article close to promotion, only waiting for an image review, for example, you can ask a delegate for permission to put up another. Or, if you have a FAC that was archived with no feedback, and the backlog is down, a delegate may also grant you an exemption from the two-week wait. All flexible, depends on the situation ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Turning Point

Sandy, have your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Turning_Point_(2008)/archive4 been addressed? Ucucha (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The last time I looked, no -- I will get over there today, Ucucha. I Am So Sorry :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Diff mess up

Sorry for messing up your diff on ANI. I could not permit Rlevse to violate Will's copyright to the email in that manner per WP:EMAILABUSE. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I only deleted the revisions, I did not oversight/suppress them. Any admin can still view them. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever watched the video of a deposition, or of a congressman grilling a hostile witness? Yea, that's how I'm starting to feel when it comes to getting straight answers from the arbitration committee regarding Rlevse. It's also where questions like these come from. Raul654 (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we all knew all along that something wasn't right, and they just sat back and watched us squirm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Raul, what questions of yours do you feel were left unanswered or were evaded, specifically? Amalthea 11:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to know everything the arbitration committee isn't telling us about Rlevse. They knew about Barkingmoon and JoJo and decided not to disclose either until after I/we had found out about them from other sources. They're happy to answer your questions once you've already found out the answers elsewhere. I'm getting tired of playing that game. I want full disclosure, now. And as of this writing, they still have not answered that question. Raul654 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if they have a file on him. At least I wouldn't imagine they did, he wasn't ever sanctioned. The concerns by Will Beback were sent to them two years ago (we had two arbcom elections since!). Remember that you couldn't puzzle together how he briefly came back after his initial retirement? It's no different for them, and I don't think anyone started researching the archives (not even sure how they're keeping them anymore post-leak) because I don't think they saw even a reason to look.
Like I said above, I am convinced they are giving as straight answers as they can, at least it always matches with everything I know. There is no conspiracy. They have no reason to cover anything up.
Other unanswered questions beside "I want to know everything"? :)
Amalthea 15:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Amalthea, I can't speak for Raul, but I'm afraid you, they, someone is missing my point. When technical evidence is inconclusive, they toss it back to the community for behavioral evidence, at the same time that an ex-arb shut down the SPI from advancing with vague information, at the same time that another CU is trying to shut down investigation of behavioral evidence. I don't care what happens in the Rlevse case: I want to know how we're supposed to proceed in other cases with this amount of contradictory, even threatenging, information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a completely different question, but from Raul and your comments I often read suspicions that Arbcom is willfully and deliberately harming you. You behave aggressively when there's no need for it. You do not assume good faith. Amalthea 17:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sandy - at this point, the community is aware of Rlevse's sockpuppetry and his blatant violations of RTV. (It dismays me greatly that so many editors think RTV is some sort of revolving door, but that's something we'll have to deal with later) I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns for the time you and I put in. Why don't we go deal with FA and related stuff? Raul654 (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I've only got one thing left to do-- apologize to EotR for yesterday (arbs are overworked, can't blame them for not being caught up on everything), then nothing left to be gained here. FAC needs attention, the disruption has gone on long enough, but the next time Sue Gardner lobs one our direction for others to take advantage of, I'll react the same way. Let 'em block me-- couldn't care less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Giraffe

Spotchecks are done, but I don't think the nom'll be thankful for that...you might want to take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to get over there, but I suspect you're confirming what I suspected from my first foray into the sources there. Ugh, will look as soon as I can. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've checked one of LittleJerry's GAs and the problem exists there as well. Not really even paraphrasing, just copying and pasting from sources with 1 or 2 words changed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It continues to frustrate me, and beats the heck outta me, why or how reviewers can Support without looking at sources. How long has that FAC been on the page? And that sort of business is what wore me down. Are we in such dire need of getting more FAs on high profile, vital, or high page view topics, that we can't remember that WP:V is a core policy? But I've been singing that tune for years ... oh, well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And I just followed your contribs to find that sample, which leads to another rant I've been on for at least five years: GOCE. The same GOCE editor who edited Ciudad Bolivar and missed the outrageous copyvio there also edited that article. [3] GOCE folks tend to smooth out prose without ever consulting a source, and since the very early days of the Project, I've been asking how-- when so many articles need copyediting-- they can engage in contests to edit articles that are poorly sourced or contain copyvio. Would ya think they could make sure an article is adequately sourced before wasting time on it, and worse-- they make a crap article "look good" to our readers by improving the prose, when the text needs to be most deleted, instead of misleading our readers!! I raised this concern YEARS ago at GOCE: just like DYK, no change. Reward culture: GOCE has a contest on, so they charge right through 'em, smoothing out prose on text that shouldn't even be there, which to me only misleads our readers into thinking they're reading something ... good. Yet GOCE is unaccountable to anyone anywhere, and they put their "stuff" in articlehistory-- like, so what? 16:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The diff b/w GOCE and DYK is that the former's errors are innocent errors of omission. Having said that, yes, GOCE needs to be aware that an article is a whole entity, and just because you're ce'ing doesn't mean that you can't at least use that copyvio script thingie (where is it?) and a good dose of common sense while doing so. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Here. But you're better off just reading the source (we've got the Project overtaken now with folks who think that copying structure and altering a few words so they won't be picked up by the duplication detector is OK.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ling. :) That's what I was going to say about GOCE. They mean well, but sometimes it's putting lipstick on a pig. --Laser brain (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been raising that issure for years, and Diannaa has it in for me, so you go over there and hit them with a clue stick, Nutty One. It's worse than putting lipstick on a pig: they're doing it now to win awards, and by editing over copyvio and non-reliable sources, they obscure copyvio, waste time (more worthy articles should be copyedited), and make our readers think they're getting lipstick instead of a pig. I'd rather see a crap article that never gets read, than a copyedited article that is based on blogs, which is exactly what I found with Ciudad Bolivar. Well, it wasn't copyedited either, which makes me wonder, why hold a contest? Who checks? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• The tool you linked is other than the one i found, User:CorenSearchBot/manual. And i went to WT:GOCE, only to find someone else had just suggested the same thing a week ago. That's where I found that link, in fact. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Five years old, no change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have a happier story: I used to bitch at MILHIST about copyvio even after passing A-review. Now they look at me like, "What.. are... you.. talking about?" Seems like they've fixed it.Ling.Nut3 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Good, get them to do same on images :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, put me in a dress and call me disappointed. I've tried to be sensitive to concerns that plagiarists are shamed and chased off the project, but here, LittleJerry doesn't respond well even to AGF and offers of coaching. I wonder what I was supposed to do. --Laser brain (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Lordy, have you forgotten the beginning of this? Just read the top part: BTDT. Anyway, approaching people on copyvio is always difficult (perhaps avoid starting a section with the title "Plagiarism"-- it can be tough :). The Queen of the Technique is Moonriddengirl-- you might post a link over to her, and ask her for ideas of how to proceed next time, 'cuz there is always a next time :) :) In "the good 'ole days" one of us smartypants might have written a Dispatch with guidance on how to proceed in these cases ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I will ping MoonRiddenGirl. Selfishly, I love it when people do things like this. Can't hurt to ask. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• MRG did write something up for Milhist's Bugle – see the op-eds from September and October 2010. You could always have her tweak it for any updates since then and republish it in the Dispatches... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

MRG's approach to copied content

Hi. :) I can do. Or I could even write an OpEd on how to handle copyright problems without the fuss and drama. I loathe the fuss and drama. :/ It makes what should be a clean, simple task huge and messy.

First, my initial approach is to present the problem in neutral terms (agreed, Sandy, that careful handling of the term plagiarism is required :D) in the best way possible to avoid shaming the individual but also in a way that eliminates as much as possible the knee-jerk defensiveness of the contributor. For example:

example approach

Hi, SandyGeorgia. Thank you for your work on Foo. I'm afraid, though, that some of the content follows very closely on your sources. For example, I find the following passage in [url source] Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam aliquet laoreet lorem eu eleifend. Phasellus elit dui, elementum ut consectetur et, elementum sed mi. Vivamus et nibh vel odio ullamcorper dictum. Aliquam non augue sem, et lacinia mauris. Maecenas venenatis lorem adipiscing metus vehicula at condimentum magna bibendum. Morbi commodo. You placed this text into the article: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing odio. Ullamcorper etiam aliquet laoreet lorem eu eleifend. Phasellus elit dui, elementum ut consectetur et [...]. Vivamus et nibh vel odio ullamcorper dictum. [...] Maecenas venenatis lorem adipiscing metus vehicula at condimentum magna bibendum. Morbi commodo. To make it clearer where duplication occurs, I've bolded precisely duplicated text. ([...] indicates where text has been removed.) The non-bolded text is minimally altered from the original.

I don't usually approach people about plagiarism concerns, but copyright issues. However, this beginning works either way. I would not thank Sandy for her work on Foo, because for an experienced contributor, that would probably be condescending. :) I'd do that for Sandy's little sister, who hasn't been with us long. "Fix the problem; keep the contributor" is my goal.

The really important point there is the example. I generally look for one solid example, but if the problem is numerous fragments sometimes will point out three or four of those instead. The example is crucial, in my opinion, to prevent the inevitable "nuh-uh". It's also helpful if talk page stalkers are inclined to defend a friend, as it bypasses the "prove it!" phase and can start them off on a more productive "Oh, okay. This is a problem, so what do we do" vein.

Having made my case, that there is duplicated content, I could then explain why this is an issue, carefully avoiding any assignment of blame. The following approach presumes that I'm still dealing with Sandy's little sister.

copyrighted source?
I'm afraid that copying content in this way from a copyrighted source is a problem under our copyright policy. While we are permitted to use brief, clearly marked quotations consistent with non-free content guideline and policy, we are required by policy to rewrite all other information from these sources in our own words and structure.

plagiarized from a free source?

While our copyright policies do allow us to copy content from public domain or compatibly licensed sources, there are extra steps required on Wikipedia by Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If copying or closely following a public domain or compatibly licensed source, we have to explicitly acknowledge that we are copying. Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Attributing text copied from other sources sets out the procedures for doing so. If a source is public domain, this is a simple matter of conforming to community standards. When the source is compatibly licensed, it may be required by law.

I try to remember to use the plural pronoun to make it sound less like I'm accusing and to emphasize that the rules apply to everybody. I link to policies and guidelines for two reasons: first, it provides instruction; second, like the examples, it takes away the instinctive self-defense. The policies are right there.

My approach from there varies a whole lot based on the factors in the case. I'm assuming that the problem was not extensive enough to require me to blank the article. If I've removed the content, I'd say something like, "I've removed the problematic content for now so that it can be rewritten in compliance with our policies. Wikipedia:Copy-paste gives a brief overview of our practices." If I've rewritten it myself, I might say, "I've rewritten the problematic content" but would still link WP:C-p as a "for future reference".

If I'm dealing with Sandy, my approach depends on (a) when the issue happened, (b) how extensive the issue is, and (c) whether or not there are signs that Sandy's done this before. (My approach is always dependent on those, but it's especially important with heavily active users.) If it's old, I might say, "This was some time ago, and I'm sure you're now aware of the limitations imposed by copyright policy, but this still needs to be addressed...." If it's recent and there's no signs of history (in prior talk notes or a spot check), I would present it instead more as a slip up and remind that we have to be careful always with this issue.

Then I brace myself. Because no matter how much you try to reduce the sting, some people are seriously offended. That's human nature for you. :) I try to respond only to their substantive concerns, and not to the tone of their comments. As long as possible, I pretend we're having a friendly conversation. But if they start getting really abusive, I start getting businesslike. And I start looking deeper. I have very seldom encountered extended belligerence from people in whom the habit is not deeply ingrained. It's one of my red flags that we may be looking at a CCI. Sometimes, of course, it turns out that they're simply really defensive people. But there's a high enough correlation in my own experiences that I always check just in case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick question re: Spanish source

I think Augusto Mijares is too close to [4] and [5], but my Spanish is not that good. Would you agree? Do you read Spanish? It's not my strongest language...even leaving aside the one I was born. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind; it doesn't matter, at least not immediately. I've reached the CCI level of confirmed copying and will open the investigation as per your suggestion. Thanks for finding this. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please disengage

SandyGeorgia, how would you feel if I were to be popping up in discussions involving you all over the wiki? Instead, I am doing my best to disengage from interaction with you. Please do me the same courtesy, so that I don't have to start throwing another handful of diffs at your talkpage. --Elonka 00:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think that diffs will help support your claim that a "FAC clique" (and specifically Ucucha) is keeping your nomination from advancing because he's asking for the same thing that is asked for in every nomination, throw 'em up; I'm sure plenty will review your posts and help you gain a better understanding of routine processes. By the way, this ArbCom finding might help guide your future allegations against Ucucha. "All over the Wiki?" Is FAC that important? And goodness, such manners: yes, if I had been able to spotcheck your sources, your FAC might have advanced weeks ago, but since you insisted I stay out, you had to wait for someone to show up. Yes, you're quite welcome for all my efforts to get someone to review it for you ... hope you can return the favor sometime! I do, though, find it curious that you are personalize all feedback to such an extent that you aren't able to see or appreciate efforts to help your FAC nomination advance. Perhaps think about that a bit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, there are currently 48 articles undergoing FA nominations at WP:FAC. The Franco-Mongol alliance article is number 44th on that list, meaning it is one of the oldest and worst delayed on the page. It has been there for well over a month, even though there has been a clear consensus to promote for weeks now. So obviously there is nothing that has been done to "help the FAC nomination advance". Indeed, evidence would appear to show that exactly the opposite is occurring, and that everything possible is being done to delay or reject the nom. --Elonka 05:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Elonka, I have been involved with 33 articles submitted to FAC. Some of them took longer than a month to make it through the process. Just a quick check of your nomination shows that there are still a couple of unresolved concerns. Would you be receptive to any advice on dealing with your current situation? Cla68 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"interrupted"

Hi Sandy. Just a quick question about what this means/achieves? The comment following that template is a continuation of the original comment and the trend of responding to each point indented is throughout that FAC. I've never seen the template before so I was just curious as to what it was for in this case? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(P.S. Welcome back to the real world... effective as of today I believe? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC))

There's a long discussion-- punctuated by multiple unsigned entries-- before one figures out who made the initial post and who is involved in the conversation. Add to that, some editors strike original comments and change them to a declaration of support or oppose without signing-- it's always fun to sort out. The interrupted is my way of figuring out whose speaking at the top, although it's still hard to know sometimes who wrote what because of all of the unsigned entries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sanssouci

I gather this no longer meets FA requirements?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dr; Try WP:FAR, but pls notify the principals after if you can find them. Ceoil (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade at Featured Article Review

Hi Sandy. I noticed that you were pretty active at this article's FAR when it was last brought to the review process (in 2007). I wanted to let you know that I have just opened another FAR. If you would like to comment, I would definitely appreciate your input. Best, NW (Talk) 16:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno

Hi. I know you're always swamped with review requests, but I thought you might find this one of particular interest: The article on Dan Leno, the British musical comedy and music hall star of the 1880s and 1890s, has recently been much expanded and is headed towards FA consideration. If you have time, please be so kind as to take a look at the article and comment at this Peer Review. Thanks for any assistance (but don't worry if you're too busy with other stuff). All the best! (Also, I'm happy to reciprocate, especially with arts-related stuff or bios). -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Second time

That is the 2nd time I saw you say something along those lines. Hopefully this won't take you much of your time, but is there a pointer to your specific concerns you can quickly use to squelch my curiosity? Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There's gazillions! Where would I start. We've got WP:USEP and others recruiting students with no motivation to add quality working under no supervision taxing regular editors, the gender silliness, the Sue Gardner comments aimed at FAs that were never sufficiently retracted, we've got cutesy things like Wikilove in our faces in a way that can't be removed via gadgets, we've got no sustained attention to copyvio, and we've now got some new process whereby WMF employees get to give fuzzy love to new users similar to that program whose name I can't recall that was shut down years ago because it turned into a forum where disruptive users were defended. I can't remember where I came across that or what it was named-- maybe someone knows. And generally-- all of this by editors who have little to no experience at building content. The aim seems to be quantity over quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Found: Wikipedia:Teahouse. What was the name of that similar WProject that was shut down years ago because it was just defending and enabling disruptive users? Why will this "Teahouse" be any different? Another quantity over quality issue: Wehwalt has been asking for months about the piddling sums of money it would take to get JStor access. No money yet for that, but we have two WMF employees flying off to Brasil to meet with a few editors to deal with issues on the Portuguese Wiki. Let's see ... better content or more content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Were you thinking of WP:Esperanza? Bencherlite^Talk 18:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes-- thank you! Maybe someone who is more familiar with the the two can explain to me how the new version will differ from the old (wrt the problems caused). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't say that I always agree with Wehwalt, but it seems very clear that corporate access to JStor for at least some editors would be of far more benefit than yet another WMF junket. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that his proposal just isn't practical for some reason, but if that's the case, why can't someone just say so? There seems to be plenty of money floating around for WMF to hire folks who know nothing of editing and for them to try to recruit more folks who know nothing of editing, but no help for the folks who do know something about building content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Who would get access to JSTOR? Anyone who has ever edited Wikipedia? Those working on "vital" articles? Those with 1000 edits in the past 30 days? People with a star next to their username on WBFAN? Anybody in the DYK league table? Whichever users are quick enough to get their name on a list made public during US waking hours? Yomangani^talk 23:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't we have some folks claiming we need more "vital" FAs? And that FA writers want "prizes" and "baubles"? Bauble=JSTOR access. Personally, I think the whole thing is goofy (whenever I need an article, someone sends it to me), but point remains: why can't someone just answer Wehwalt? Too busy flying off to Rio? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone redistributing an article gotten with JSTOR access would be in violation of their Terms of Service:

• http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Alarbus (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. Those terms of service permit redist of US PD-1923 and non-US PD-1870 journal articles, which they call "Early Journal Content". JSTOR access isn't a single-tier proposition. But broader access to such freely-usable content (and to JSTOR's indexing of newer "Licensed Content") would certainly be helpful, inexpensive, and within the terms of the TOS. If there's really any concern, I'm sure we can track down a representative of JSTOR to sort them out. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Geometry guy's talk page.
Message added 11:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Since you're a FA coordinator, I think you should be aware of this new discovery. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for responding to this unusual use of talkback by ASCIIn2Bme, and also for encouraging MF to contribute to the Arbcom Civility case. The wisdom of that advice is beyond doubt in my mind: whatever the shortcomings of the Arbcom case, it has been so much the better for MF engaging actively with it (as I have noted on his talk page), and I would praise all who encouraged him to do so, and stick with it.

I intended to post this below, commenting on the commendable way you and Ealdgyth approached a contributions concern, but the discussion is now ongoing again, and I wish you all the best in reaching mutual understanding. Geometry guy 00:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WP Equine...

I think you'll find that PumpkinSky and MontanaBW's intersection is much more through the Montana Wikiproject rather than Equine. Rlverse/PS didn't edit much on the actual equine articles - but was heavily involved in the yogo sapphire article which is Montana related. Certainly Dana and I and Pesky and some of the other equine editors are not exactly running to defend PS/Rlverse - so can we lay off the poor equine project as a group please? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that is the case; as I've said, Montana and Rlevse go way back on Equine issues. And by the way, that thread at ANI is just alarming stuff coming from an experienced editor. Montanabw seems to be consistently expressing the idea that we support people who are friends and whom we like-- not that we support positions that reflect Wikipedia policy. In other words, her position seems to amount to cabalism, and wanting more "friends" whom she "likes" and who will support her-- look at her posts to the ArbCom talk and to the ANI. She honestly made a post about wanting to "like me"-- do we support or not positions on Wikipedia based on whether we "like" someone? Oh, yes ... we have Wikilove now!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My point was ... it's not the rest of the equine project (remember ... I'm a member also!) but mainly Montanabw. Can we avoid tarring everyone in the project with one person's issues? We're already taking a beating on ANI with JLAN claiming that the equine project routinely bites newbies ... I really don't need to see my name dragged through more mud. All I'm asking is that it be made more clear that you have issues with one member of the equine project, not with all the project. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see ... understood ... but, where have I done otherwise? I just reviewed my two mentions of Equine at WP:AN and don't see anything problematic. I referenced and linked to the ANI and the Arbcom talk page: two discussions which are not indicative that Montanabw would be a good mentor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I read your comments about the equine project as a bit more cabalistic, but I will also admit I'm a bit gunshy after the ANI thing with JLAN too. Just try to be careful and remember that not all of the equine project is monolithic. Things aren't helped by my persistent head cold either... I really want to feel well again ... soon. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Link to the ANI (since I know you will want it...) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Justlettersandnumbers Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I've got that ... it doesn't read very well at all, in terms of how well Montanabw understands Wikipedia policies and processes. I'm beginning to wonder if she's pushing so hard for Rlevse's return to editing so she'll have an ally; her frequent appeals to who she "likes" have led to that concern. [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, I came over here to keep your attack on me at the PSky review out of that discussion, to remind you of twice when you helped me out, here and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#WP:POINT_page_moves here. Notice that on one of those, you and Rlevse were both on my side. But now I have stumbled upon your conversation above with my friend (I hope its OK to call her a friend) Ealdgyth here and I am concerned. Please accept what I have to say below as stated in good faith, not meant as an attack of any sort, and a sincere attempt to de-escalate things: Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• You are worried that I want to make "friends"? Do you mean none of us should ever be friends or colleagues?? I'm very confused by your comment about "her frequent appeals to who she "likes" -- I used to seek your assistance and help in the past, and you had been pretty helpful. Was I bad? What is the difference between you defending Raul and me defending someone else? I'm quite confused and feeling extremely misunderstood here. What is my not "...understands Wikipedia policies and processes" ? Did you read the ENTIRE JLAN ANI thread or just the first few attacks? I have no clue what you mean. I reverted someone who was making massive edits to a GA nom and filed an ANI on him. Where was the crime?? Seriously. This puzzled me totally. Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I know you don't like Rlevse/PSky and I see he's said some unkind things to you, I accept that you guys won't get along and maybe an interaction ban would be a good idea, but frankly, I stand by my previous statements on other pages that what you are looking at is a policy disagreement said with snark -- I have endured way, way worse from people like JLAN, Una Smith, and that ItsLassieTime sockpuppet. I've also twice had different people try to out me because they were mad at me for calling things as I saw them, and I've now dealt with at least one really creepy misogynistic pervert (the IP obsessed with the stallion article). I don't know how to put things in perspective here. I'VE GOT NOTHING AGAINST YOU -- why are you being so mean to me other than because I'm supporting someone who was a good editor in areas where I was editing? Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• As for the ANI on JLAN, you fail to understand the entire situation, where I was basically trying to get JLAN to stop stalking Dana boomer's GA and FA nominations (she is really editing WP less and less, I think his bullying is getting to her). And I was shocked to instantly see JLAN somehow turn the whole thing to be about me instead of him -- but if you actually want to learn more on that, DO see the talk page of Pesky and maybe also Worm TT's talk page to get a fuller picture that I am dealing with one of WP:EQUINE's most disruptive editors ever. But what will be, will be. I probably should not have filed the ANI, but I really got tired of the on and on -- wanted to do something -- JLAN's just unrelenting and will remain so unless someone else intervenes, as I clearly cannot do so solo. It's wearing. Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• As for the PumpkinSky/Rlevse situation, I'm honestly just trying to help someone with whom I could work, is that a crime? -- the Yogo Sapphire collaboration was one of the nicest and friendliest I've ever had on WP in the almost six years I've been here. It was a great GA with no edit-warring, no tendentious editors, and good will all around. Minor snark from initial critiques quickly moved into good will and teamwork with about six editors. PSky was a great editor with whom to work. WP:Montana is a really nice bunch of people overall and I've enjoyed being over there. It's a place where I can say, "I have expertise" and not be attacked as stupid and asked to provide 15 peer-reviewed sources and prove a negative. It's refreshing. To be honest, when I realized this editor was also Rlevse, I remembered how he helped me defang Una Smith (who later got blocked) -- just like you did -- and I remember the dustup over the Grace Sherwood thing and how he just vanished so soon. That seemed a bizarre witchhunt to me at the time (why didn't someone just fix the one paragraph? Dozens of people reviewed the article before it was TFA and no one caught the close paraphrase, I'm still puzzled at the outrage level) -- Seriously, have you ever looked at the cleanup of the ItsLassieTime sock? Now THAT was massive plagiarism! Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• So, in conclusion, all I'm asking for is good faith and to not be personally attacked. If people are kind to us, we are prone to want to help them -- as have you in your support of people like Raul and Malleus. It seems to me that we ALL are good people -- you, me, Raul, Rlevse/PSky, Malleus, Ealdgyth, Dana, and probably even JLAN if we actually could meet IRL. So can we rachet down the fear and the emotion a bit? I will try, from my end, at least. Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd really like to see you and SandyG kiss and make up, but as one of those involved in the fallout from that Grace Sherwood TFA I can say that you've got it wrong. The plagiarism/copyright issue was raised early on, and I offered my opinion that it could be easily fixed, but Rlevse saw no need to address the concern. Subsequently I was accused of covering up his copyright violation by copyediting the article, and even encouraging him to take it to FAC in the full knowledge that it would lead to his downfall. But am I bitter? You bet your ass I am. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  @Malleus, you are bitter like fine chocolate and coffee. You would have escaped attention and persecution except for the chocolate-coffee issue, or, in your words, "It is it because I is Black?".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think, Montana, you'll find that folks who were active at FAC at the time of the Sherwood thing (and who got caught in the dramah just recently where PS was one of the major instigators of drama at FAC again) will have a much harder time seeing the Rlverse thing as "harmless". It wasn't just one paragraph, and the incident was used to attack a great number of people active in FAC. So, it's a bit more complicated than it might appear to you, and having PS return to drama at FAC did not help with folks there feeling like he deserves another chance. While you may have had no problems with him (which is fine and great) ... there are a lot of bitter feelings over the other issues, and in some respects, it feels a lot like how JLAN behaved too. So, yes, there's a reason I never strayed over to the sapphire article - I didn't want to deal with someone who was flinging that much drama at the FAC pages. I realize you had good relations with Rlverse/PS, but not everyone did. For that matter, *I* have never had any serious dustup with JLAN, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the fact that you and Dana feel harassed by him. Just accept that some folks, including Sandy and Malleus, have reasons for not wanting to immediately trust PS/Rlverse. If this didn't make much sense, I'm sorry - I'm still drugged up on cold drugs... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• One further bit - the whole FAC drama/etc with this episode has obviously contributed to Sandy cutting back her involvement pretty much completely on Wikipedia - so yes, it's pretty important to her and she found the episode as upsetting as you find the JLAN stuff or the UnaSmith stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification for the record

• the whole FAC drama/etc with this episode has obviously contributed to Sandy cutting back her involvement pretty much completely on Wikipedia ... I don't have time today to catch up on this, but for the record, this is simply not the case. There are multiple and varied things occurring throughout Wikipedia that disgusted me, beyond anything at FAC, and if I still believed in this place, there is no way would I have been chased out of here by the actions and posts of the small handful of TCO, Alarbus, PumpkinSky, Wehwalt, Lecen, Elonka, and Diannaa. That just isn't the situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm just sad that whatever (and I do think the FA thing contributed) drove you away. Wish you'd reconsider, as I think your voice is important even if I don't always agree with everything you say. Wish I didn't still have this lingering cold that refuses to go away... hope to see you around more soon. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it wasn't. I am emphatic, and hope you to understand that. I'm not a coward, and no amount of bullies will make me back down on anything. The issues that are plaguing this Project are much bigger than anything happening at FAC, and I no longer want to be part of promoting quality in 5% of articles (FA and some GA) when the rest of the place is polluted.

1. Admin abuse continues unabated (in fact, more endorsed now than when it was in 2007 when I was attacked by an admin cabal, with a most alarming trend in WP:AN discussions towards consolidating even more power to admins, and the civility case reinforcing abusive actions),
2. arbs that we content contributors got elected treat us like recalcitrant children and delinquents,
3. some FA writers (not all) are every bit as much part of the "reward culture" I dislike as are the DYK copyvio star collectors, and I was working up to eight hours a day to feed their diva-ness (this post was one of the most utterly contemptible I've ever seen and the post from Hawkeye taunting Malleus with his number of FAs concerned me although Hawkeye has since apologized),
4. paid WMF employees who have no notion whatsoever of content building are starting to outnumber and outweigh the unpaid volunteers who do know how to build content, and are pushing forward decidedly negative proposals (that affect the real content contributors adversely), to wit, recruiting of students who damage articles, Teatime projects and others that ultimately only defend disruptive editors, and a general drive for quantity over quality;
5. not one, but at least three, negligent to abusive admins contributed to a long-time and well respected editor (Bishonen) turning in her tools and giving up over the way she was treated at FAR, and when one admin turned his venom on me, not only did very few (Nikkimaria and Kiefer excepted) bother to do a single thing about what had been done to Bishonen-- basically, no one gave a crap about the admin abuse and neglect that fed that entire situation, and both Rklawton and Brad101 are still sitting pretty, getting away with it, while Bish and I are done-- I never supported that silly gender gap business, but I don't want anything to do with a place where women can be called bitches and witches and no one cares, or the DYK environment where only two people are taking on copyvio (Nikkimaria and me), and not coincidentally every discussion starts with the term "witchhunt" ... coincidental that two women are the only ones who care and we see the term "witch" again?
6. DYK is a training ground for cut-and-paste editing, nothing has changed in five years of complaints, it's no longer relevant to the goals of the Project, and no one bothers to XfD it;
7. The Signpost has become a place for unbridled POV and editorializing, and no one bothers to XfD it;
8. and seeing the commentary attached to this "right on accurate" op ed piece (folks actually believe the POV BS spewed on Wikipedia before a credible spokesperson stating the facts) convinced me that my drive to improve quality on the 1% of the articles that appear on the mainpage was only increasing the prestige of a very dysfunctional and dangerous place-- misleading our readers into thinking that 80% of this project is anything but POV garbage, and actually increasing the credibility of a site that doesn't deserve it.

• WRT FAC, I most clearly stated why I resigned; the timing of my resignation was set long ago in a conversation with my friend Colin, and I had to stay longer than planned because of the unplanned absences of Laser brain and Karanacs (and working up to eight hours at a stretch alone, with declining reviewers to help, regardless of anything going on in my personal life was hard friggin' work, and I doubt the "divas" among us have any idea how much I did for their rewards). Once I realized we were going to have an RFC, I knew it would be unfair of me to wait until after consensus prevailed (and I had no doubt it would) to announce my resignation, as !voters might have felt misled. I have not stopped contributing to content review processes because of the events surrounding the RFC: I stopped contributing because I don't want to feed any more divas and any more perception that this place is OK because 5% of it is. This place is dangerous, and the "public" is starting to believe it. That is the story; I see most clearly that this is no longer a volunteer contributor site. It's about money and WMF employees, and they have a voice that we who actually do the work in here don't-- I don't want to feed the credibility attached to this site by a naive public any more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  That all makes sense to me, and with only a couple of exceptions I feel much the same. I recently became rather depressed about the impossibility of raising the overall quality of content here in the face of an apparently never-ending deluge of what is frankly of dubious quality or value in the hundreds of new pages created daily. Geometry guy put an interesting spin on it for me though, which basically boiled down to "what does it matter, if they're on topics so obscure that nobody will read them?" Obviously I'm paraphrasing rather aggressively there, and he may wish to correct that if I've misrepresented him. FAC obviously has a particular issue in that the number of articles it's able to process has a clear upper bound, but given the work involved in writing an FA that's maybe not the problem it might appear to be on the surface. I got involved with GAN because I saw it as a scalable way to at least get more decent articles out there, and I although I've not done anything there for a while now I still feel the same about it. I guess though that the problem is maybe more severe in the medical area that you're interested in. Anyway, if you truly decide to abandon the project then who's going to rein me in by reminding me from time to time that I'm a dork? I know that Lara logs in occasionally to remind me I'm a dick, but I need to be watched more regularly than that. :D Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  Geometry guy put an interesting spin on it for me though, which basically boiled down to "what does it matter, if they're on topics so obscure that nobody will read them?" Ah, but there's the rub. No, I'm not "abandon[ing] the project", only because I've created and watched medical articles that I will not let fall into disrepair, but it is precisely G guy's point that concerns me. I am not involved in topics so obscure that no one will ever read them (and I'm sometimes jealous of those who are :) :) Must be nice! I'm sorry that NYT oped is no longer available, but the author of the piece nailed it about the farce that was the Wikipedia stance on SOPA, but commentary ran to the "Why should we believe an industry schill, when Wikipedia is more honest"? Well, we all know that's BS, Wikipedia is scarcely reliable and highly POV, and in this case, has a lot to hide (i.e.; that it is a massive host of copyvio that it doesn't even pretend to be able to clean up much less care about). People "out there" believe that what's in here is accurate and reliable!!! Maybe in some areas that makes no difference, but in the areas I care about, it does. Two articles brought me here: Tourette syndrome (dramatically and dangerously inaccurate medical info was rampant on Wikipedia before Colin and others beefed up WP:MEDRS-- something I and others have worked to change in here), and Hugo Chavez (blatant POV hagiography, unchanged in the six years I've been here). I don't work for a 50% success ratio; sorry, but I value my time more than that, and there are better and other ways to effect positive change. This place is broken beyond repair-- but I will be around to defend accurate medical articles, and do what small part I can to prevent, for example, Henrique Capriles Radonski from being owned as Chavez is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sorry to read all this. Perhaps the difference is whether you are working here, doing it for pleasure, or doing it out of an obligation (e.g., to ensure cared-for subjects are accurate). You were working here: a full-time for-free role that involved sacrificing time and emotion for other folk. To do that while disillusioned or disgusted would be mad. However, I hope you can shift to finding parts of WP that give you pleasure, and I know the obligation aspect is important to you too. Malleus, some medical articles are battleground that get too much attention and burn-out our finest writers. But the iceberg majority, which range from vital major subjects, to obscure diets, are not. Where else can someone spend their evening reading fascinating books about something that few people know about, write about it online, collaborate with friends to improve one's writing, and then publish an article that gets thousands of hits 24/7 for years. Journalism is "tomorrow's chip paper", so they say. Colin°^Talk 21:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  (who set up this freaky indenting thing anyway???) It's not just medical articles - here or here or here .. there are other spots besides Medicine - that even get lots of views a month. For that matter, if I ever finish up William the Conqueror, I'll be really happy. It gets around 90K views a month, and honestly isn't that difficult to maintain or edit. Get away from the headline news ... and things are much quieter. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with you Colin, and I really hope that Sandy can get back to doing what she enjoys rather than the burden of being an FAC delegate. She did a fine job at that, but she'd done more than her fair share. I take Ealdgyth's point, but the hassle I got over wife selling was pretty incredible, and from my point of view entirely unexpected. Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again echoing SandyG's concerns, I'm very much inclined to let the the WMF employees get on with writing this encyclopedia as they'd like to see it. Surely with all their money it ought not to be so difficult. Malleus Fatuorum 04:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point in the development of Wikipedia, they don't have to write anything. Perhaps just make this or that article less controversial (on request perhaps) and cash in. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to the equine stuff

Well, E and Malleus, I DO acknowledge that this stuff is hard on everyone, and I'm not trying to belittle Sandy, I just know that her going after me personally was very, very painful. But I'd like Sandy and I to sort out things -- The WP atmosphere right now is pretty toxic everywhere -- We've lost a lot of good people -- Lar, for one -- and at the moment, Kim vd Linde. Malleus appears to have been through hell and back for his word choices and stubborn refusal to back down, and I'm surprised (yet pleased) he's still here and appears to have survived. As for the rest, I get so afraid that the bullies are going to win and run off all the good folk, who don't like to fight back; I get my gladiator sword strapped on, but sometimes go tilting at windmills. (Or maybe my wand, I kind of see a bit of Potter vs. Valdemort in this -- everyone pussyfooted around for too long in that tale too ... ) I see both Malleus and Rlevse/PSky as people with their quirks, with strong personalities, who don't deal real well with being crossed, and they probably would be folks who'd inevitably clash with each other, yet each I'd have a beer with if I were in their town (well, a nice Zin or Merlot, anyway, I'm not that big on beer...) I have no idea the solution here, but having basically gotten slapped twice in a week for what I viewed as simply helping to defend my friends when I felt they were on the right track, I have to say I'm a bit burned. But I suppose if someone asks for my help, I'll probably still be unable to say no. So, I guess I'll just wait to see what people say back. Montanabw^(talk) 03:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I came over here to keep your attack on me at the PSky review out of that discussion ... I stopped right there. This tone summarizes the very problem I've seen throughout your posts on the matter. Differences of opinion are not "attacks", and your tendency towards segregating those who are your "friends" from those you perceive as "attacking enemies" is precisely the problem I was addressing when saying you were unlikely to serve as an adequate mentor to Rlevse. You seem to believe that one supports "friends" on Wikipedia, rather than supporting policy or taking principled stands, and this mentality leads to the kind of battleground you've been called at ANI over (unilateral reverts of a ce from a GA reviewer? oh my ... ). As Ealdgyth has pointed out, you aren't the only Equine editor, so I do hope you'll consider this constructive criticism lest we see your stances continue to affect the entire project as evidenced in the ANI thread I linked. Whether or not you "like" someone shouldn't even come into the discussion; it seems to be all you base your stands upon. I don't have time for this sort of thing, and I sincerely suggest that you need to take a look at the stances you've been taking, because independent observors at ANI certainly will. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Montana, you know I've told you before that you don't need to be Don Quixote so much. Sometimes ... people disagree, and that doesn't make the disagreements attacks. Sandy's got some good advice for you, if you'll take it. Less windmill tilting will make your life on Wikipedia a bit smoother all around. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Either beer or Merlot would be fine for me, but I have to say that I don't see any similarities between myself and Rlevse at all. I'm reminded for instance of how the Grace Sherwood issue blew up; an IP pointed out some very close paraphrasing, and when I checked it did indeed look too close for comfort. I suggested to Rlevse that we ought to rewrite the offending sentences, which we could easily have done in a few minutes, but he pooh-poohed the idea. The rest is history. And had I created all those copyright problems I like to think that I would have had the inherent decency to help clear them up rather than leave it to others. Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Sandy, the problem with the written word is that we cannot always assess the nuances of emotions. I felt attacked, I was stunned that you targeted me because I was merely giving a viewpoint about someone who I'd had no problems with. Ironically, you seem to have missed that I don't actually make friends very easily precisely because I AM the sort of person who actually prefers "supporting policy or taking principled stands." (Ealdgyth will verify this) I've lost a lot of friends over the years because I blow the whistle and firmly believe that the only thing required for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. I know this stuff at WP isn't "evil" precisely, but frankly, I am fed up to be so grossly misunderstood. (Heck Sandy, I happen to agree with you that WP has a noticable frat boy sexism problem, I commented to Pesky just the other day that some people think us crones and want to burn us at the stake...) As for "friends" and "enemies," it seems that all that matters at wiki ARE the factions. You misunderstand me if you think I favor this, but it's obvious that WP is just a village filled with Hatfields and McCoys, and the issue is irrelevant, it's which faction musters the most supporters. It sucks, but it's reality. And it's just like real life politics these days -- which also sucks. WP is like the real world, sad to say. Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And Ealdgyth, you ARE my friend (I think) but I would probably not tilt at windmills so damn much if people would team up and shut down the bullies fast, before they get out of control and develop a track record that only an RFC/U can crack. But everyone just quietly gives up, avoids the problem, and says they don't need the stress, letting the problem fester. WP nonsense is a lot like horse show abuse -- everyone abhors it, but who will get five people together with cell phone cameras to film some trainer beating a halter horse, take it to the local sheriff, report it to the association, and go after his ass? No one. So horses keep on getting abused. People who don't abuse horses just quit showing and thus leave the field to the jerks. A couple years back, I got angry at a woman beating her horse at an unrated open show (horse missed a lead, she didn't win, started cross-whipping him the second she was out of the ring) and I told her to "knock it off, you're acting like you're behind the barn." Of course she got mad at me and started cussing me out and telling me to mind my own business, which I anticipated (and I didn't care. It was 100 degrees in the shade, my temper was shot too, but I didn't beat my horse for it) but when I chose not to walk away when she attacked and instead insisted that I didn't want to see her abuse her horse and she was wrong to take her temper out on her animal, who got yelled at and told to shut up by a bunch of other people? Me of course. Did anyone else join me to say, "yes, lady, you shouldn't be cross-whipping your horse out of the ring because he has no idea what he did wrong?" No, of course not. WTF is wrong with this world that the bullies triumph and those who try to stop them are told to shut up and go away? Seriously, this is something that troubles me about human nature. WP is just a microcosm. Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

More of same: you seem to be set upon dividing people into your "friends" and your "enemies", defining your "enemies" as "bullies", while curiously overlooking your "friend" Rlevse's bullying of Raul654. (I wonder where the GA reviewer you reverted falls on that scale?) If you want to present yourself as an anti-bullying champion, you'd best apply equal standards to all-- apparently Rlevse is exempt in your world view. Sometimes your "enemies" may be right, and your "friends" may be bullies, but your persistence in dividing people according to whether you like them or whether they are your friends only leads to a battleground mentality. And by the way, nowhere to my knowledge have I ever said that "WP has a noticable frat boy sexism problem". I have said it has a significant problem with admin neglect and admin abuse-- in this case, related to witches and bitches. On the other hand, considering the penchant that The Signpost has for putting words into my mouth, who knows what I've said lately. Apparently even I don't! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Sandy, AGF, OK? I would agree that putting words into other people's mouths is not a good thing, and I would hope you try to see what I am saying and not commit the very error of which you accuse others. Raul654 is your friend and you defend him, I presume he is not perfect. Rlevse is not perfect, but I felt he had worth as an editor and needed a defense. You have not used the term "frat boy" (that's my term for it) but you do decry the use of the w-word and the b-word as applicable only to women, and if you don't see that as sexism, my error. If you see it as a form of institutional sexism that needs to be systemically addressed, then we have agreement and I just used more colorful language. I think I need to end this discussion because I fear I cannot make myself understood. But I hope you will understand that I do share your goal of making WP a better encyclopedia. We may disagree in some areas and yet may agree in others. Here's to a future of more positive interaction. Montanabw^(talk) 21:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Your faulty logic (all about friendship) continues to take you off track, into battleground territoy ... and I am always bemused to discover from other people who my friends are. While I certainly would not object to Raul654 being considered my friend, in fact, we've had very little contact over my six years of editing, and we don't share views on some articles. I most certainly respect the way he handles FAC, that it's not run backchannel, that he's there when delegates need him, but keeps hands off and trusts them to do their job. On the other hand Rlevse-- in fact-- was someone I considered a "friend" -- that is, until he betrayed my/FAC's trust by ducking and running immediately after I asked him to deal with the mess he'd created. In the long run, I should thank him, because we were aware of plagiarism issues at FAC back in March 2009, but it was his Halloween 2010 debacle that allowed us to institute stronger checks at FAC. I repeat: don't defend people because you do or don't perceive them as friends: that leads to battleground (and perhaps personal disappointment). Defend edits and policy. If you think I defended Raul654 at FAC because he's a "freind", and opposed Rlevse because he was not, you're wrong on both counts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, I do not consider myself guilty of "faulty logic," I consider myself to be a truth-teller, sometimes of uncomfortable truths that other people don't want to hear, and when they do, they lash out at me in disproportionate fury, even though -- or maybe because -- I am, in fact, correct. So, I find it beyond ironic that you insist that I divide people into "friends" and "enemies." I usually do in fact work on edits and policy, and it is my defense of the same that usually leads me to be viciously attacked by people like JLAN who devolve into personal insults because they take my efforts at quality control as "ownership" or a personal attack of some sort. -- I do not ever start these ad hominum attacks. I believe I have never used the word "enemy" on wiki to describe anyone. (I recall saying "nemesis" and "pain in the ass", I admit). Ealdgyth is correct that sometimes I insert myself into other people's fights when they haven't asked, but again, the problem existed prior to my involvement. Your statement above clearly suggests that your view of Rlevse does in fact stem from a sense of personal betrayal, your protestations to the contrary. He's got quirks, I'll grant you that; but so do a lot of other people, including you and me. So please, can you stop treating me like I'm completely wrong, stupid, illogical, ignorant of policy, utterly useless, and whatever else your comments seem to imply? I was trying to figure out how to extend an olive branch here, but again, it's blowing up in my face. So please, if you've got a suggestion here that doesn't involve me somehow making gestures of abject humiliation that I will not make, I'm all ears. Montanabw^(talk) 17:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark FAC

Hi. Now that you're no longer one of the FAC powers-that-be, would you feel at all comfortable reviewing the Wong Kim Ark article and expressing whatever opinions you might have regarding its candidacy? Given your prior role, I'll understand if you feel this wouldn't be appropriate, but I felt I should at least ask. Thanks. — Richwales 00:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the background to go any furhter than I already have on the article, and I intend to focus my limited time henceforth more on my own areas of editing interests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for letting me know. — Richwales 17:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Varying standards on plagiarism and close paraphrasing

I've been following various discussions over the past few months, and one thing I've noticed is varying standards on what constitutes plagiarism and close paraphrasing (I'm specifically thinking of the thread on Moonriddengirl's talk page, but other ones as well). I was hoping you might be willing to follow up on this with some thoughts.

My basic argument is that unless something is a direct copy-paste (or very close), the issues are rarely black-and-white. Some people err greatly on the side of caution, and others go right up to this fuzzy line that is hard to define. I understand the argument that Wikipedia needs to err on the side of caution, but sometimes that comes at the expense of comprehensiveness and accurate writing. Also, the nature of the problems vary depending on lots of factors (such number of sources used, number of sources available, type of article, the need to use accurate terminology or structure chronologically, whether an article or section is largely written by one person or evolves over time with editing from many editors). My concern is that people are getting mixed messages. Some are being told that they need to rewrite, and others are told they don't need to rewrite. It is possible that both those that are more liberal and those that are more hardline are wrong at different times. This leads to diverging standards and people either wrongly thinking they don't need to rewrite/expand what they have written, or people wrongly thinking that what they wrote strayed too close to this line. In my view, both are bad, as the aim of improving people's writing is missed (part of good writing is knowing when it is OK to paraphrase using the same terminology and structure, and why it is OK).

What I'd like to see is a noticeboard where people can bring articles that may need rewriting, and where such things can be discussed. In particular, what I'd like to see is people actually trying to rewrite things rather than just highlighting problems and not engaging in rewrites. What I suspect would happen is Editor A turns up and asks if text Y in an article is too close to source Z, and editor B says no and editor C says yes and rewrites, and editor D says that what editor C wrote is still too close and the real solution is to bring in material from source Y and restructure the article further. Which is remarkably similar to the (supposedly) normal process of wiki-editing. I'm hoping to raise this at WT:Plagiarism and WT:Close paraphrasing at some point, where a nuanced discussion can be had without the tension that can arise in some venues (without outright denial or pithy soundbites used). If the timing is not great, I'll ask elsewhere, but I wanted to get these thoughts down on paper (so to speak) and see if you (or others here) are willing to give your thoughts on something like this. Carcharoth (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Sandy but do have an opinion on this having cleaned up a number of pages written by ItsLassieTime that had outright plagiarism, and having found issues on other pages as well, most recently during this FAC review (at the bottom). I think WT:Close paraphrasing is a good place for these discussions to take place. I'd also like see a little more done to that page (it's on my mental to-do list but I never get there) and to be certain it's linked more frequently. Anyway, thoughts from a TPS. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In an environment of declining editorship, if you think you can find "people [who have time and the inclination] to rewrite things rather than just highlighting problems and not engaging in rewrites", good luck; certainly, any progress would be an improvement over the current foot-dragging and denial at DYK. But here's what I see:

1. We already have a proliferation of noticeboards that are ignored because we don't have enough editors to staff them.
2. At WP:CCI, we have investigations dating back two-and-a-half years that remain unaddessed. If someone were to go through all the identified CCIs and count the unchecked articles, they would probably number in the thousands. And those are only the identified ones: no one has systematically reviewed this page, from which most likely thousands more can be generated. Got someone with enough time to deal with even the identified CCIs?
3. Your proposal is not scaleable, considering the magnitude of the problem.
4. I suggest it's more expedient to address the problem at its source (WT:DYK). DYK rewards cut-and-paste editing, and with the exception of Nikkimaria finding them, does nothing to stop their proliferation, resulting in typically hundreds to thousands of copyvios being created before the first is detected.

We have a problem of declining editorship. Why should we create more work for the few we have, rather than working to stop the problem in the forum that feeds it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is not one of detection but one of divergent standards. Those who are hardline on these issues make claims about the amount that exists, while those who are more liberal say the problem is being overstated. Unless those who disagree are willing to discuss specific examples in detail and work out why they are disagreeing, this difference will continue to divide editors. To be clear, I'm saying this as someone who agrees with some of the examples you (and Nikkimaria) have found over the months I've been following this, but also as someone who disagrees with other examples. Others have said the same, varying from "I agree, remove the text" to "this is minor, work with the editor to get it rewritten" to "this is not what you are claiming". I've also looked through some CCIs, and some of the claims and fixes (and incomplete fixes) made in those are very divergent. I think the only way to get people on the same page is detailed discussions, but not if those discussions ends up being one of those where those taking part simply say "I'm right, you're wrong". Summary: Detection, characterisation, and fixing is inconsistent dependent on who is doing the work, and those doing this work need to discuss where disagreements arise and build up a catalogue of examples to refer back to.

On DYK, I understand the argument about incentivisation, but isn't the real problem New Page Patrol? Are there not far more articles that slip through there than ever go from there to DYK? All articles are suspect until someone who knows what they are doing does some proper work on it, or checks it properly, and that's always been the case on Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's baloney-- I've seen no credible argument that there are diverging standards (only the usual denial at WT:DYK), and you know very well that the "rampant" plagiarism at DYK has been discussed since at least 2008. Should I remind you that every time copyvio, plagiarism, too close paraphrasing, or cut-and-paste editing is raised at DYK, they resist, until "outsiders" uncover the problem? This predates Rlevse's resistance in October 2010 (see Blechnic 2008, where the discussion is identical to what is today), includes Billy Hathorn, and in the latest "witch hunt", need I remind you that too close paraphrasing from that same editor continued to be raised long after they villified me for raising it? Wonder why the editor who first raised this issue stopped editing a few months later, while the offending editor continues editing? Completely typical of DYK, legions of similar examples of good editors who where hounded out of there and gave up. Want more diffs? Go to the search archive box at WT:DYK and enter either "copyright" or "plagiarism".

On the other hand, even if I were to agree that it's a matter of diverging standards, then why would we go to the lowest standard rather than demand the highest standards for the mainpage? When in doubt, why do we reward those who walk too close to the line by giving them mainpage exposure and rewards?

If DYK can't police itself (that is, stop the denial, start doing the work instead of leaving it all to Nikiimaria), it shouldn't have mainpage space, since this issue is now about five years old. In the meantime, the GA process responded to criticism and improved. We need better articles now-- not more articles. If DYK isn't going to serve as a training ground for correct editing, it should give up its space to GA. Yes, the issue may be everywhere, and New Page Patrolers might be better trained in detecting it, but DYK is the only place that actively rewards quick cut-and-paste editing, and that is the point and the problem. It's a long-standing rampant problem, and multiple solutions have been proposed and rejected over the years. DYK continues to train and reward editors to cut-and-paste. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You should add those diffs to that page you were writing about DYK in your userspace. I should probably start something similar myself (I was saying above that NPP is just as bad, not that they are better). There are threads where there was no agreement and where people differed about the degree and nature of the problem. See here, and here (I can provide more if needed). See in particular what Choess said at the latter link:

"Close paraphrase is far more subjective—intelligent people acting in good faith can easily disagree on whether a particular piece of writing too closely follows the structure of its source—and need not be deliberate, particularly in cases where there are only a few obvious ways to structure the material. While maintaining this distinction might be argued to trivialize close paraphrase, I think it's also less likely to lead to reflexive hostility and indifference from those accused of doing it."

One of the points here is that where people disagree on this, something as basic and fundamental as a key writing skill, there needs to be some closure and adjustment by participants in the debate to what the existing standards are (both those who are too lax tightening things up and those who are more strict accepting that not everyone agrees with them). You can't have people agreeing to disagree and carry on, as the same disagreement will inevitably come up again in the future. It is possible for personal standards of writing to at times be more strict or lax than that accepted by the general community of editors, but that doesn't mean that personal standards can be imposed at will anywhere. This is why it is essential to discuss issues like this in specific detail. Not merely stating that something is too close, but why and what can be done to fix it (more sources, complete rewrite, slight rewrite, and so on) - those who spot a problem are those best placed to suggest how to fix it.

Something I'd been hoping would get done at some point is a set of examples (using PD text) to show how a text can vary from verbatim copying of the source, to a slight rewrite, to a different but still-too-close paraphrase, to a more extensive rewrite, to an adjustment of the structure, to an expansion with additional sources brought in. That would really help some of these discussions. Anyway, enough from me on this today, I have other things I need to do, but thanks for the thoughts. If I do start a discussion at the WT:Plagiarism and WT:Close paraphrasing pages, I'll let you know. Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

When you work with a group of new editors, you have to carefully explain footnoting and paraphrase. These are not writing skills that most people use. Indeed, many of them work in places where block copy paste is absolutely required. Others have never experienced or seen footnotes. Those that have usually experienced it in writing at university. You have to go over WP:Verifiability and explanation why it is a good idea. When footnoting was required at DYK, effectively requiring the articles to be B-class, this created a major barrier for new writers. I might add that my own first few DYKs were nominated by new article patrollers; this no longer happens, possibly because of the requirement to review articles.

There also is a problem here with the Wikipedia definitions of plagiarism and copyright violation: they do not match the academic ones. The academic purpose of paraphrase is to demonstrate your personal understanding; that is not the case here. This is discouraging to new users, as they have to be shown how to properly paraphrase. There use of the terms is a major discouragement to academics working on the Wikipedia. (When some technical writer who knows all about Antarctic glaciers disputes whether something is a close paraphrase or not, I back off.)

Indeed a lawyer in the group may point out that there can be no plagiarism (since no one is passing off work as their own) and almost no copyright violation (since most everything is fair use). (Although when an editor links to an illegal copy of a source so it can be verified, the result is a take down order.) The purpose is to allow our volunteer work to be copyrighted and sold, which creates real ethical concerns. The result of that is that my own explanation must fall short of endorsing WP:COPYVIO as anything more that another bureaucratic procedure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you should review one article

Here is a tiny article pertaining to aviation category with only two references (none of which is an online source). And I added tags like {{refimprove}}, {{expert}}, etc as a result. The Bushranger(the creator of the article) reverted all my changes claiming that "Not a single one of the tags applied is appropriate". Then I found out he was an administrator. I am relatively new here so can you tell me what was my fault?

---

Then I saw that the article got a "B-CLASS" rating! I thought getting a rating as "B-Class" on an article wasn't that easy! The reason I tell you all this because I saw that you, about a year ago, noticed that The Bushranger listed multiple articles as "GAs and DYKs do not use reliable sources". You were the very first one to opposed his "administratorship" and with good reason I must say!

I consider administrators like "The Bushranger" a big problem for the neutrality of wikipedia. Will you help me?

Thank you! DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 19:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What? The two references there are reliable sources. They don't have to be online to be reliable – dead-tree sources are perfectly fine. As for the administrator bit, we don't have any additional power, but you are going to get blocked quite quickly if you keep up a battleground mentality, esp. like this. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You wrote, "They don't have to be online to be reliable"

--What a coincidence! A strikingly similar statement came from "The Bushranger" earlier. And I also see that this is not your "Talk_Page" and also that you supported Bushranger's administratorship when "SandyGeorgia" obliquely raised doubts about him being a sock/sock-puppet as a reason for not letting him be an administrator. However, I'm not doubting anything other than the adequacy of my tags on that article!

And please don't obfuscate the issue, Sir. Here at least, I have not raised doubts about the reliability of these sources. I just want more sources for improving that very article. I want some expert's opinion on that issue for the same reason. Can "SandyGeorgia" talk to me please? You could right a whole article based on 2 sources (online or not) but it is not illogical for someone to demand more sources. That's all!
Thank you! --DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 08:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

After having just spent two hours sifting through three dead trees to spot check a FAC, my sympathy is low. Go down to the library. If you have good sources, feel free to improve the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are replying to me, so thank you for your kind reply, Sir. But I didn't ask for your sympathy! I don't really need your gracious permission for making useful contributions to any article since nobody owns any article here on wikipedia. The fact is that I am not allowed to make any changes to that very article(my changes are being quickly reverted by the creator).

Can "SandyGeorgia" reply to me please! I'd humbly request others not to respond with regards to my query. --DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 10:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, you don't need permission to edit, but unconstructive changes will be reverted. A request for more citations does not normally mean splattering bug, ugly tags on the top of an article. Asking the article creator nicely tends to work much better.

I see you're new here; let me inform you that subtlety insinuating Bushranger is a sockpuppet will get you nowhere. In fact, Sandy struck that from her argument at the RfA to avoid creating that impression. As for why I'm replying here, see WP:TPS. I'll leave you alone now, but you're going to have issues if you continue along this path... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ed17. But please be more careful while writing the next time because you have spelling mistakes that doesn't look glorious. Apart from that thanks again for your unwanted, unneeded officiousness(you needlessly harassed me this way because I'm new). I am salvaged thanks to your mighty condescension! Now please leave my petty self alone. --DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 17:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, it's what happens when I'm typing fast on an unfamiliar keyboard. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just reviewed the concerns I raised at The Bushranger's request for administratorship one year ago. Three things:

1. The ed17, your credibility with me isn't running high right now, so I suggest you heed the original poster's (OP) request to stay out of this, since you are ... as we say ... involved.
2. DrYouMe, you may very well be on to something, but please entertain me: how did a brand new editor happen into such a curious situation?
3. Based on the concerns I had a year ago, and this editor's dubious understanding of reliable sources (like Joe Baugher), and The ed17's misrepresentation of this editor in his RFA nomination statement, I'm disinclined to ignore the OP in spite of what looks like a round-about way of asserting the possibility that The Bushranger may in fact be Archtransit. The way forward: someone with access to sources needs to check this article thoroughly. I don't have access. By that, I mean someone who can judge the reliability of those sources, since The Bushranger is racking up "reward stars" on his talk page, and didn't know WP:RS at the time I reviewed his RFA. I suggest you might contact Laser brain (talk · contribs) for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't forget many things, Sandy. As I don't have any more 'credibility' with you, I suppose I have nothing to lose by responding point-by-point to your concerns at the RfA, as you appear to be under the impression that they are all still valid today:

1. First, he had been active earlier under a different account, though you chose to not recognize that fact.
2. Second, you rightly struck.
3. Third, the nominator (me) had an oops. Unfortunately those do happen without malicious intent, although I'm not sure you realize that.
4. Fourth, I believe that people can learn in a year, and you might want to double check before claiming he still does not know the guideline. This isn't saying he does know it, but it doesn't hurt to check before using a 369-day-old argument.

I won't be around for awhile to reply, but I'll be interested in what you have to say. Peace, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Laser has agreed to take a look, so we will see if The Bushranger's knowledge of reliable sources has improved since his RFA. I personally wouldn't be nomming an RFA candidate who didn't understand RS, but obviously, YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It was something I missed when deciding whether to nominate him or not, but on the whole he had it right—and he learned now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, You mean Laser brain (talk · contribs) has agreed to check the article I requested to be reviewed? Thank you very very much. That's all I asked for. The sources may be or may not be reliable. I know I may be wrong.

Just out of curiosity as a novice editor, what factors decide if the number of sources are really enough for nullifying the legitimacy of tags like {{refimprove}} or for that matter, a "B-CLASS" rating? I, from whatever little experience I have on wikipedia, don't think that article in anyway is worthy of the rating it has got. But that's my opinion. I may be wrong indeed.

---

At last I must say, The Bushranger's adamant and domineering approach really puzzled me (especially because he is supposed to first clarify people's doubts soberly as an administrator). Thank you! --DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 17:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Pumpkins

Hi Sandy--can I ask your advice? This edit with this source, is that too close for comfort? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The data list isn't creative content-- or at least that's how I interpret some of MRG's past responses-- I don't think there's any other way to state that non-creative list of facts. I 'spose one could take issue with the exact wording "in succession", but neither can I think of a way to rephrase that. So, any concerns you have might be addressed by using quotes and attribution. But ... an often overlooked fact is that Rlevse wasn't strong on sourcing. I'm unable to track down via archive.org where that information originally came from. It doesn't appear to have come from the professor who hosts it, which gives rise to copyvio concerns, as well as SPS issues. I spent some time in archive.org looking for the original source, and can't decipher what's up there. In other words, not sure that source should suffice for GA or FA, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm asking because I saw your comments (somewhere?) about structure, and this particular list, as you noted, is in the same order as the source. I'm going to let it slide for the reasons you gave. As for the source, I have no opinion on that (well, ahem, other than that I wouldn't consider it a reliable source--and in the case of the Tuskegee Airmen that's a tricky issue already). Drmies (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing eyes

In the context, I would appreciate highly if you substantiate your general view by looking at just one article (of 11 left of 729) and join the distinguished list of reviewers. I have been labelled an "absolute supporter of the copyright violator" and would live happier without that. Absolute supporter of a person, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Which "general view" is that, Gerda? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just above, "Rlevse wasn't strong on sourcing", higher up "DYK has gotten worse", - but does it matter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The DYK stats are available elsewhere (my reviewing copyvio pages won't change any of that), and why would I review specifically for copyvio when sourcing was my longer concern (I suggest you folks who are so anxious to have him back can do that work)? If an example of sourcing issues is what you're after, the copyvio page isn't the first place I'd look. I just reviewed one of Rlevse's articles and found more factual errors than anything else (although I also found plenty of wording that easily could have been paraphrased)-- I don't believe I've ever said that his copyvio was my main concern. So, I've yet to understand your point about my point about Rlevse's joining in disruption at FAC because of an apparent grudge. My point about Rlevse has always been that when confronted, he ducked and ran rather than helped address the problems he'd created-- and then he further abused when he returned. How will my reviewing his copyvio change that behavior? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to explain. You talk about history I don't share, I had no history with Rlevse and confess that I never read any of his articles (but most of PumpkinSky). I spend time on Khazar's legacy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Gerda, I see you posted a link to a DYK review above; I'm glad you are continuing Khazar's legacy, but I'm unsure if you were prompting me/asking me to revisit that DYK review?? Since Khazar posted about his/her chronic fatigue syndrome, need to back off of Wikipedia, and feeling targeted by me, and since I've noted that his/her DYKs continue to be pulled for paraphrasing checks (which I'm grateful that you and others are addressing), I've thought it best that I not engage there. I just don't want you to think I was ignoring your link, and I do want to acknowledge that I appreciate your ongoing work there.  :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Interrupted

Sandy, if you have a problem with his close paraphrasing, then help with the cleanup for more than ONE article (criminy, we ALL can find one for anyone that's still crap), and if you don't want to, then tone down your assumption that everything he did was "easily paraphrased," as the majority of reviews so far indicate this is usually not the case, though there are some exceptions that we have been fixing. Keeping the issue going when you haven't reviewed what the rest of us are reviewing is a bit unfair, especially when you also criticize us who are doing the work as being biased -- shall we do no reviews at all and just burn people at the stake upon accusation or somthing? I must note that I'm beginning to see why Rlevse cut and run; no sense staying around when everything you say is twisted and misunderstood -- if the mob has predetermined that you are already guilty, everything else is just a kangaroo court. Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Your posts to my page are becoming most tedious montanabw. First, try to read what is on the page. Where am I keeping this going? Did I ask any of you to come post here about Rlevse? Have I posted anywhere about him? If you want to post to my talk page, please, engage brain, employ logic. Over and out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We can agree that this discussion has become tedious. I have read your comments, yes. I also am quite insulted by some like "engage brain, employ logic"-- at least, if you were directing it at me. I'm also insulted when you said "try to read what is on the page." I consider these remarks to imply that you might believe I am illiterate, stupid, and illogical. I truly hope that was not your intent. I simply disagree with you on some points and have been trying to find some mutual understanding, but to no avail, I am now being dismissed as "tedious." I also believe there are, in fact, a number of other places you have posted about Rlevse, like the PumpkinSky AN request for unblock page? You did not "ask" me to post here, I came by in what began as an attempt to address something you posted on those other pages about me. I felt my concern was only between you and I, so I took it off the drama boards in a good faith attempt to discuss a post by you which I found rather inflammatory. Then I saw the comments you made to Ealdgyth, mentioning me, and commented. Now you are being quite unkind and unfair to Gerda, who really is not someone who deserves such vitriol. So if I am being "tedious," oh well. If you wish me to depart your talk, say so in precise language. But try to simply keep it to a few words without further insults to my good will, intelligence and logic, please. Montanabw^(talk) 18:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, Ealdgyth came by to point something out, later Drmies asked me a question which had nothing to do with you or Gerda, and then Gerda came here to politely ask me to look at something, and as far as I can tell, we had a cordial conversation about that issue which had nothing to do with you nor was there was no reason for you to intervene. Nor did I initiate the conversation with Ealdgyth. Is there something I can do to get you to mind your own business and leave me to mine? I believe we're done here: at least I hope we are, since your posts here continue to be illogical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

TPS table query

Can anyone tell me how to make each "Event" column a fixed width in a table like this? As I fill in text, it is assigned variable column widths, making the table unreadable. I want three equal event columns, and for the whole thing to fit on the page. I'd be most grateful for any help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You can add width="x" | before each column name. For example, you'd change !Event1 to !width="x" |Event1. Goodvac (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Goodvac ... but ... ummmm .... what kind of number do I use for "x"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You can use point sizes (e.g. width="100pt"). I believe you can also specify a percentage of the total viewing area (e.g. width="50%"), although I'm not totally sure. MastCell ^Talk 00:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• And if you want to make the table span the entire page, you need to add style="width:100%" to the first line, right after class="wikitable". I put an example below (feel free to remove it). The table spans the whole page, and each of the "Event" columns has a width of 25%. You can adjust the widths however you like by changing the width="25%" parameter in each column. MastCell ^Talk 00:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Date	Event1	Event2	Event3	Miss
Sample date1	Text 1
Sample date2		Text 2
Sample date3			Text 3	Sample Miss

Perfect! Thank you so much ... I really do these TPS threads to drag you out of hiding, 'ya know :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For your information: falsification of sources

Dear SandyGeorgia, given that you have an interest in quality control and the relationship between quality control and the Main Page, you may have an interest in this RS/N discussion where widespread falsification of sources has been reported. Hope you're enjoying your editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Fifelfoo-- I was blissfully unaware of this problem. I'm most concerned about Madonna (entertainer); since Laser has good access to databases, I'm hoping he'll spotcheck the sources. I let that one through because very competent reviewers were in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm on it. I've contacted Legolas privately as well. --Laser brain (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And I thought I was off the job :( I just recommended another to you in the section above this-- I do hope someone with your skills will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Will look at that one as well. Whoever assigned that a B-class is making a mockery of the assessment process. --Laser brain (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC) It needs a careful look, Laser. It may be coincidence, but it is nonetheless curious that a brand new editor has found his way to my talk over an editor with similar interests to desysopped sock Archtransit (talk · contribs). At a minimum, if The Bushranger is in the clear, that should be acknowledged. IIRC, Archtransit knew reliable sources in the aviation area, while Joe Baugher was known to be a hobby site well before The Bushranger was using him and other dubious sources. I don't know if The Bushranger's knowledge of reliable sources has improved over the last year, but as of the time I looked at his RFA, he was using very dubious sourcing, and there were so many things off in his RFA that made me wary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

First (former) admin attack

I wonder who from the peanut gallery will emerge to insult me on this one, as they did after I spent hours of time helping with the Legolas situation. Maybe another coward who hides behind edit summaries. :) --Laser brain (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh. That was an unnecessarily nasty response. Thanks for trying for reason; considering I've recently been whining about those who never do, your attempts are appreciated. On the other hand, it might be worth considering that Maunus recently handed in the tools over the whole Alarbus/Truthkeeper88 affair. Perhaps s/he is hitting at whomever comes along, and we were in the wrong place at the wrong time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing issues

Ugh. --Laser brain (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If Nikkimaria or Dana boomer are reading, I suggest both of Legolas's FAs should go to FAR prontissimo. Also, WT:FAC should be alerted to the importance of source checks (not sure if Ian or Graham have my talk page watched, pretty sure Ucucha does). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm here, (but a message on WT:FAC will be needed – I'm on my way to bed). :-) Graham Colm (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am here as well. I would say that we could give Legolas a couple of days from Laser Brain's original post on the talk page, and if he doesn't respond (which so far he doesn't seem inclined to do) the article can go to FAR. 4 Minutes (Madonna song) still needs to be checked, and if it has the same problems (which I don't doubt, but we should probably be sure) it can have the same thing done. I would check it myself, but am just online for a few minutes right now. I'll try to get to it when I get back online, unless someone else gets there first. Dana boomer (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of not stopping by here occasionally, Sandy, it's always a good way to take the project's temperature... ;-) One reason I haven't been promoting many FACs is that despite plenty of support, many still require spotchecks, and I've been listing them at WT:FAC. I've also just written a piece on article assessments for the MilHist newsletter (in my capacity as its co-editor) that concludes with a reminder of the importance of spotchecks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that article-- it was quite well written and helpful! I'm still thinking (as we discussed earlier) that some sort of central record keeping place is needed-- to keep track of which nominators have had source checks in the past, how long ago, etc. I'm still unable to determine how I let Madonna through without one-- I apparently convinced myself that Legolas had had one elsewhere, but I can't find it. It's such a shame that we have to have "infrastructure" to prevent the occasional abuser. By the way, I don't believe I've congratulated either you or Graham yet ... I've unwatched pretty much everything, am down to only a few hundred watched pages, and have been focusing on my areas of editing interest, and I've just now realized that I didn't add my support for two new excellent delegates! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Another reminder that we do need spotchecks. Andy, thanks for catching this. Ucucha (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy's doing the hard work of looking at the FAs (resulting in unsavory accusations from former admins), but it was User:Binksternet who first uncovered the falsification of sources, and User:Fifelfoo who brought it to our attention. Sometimes my talk page still works for the good of the Project  :/ :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I should have looked more into exactly what actually happened here. Thanks to Binksternet and Fifelfoo too. Ucucha (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Andy, and thanks for your thoughts too, Sandy -- you set the bar very high for all of us... ;-) On the central repository thing, that's an idea, perhaps Graham and Ucucha can discuss elsewhere. Practically all the articles for which I've been requesting spotchecks even after lots of support have been for nominators relatively new to FAC, so it's a bit of a no-brainer. However even the very experienced ones should have a 'refresher' check now and then, and that includes me. Just the other day Nick-D pointed out on a GAN of mine where I'd got page numbers wrong for a claim, and when I checked further I found an instance where I'd read more into the source than was actually there (I'd created the article long before, but still). As my wife is always reminding me, you have to watch yourself even on the roads you know well -- complacency is a killer! On the MilHist front at least, I'm encouraged by more people like Nick-D and Hawkeye7 making a habit of spotchecking, augmenting the older hands in that practice like Nikkimaria and Fifelfoo. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep-- if we had a list somewhere, we'd know how long it's been since any nominator has been double-checked-- just another way to CYA while allocating scarce resources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't get any better at 4 Minutes (Madonna song). See here. --Laser brain (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like we're in for two FARs ... is the paraphrasing issue bad enough that a WP:CCI is also needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I can't figure out why all of this was done. I can't believe it was malicious.. it just looks like a rush job to try to get the FA status, no matter how slipshod the work. I'd consider opening a CCI if the editor does not re-emerge and if the problem can be demonstrated beyond the two FAs. --Laser brain (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

He was a WP:CUP participant, so I've notified them, Featured Lists, and G guy on GAs as well. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting there, Laser ... you're still a gem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, the perennial causer of headaches and clogger of pipes, WP:CUP. How could I forget? I was typing to a persistent FAC-nominator not an hour ago "I don't understand what the hurry is" but now I feel like the fool. Do you remember Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center? --Laser brain (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Lips do not unpurse (at least Ucucha's bot identifies them now-- the hurry is the Feb 26 deadline-- I could always tell a CUP deadline was approaching by the number of orange bars on my talk :) :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Second admin attack

One attack on Laser from a former sysop, and one attack on me from a current sysop; someone remind me why we cared to take this problem on again? And just what did the Civility Enforcement case accomplish anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing? The administrators and arbitrators are still as abusive as ever. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed that admin abuse continues (got more than one case up my sleeve), but I thought most of the admins we interact with would at least be aware of the civility enforcement case ... for a sysop to have the audacity to accuse someone of "hate mongering" for the kindness of notifying them of this problem is astounding-- I also notified FLC and GAN, with no problem. Screw this place-- a non-judgmental, neutrally worded post intended only to make them aware of the problem results in a hateful attack from a sysop-- hadn't I just decided to work on my own articles and forget this dsyfunctional place? Did I ask to be involved in the Legolas problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, and I'm sorry you had to get involved and be targeted like that. I thought your post to WT:CUP was neutral and informative. Elsewhere Binksternet and I have had Legolas' friends trying to provoke us into personal conflicts. I should have spent the afternoon waxing my mustache instead. --Laser brain (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Forget it, Sandy; it's Chinatown. Either the Legolas stuff will get fixed, or it won't. I'm trying to remind myself not to feel like I need to fix every problem I see around here. It's better to just pick a small corner and light that corner. We should track down Colin, Graham, or someone along those lines and see if there's a medical article that could use a tune-up. Or, if you're interested in project-space-type stuff, I was thinking it might be worth drafting a conflict-of-interest guideline specific to medical articles. An ongoing ArbCom case has driven home how dysfunctionally useless the WP:COI guideline is. And I don't think there's any hope of meaningful change at WP:COI, for the same reason all of this site's major policy/guideline pages are ossified. On the other hand, it might be worth working up some guidelines specific to medical content. Besides, spring training is starting, so things aren't all bad. Anyhow, hang in there. MastCell ^Talk 05:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi MastCell. Well you know the medical article(s) I plan to "tune up", and I'm working through some reading material at present. But it will be this year's project for me, because I'm such a slow worker. I'm not sure anyone would have the patience to work with me on it but if you want to let me know. I'm always happy to help you guys out on any articles of your choosing, time permitting. There are loads of "medical article[s] that could use a tune-up". I think the secret is to find a subject you would enjoy researching, or would give you satisfaction for having done a good job. As for the guideline, WhatAmIDoing got there first: WP:MEDCOI. It is just an essay at the moment. Colin°^Talk 09:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You two continue to contribute to the encyclopeadia run by children, giving authority and relevance to something that should have none. I'm not sure reasonable adults would have much sympathy.101.118.45.190 (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A most reasonable position to take-- one I'm beginning to sympathize with. So, next The ed17-- another admin and CUP judge-- restores the personal attack, claiming it's not a personal attack, and reiterating the charge that I'm trying to discredit the Project. Besides that being attacked for simply notifying them is appalling, how about the faulty logic. I passed one of Legolas' FAs without asking for a source check, so exactly who is discredited here by me raising this??? Go figure: the same admin who saw no problem with Bishonen the Witch and her Monkeys and who carefully redacted to cover up Bishonen being called a "bitch" now sees no personal attack in me being accused of "hate mongering"-- and this right after an arb case dealing with civility enforcement. The ed17-- YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE! [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, I think Moni has good advice below. Take a break. FWIW, I don't follow the view that the good people should leave WP because it is chronically/terminally dysfunctional. What good would that do? Well perhaps you'd get a life elsewhere that gave you more enjoyment and that's no bad thing. But do we think that letting WP rot and be overcome by the weeds of POV pushers and the ignorant will stop folk reading it? Look at the Daily Mail. That rag is the nastiest, most harmful, most full-of-shit excuse for a newspaper. Yet it has one of the biggest print circulations in the world and the online edition is the biggest online newspaper in the world. Go figure. And as for operating in an environment "run by children". Well I live in a country run by toffs without a clue, who are determined to bugger our heath service as their #1 priority because they failed to completely finish it off the last time they were in power. I still get up in the morning. But yes. Take a break. Colin°^Talk 13:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

They've already buggered the Heath service. We haven't had a decent one since W. Heath Robinson. Yomangani^talk 14:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting reading on this page, Sandy, as always. You have much more awesome things in life away from Wikipedia, right? Go to them today--or even create something more awesome, like a hobby. One that requires no background info that might be gleaned on Wikipedia. Take a break. --Moni3 (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not an awesome day here, but that's not a story for public consumption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I hate to see editors I respect fighting with each other. J Milburn has put alot of work into (and cares alot about) the wikicup, so there was a good chance he was going to get upset by the thread..I've tried nailing that thread shut as we've got to try and stick together and not tear each other apart. I've started trying to coordinate bipolar disorder, and I figure JFW and I can do neuroleptic malignant syndrome with our ICU and psych knowledge respectively. NMS is not thought about (and feared) as much as it should be....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, and I put a lot of work into FAC, and also hate to see it discredited by an abusive editor falsifying sources. So what???? J Milburn should be upset at abuse of process, and he should be doing something about it-- not shooting the messenger. While I appreciate you closing off the nastiness, I don't appreciate the implication of respected editors fighting with each other, since all I did was notify them of a problem so they could decide how they wanted to handle it (disqualify the participant, remove points, whatever, not my problem) ... and I don't appreciate the fact that no one else has yet to do a single thing about his personal attack on me. So while calm voices prevail here, and my better half implores me to take down my post about The ed17, NO. It stays here until something is done. If admins can personally attack Laser and me, redact when it pleases them, we just have an arbcase about uneven enforcement, well, let's just see about that. Double standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I know. It's late here and I've had an insanely busy few weeks. I can't think of anything hugely constructive to say due to fatigue....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The ArbCase had nothing to do with uneven enforcement, it was a Get Malleus fiasco. Malleus Fatuorum 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Iri nails it. And ... it failed to address the kind of admin abuse seen in this instance, and in the Rklawton instance. If they stop short of using their tools, they're still allowed to abuse the regular editor. I took it because I had to while I was FAC delegate, but I'm not a FAC delegate now. I'm trying to go about my own business of working in the areas I enjoy, and I made the SUPREME mistake of notifying the CUP, as Fifelfoo notified us, and for that I get abused of by an admin. Years later, we still have no way of dealing with admins who abuse short of using their tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Iridescent's common sense and insight has been sadly missed, and he was just about the closest Wikipedia had to a functioning institutional memory. There's lots of hand-wringing by certain sections of the community about how administrators should set an example to us plebs in the way they conduct themselves, and even that they should be held to a higher standard than regular editors, but the truth is they're not even held to the same standard as the drones. Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been said before, but if we abolished ArbCom, and put Iri, MastCell, YoMan, G guy and Moni in charge of the Project (and I also include Colin on that list), most of our problems would vanish. And a lot of our problems originate where they always have-- admin abuse. I've yet to see a warning to J Milburn or The ed17 for their attacks on a regular editor ... tap, tap, tap. Now there's a responsible admin reply: unaccountable to the community. Desysop needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It would have been nice to be told that I was being discussed here. I know that that one comment proves that I am a heinous, abusive individual who should have no rights, but you might have at least let me watch my character assassination... J Milburn (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're an asshole, too; don't try to pretend you don't know your way around in here and that I didn't post to your talk, which you reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, we've never exactly been friends, and we all get it that you don't like the WikiCup, a project into which I have sunk a great many hours, but I'm not quite sure what you're hoping to achieve with this mud-flinging. The last thing I want is some kind of enemy on here- I just wish you'd step back from the Cup a little bit. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh good grief, not that whole "friends" thing again. Thank you for informing me-- ever the Pollyana-- that we were never friends. I like the way everyone in here seems to know who I am and am not friends with, and I find out about it here. Irrelevant claptrap by popularity seekers. Curiously, my approach to anything has nothing to do with whether we are "friends"; in this case, the CUP was abused of just as FAC, FLC and GAN were abused of, and I thought you might want to be in the loop. So, notifying you means I need to step back, huh? [8] Coward: address the issue, stop weaseling, what was wrong with my post, and do you not know what an attack is? Apologize, you jerk !!!!!! Have you ever had a look at our AGF policy? Do you not understand that we expect admins to know policy ??? You're very welcome for neutrally notifying you of a problem that affects all of us. ASSHOLE! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That was in no way a personal attack, but directly calling J and I "asshole[s]" certainly are... pot -> kettle -> black? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Is your defense that the original response by J Milburn wasn't a personal attack, or that you restoring a redacted personal attack is OK? And please explain why you think it's OK to restore an attack on me, after carefully hiding Brad101's attacks on Bishonen? You're free to clarify to me why you're not a hypocrite; if you can do that, I'll gladly remove the "asshole", since it doesn't appear that either you or J Milburn are going to pony up and apologize for your cowardice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Just a note to say that I'm sorry for the abuse you've taken at the hands of a certain pretended-to-be-new user. Your contributions are valued, and make Wikipedia a better place. Just because I may never work up the courage to brave the FAC process on anything myself doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work you have done. Likewise, while I respect the right of dissent and feedback, pretending to be new when you're not is dishonest and inappropriate, and I'm sorry that happened to you. Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Resignation

Sandy, I removed your name from the editnotice at WP:FA, as you had done at the other places where delegates are listed (though I'm sure there are more where we missed it). Thanks again for your service as a delegate over the past years. Ucucha (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no other places-- thanks! I'm so sorry you got left with so much work; had I realized what would ensue, I would have made it effective in six weeks, but can't go back now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The end of an era

Thank you for your service to Featured Articles. It is the end of an era. Your extreme competence will be missed. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there

Do you feel comfortable in explaining why you resigned as a FAC delegate? Just curious. Thanks for your services by the way. You did an amazing job. And if it means that you'll now assume a more active role as reviewer, as opposed to that of an impartial delegate, I think it's for the best—there's a shortage of quality reviewers at FAC. Orane (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Long time no speak; good to hear from you! Here's the official announcement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks from me too

I know we haven't always seen eye-to-eye, but I do respect the huge amount of work you did as a FAC delegate. Many thanks for that, and I hope it will be possible to have a wider discussion of various aspects of reviewing once that RfC has run its course. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks. But if you think some of the disruptive forces are going to be happy with us getting back to working on improvements to FAC, or the admin corp is going to do anything to curb their attacks on me, you aren't reading the same Wikipedia I'm reading :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did notice the section below. If you will accept a bit of advice, when you go from a high profile to a lower one, it is best to slow things down a bit, take time to ease back into other things. That's what I did and I found it helped. Anyway, enough of that. Talking of review, one bit of serendipity is that I have to do some work in the coming days that will involve reading up on the history of the sinking of the Titanic (what with the anniversary coming up soon), so I hope to combine that with a review of that FAC. Unfortunately the paid work has to come first. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you are always well meaning, and your heart is often in the right place, but you can be so silly :) :) Regardless of what "pace" I take, those who have long wanted to get a punch in will do it now. And those who long benefited for years from my defense of their work, promotion of their work, review of their work, will mostly be silent. It's the Internet, and more-- it's Wikipedia. Why should my "pace" be determined by external factors? I didn't slow down when it came to defending FA writers, FA reviewers, FA content-- why should I be someone different now regardless if they'll turn their backs because of my "lower profile"? Silly :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would your profile be lower anyway? FA delegates have to be cautiously circumspect in the FAC arena, not something that reviewers have to worry about. And from experience, I'd say that reviewers get their fair share of flak there just as delegates do. And as for slowing down or being silent, well, words fail me ... actually there's an unconscious irony there, as if words have failed me then I'll presumably have to be silent ... sometimes you can think too much. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're saying or trying to say, Malleus. What I know about life in general-- and about the Interent in particular, and more specifically about Wikipedia-- is that the folks who gathered around when they perceived you had some sort of "power" weren't necessarily gathering 'round for the right reasons. Many of them were just folks benefiting from all the work I did to defend featured content, benefiting from my good name when it came to defending them or their work, and some of them will be noted for their absence when they perceive I'm no longer useful. That's life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No deep meaning, just "blather", as you say. What "power" did you really have as an FAC delegate anyway? You may even find that you can do more back in the trenches, that was all. And if some do abandon you because "you're no longer useful" then you're better off without them around anyway. But it won't happen. BTW, I just had to correct your spelling of "benefitting" above, it made me feel dizzy, hope you don't mind. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

None. But people perceived I did, and came running whenever they needed help. We'll see where they are now. You shoulda been fixing my typos for years! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure people will still be calling on you for help at FAC, perhaps even more than ever did now that you're able to take a more active role in reviewing. Your situation now seems to me somewhat similar to that of Geometry guy at GAN/GAR. But I'll leave you alone now. I've got to get back to the Franco-Mongol Alliance's FAC anyway, where battle lines are being drawn up, something you no longer need to worry about. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And thanks from me also. It is however disheartening to return and see that AN/I has not changed (or if it has, for the worse); it is still a place where old grudges can be revisited, adjectives substitute for evidence, and histrionics take the place of reasoned discussion. It is amazing that your last day of invaluable service in your former role is occupied by those unfair attacks. Kablammo (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back! Yes, ANI is worse; the new trend is no right of response. And yes, DYK has gotten worse, too-- before, they could honestly claim ignorance of copyvio et al (they just didn't know). Now-- years later, and with all the writing done on the topic-- they nonetheless actively endorse walking too close to the line on paraphrasing, no matter the very words describing that in the Dispatch you co-authored. I guess in an environment of the WMF lamenting our declining editorship, the very words you all wrote about copyvio are no longer true. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You have always insisted on rigorous sourcing. My first encounter with you was just before the main page appearance of the first FA on which I worked. You went flew through it, demanding citations; I took it as a personal challenge to provide them. The article was much improved by your demands. Authors should welcome questions about their work, for that is the best way to improve it. Kablammo (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I was active at DYK for a few months, and there was great resistance to change. There may still be, but at least they are now talking about copyright and plagiarism. Kablammo (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Silly man ! Those days are gone-- it's less about sily Wikipedia policy and more about getting along with WMF employees and WMF goals (there are starting to be more of them than us, and their goals are quantity, not quality--when you're getting paid, you need to show results that aren't necessarily in line with the unpaid volunteers).

You helped write that Dispatch (in fact, it may have been you who suggested the makeup of the entire team I put together for that); you knew the line on copyvio and plagiarism as well as everyone else involved did, and you knew the problems at DYK better than most. But now, with declining editorship, they seek more quantity-- not more quality-- in all things Wikipedian. And, what with SOPA, I don't think the WMF would like the world to know just how much copyvio really exists in here. Speaking of that team (which was a who's who of knowledgeable copyvio people in its day): Awadewit's TFA was attacked after running at TFA today (nice reward for her new PhD);[9] Elcobbola gave up and pretty much left in the face of so much opposition here to concern about intellectual property (although he'll respond to my image queries); Jbmurray's successful educational project spawned a whole ton of educational projects that don't have the kind of supervision and involvement from the professor that made his a success, so we have students adding copyvio and unsalvageable poorly sourced content faster than estabished editors can remove it (encouraged by the WMF); you left; Moonriddengirl joined WMF, has less time to work on copyvio; and Tony1 is seen less around FAC as he mostly writes these days for the dying Signpost. Nikkimaria (new since then) is the only person still working on the issues at DYK, and she's doing it all alone. In the interim, Rlevse came back to his old haunts at DYK, and fit right in, unnoticed.

Yes, relative to when you were there and when the Dispatch was written, at DYK they are finally talking about copyright and plagiarism (um, because I make them talk about it ;), but the goalposts have moved, what was clear copyvio when the Dispatch was written no longer is, DYK has chosen to walk close to the line on those borderline cases (quantity over quality), and I'm being shot at ANI for being the messenger about the problem. And all those "friends" who will sooooooo miss me at FAC are likely to stay silent; can't blame 'em (although I was never silent when it came to defending them or their content)-- going up against WMF and their quantity over quality goals ain't easy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 184.59.31.77 (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Jonathan Agnew at WP:FAC

Hi Sandy. As you know, Dweller and I have this article at FAC but it hasn't had its spot checks or image checks done. Would you be prepared to do that, or could you recommend someone (or some people) who might be able to help with that aspect of its candidacy? Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

	The Jolly Tired After Having Done a Fantastic Job Award
	After many years of persistence, hard work and coping with the moans of idiots like me, you deserve this jolly tired after having done a fantastic job award. Dweller (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, gee, lookie there !

So, it seems some folks still do have my talkpage watchlisted, show up here when there's a problem, but their fingers were all broken when I was falsely accused at AN/I and some admin intervention was needed [10] to take various abusive admins to task.[11] Oh, and now that we have another Rlevse copyvio, where is Moonriddengirl? [12] There's a heck of a lot more that Wikipedia's not telling you about just how serious the copyvio problem is in here, not limited to the fact that those raising concerns are shot. So, why didn't the CCI people pick this up? It's not like the Rlevse issue wasn't known. Oh, gee, maybe it's because folks raising copyvio issues aren't taken seriously. 'Ya think?

Seems no one knows where to find facts anymore, but whatdya expect since diffs no longer count for anything at ANI.

1. Here is where we find copyvio investigations (which include gazillions that haven't been addressed for years): WP:CCI
2. Here is where we find Rlevse copyvio investigations:

   Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232 (year and a half old)

   Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky

3. Here is where we find that it took the CCI a full year to clear Frederick Russell Burnham, and it was cleared by a fellow arb: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232#Articles 261 through 280

So, why is this on my talk? Kindly take this problem to admin Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) and ask what their procedures are and why copyvios that still exist are being cleared there, arb Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) who continues to allege that I continue to allege arbcom impropriety, or admin Rklawton who thinks I need to be blocked for stating accurate diffable facts, this admin who thinks I shouldn't be addressing copyvios, this admin who overlooked Bishonen being called a Bitch, or anyone else who still enjoys participating in a Project where women can be called bitches and witches, admins can overlook or actively hide it, and even threaten those who bring up diffs about it with a block.

And I see also that no one at ANI could be bothered to notify Risker, The ed, Brad101 or anyone else as requested (at least Risker might have done something about it).

So ... why is the issue of another Rlevse copyvio on my page, after I've been threatened throughout the Wiki for trying to deal with these issues? Dweller and The Rambling Man, please go find another Pollyanna sucker to ask for help when there's a problem, since not one person could be bothered to deal with an abusive admin threatening to block me after other admins turns a blind eye when Bish is called a Bitch, turn a blind eye when it's raised on admin talk pages, turn a blind eye when I'm falsely accused of fabricating original research at ANI, and turn a blind eye when another abusive admin threatens to block me for stating the truth of what happened there.

If I were an admin, I might say "fuck off" and get away with it, but since I'm not: hasta luego, babies. Take your problems, your requests for help, and your barnstars elsewhere. My friends know where to find me, always have. Not only is this place unsafe for women: it's unsafe for anyone with integrity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Had it not been for you-know-what hanging over my head I'd probably have pitched at ANI, but rest assured, if you ever come across an editor who needs to be told to "fuck off" then I'm your man. At least for a few more days anyway. (Does hasta luego mean "see you later"?) Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, and I read about ANI late.

For what it's worth, I wrote to Nikkimaria, and asked to be contacted if anybody tried to topic ban her from DYK, the way Hawkeye suggested you being topic banned.

With her refreshing naivete, Nikkimaria could not believe that anybody would make such a suggestion and asked for diffs, which I provided. (I did not provide a courtesy notice here, because I thought that you can take care of yourself, and have more powerful admirers than me.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And by the time I got there the thing had been closed. Anyways, the issue I raised above has been addressed, so I've taken the bold liberty of removing it entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You should remember that TParis just stated that it was ridiculous and killed the idiotic proposal. Don't let Hawkeye run you off the project, when nobody supported him.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not suggest a topic ban; I only suggested leaving DYK alone for a while. I wasn't trying to run anybody off the project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Aka, a topic ban. Which is just dandy; perhaps you and MRG can clean up all the copyvio occuring over at DKY by yourselves? Your fellow MilHist editor Rlevse's, as well. The only other person doing it is Nikkimaria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Malleus, we both know (and everyone knows) there's nothing you could have done. Just as we both know, and everyone knows, there are plenty others-- who are fast to run here when they are falsely accused or need help with an article or a favor or TPS feedback-- could have done.

@Kiefer: I see. For the record, my "friends" are almost exclusively the most humble types, to such an extent that most folks don't even know who they are; you won't find my true friends among the "powerful" here.

@Nikki: appreciated. But User talk:Rklawton looks wide open from here,, and he's still sitting there smug as a bug for having threatened me with a block if I even continued to defend my self from a false accusation (that included no diffs) with diffable facts.

@Kiefer, you don't really think this is about Hawkeye, do you? LOLOLOL !!!! I am still under threat of a block by abusive admins for calling admin abuse at ANI, and a topic ban for raising clear copyvio concerns at DYK.

Malleus, hasta luego means "until later": it's always possible that someday I may regain interest in participating here, but it's hard to imagine that happening when I consider the level of abuse that goes on in here. Let's remember very clearly: your civility case stemmed from one thing-- admin abuse. And we've got arbs focusing on civility, and ignoring the serious abuse we all deal with, until even the kindest, the most knowledgeable, helpful, civil, the best and the brightest [13] quit. I'm with MastCell; this is not a good use of my time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see that I was the reason Bish retired... </sarcasm> thought I explained what I actually meant by doing that, but I guess not. Anyway. Maybe I need to reassess my participation here too so I can avoid getting continuously beaten over the head with this self-admitted mistake. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a rather strange idea taken root here, which reminds me of the Catholic confessional; so long as administrators apologise, however belatedly and reluctantly, for their misdeeds then everything is sweet. That's not the way the world works. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that now? Strange, I wasn't aware that mistakes could never be forgiven. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, for someone who sure 'nuff closed off some discussions at ANI lickety split, you sure haven't gone over to clear it up with Rklawton, who is still singing his same (false) tune. Talk is cheap, Ed; if it was a mistake and you're sorry, why are you sitting by with arms crossed while I take the heat for speaking the truth? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Call all the bullshit you want, but the mistake I made has nothing to do with whatever Rklawton is doing to you. (on ANI? I'm not sure where this is even going on... contrary to popular perception, I'm not wedded to ANI :p). I'm going to take a break. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, you clarified that I was not your friend last week and I clarified my respect for you, which I've tried to express at every opportunity.

You can see that I have been busy standing up for Lihaas, this time with some resolution, despite my having been blocked for stating the same truths before. I am sorry that I did not express support to you before.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, I hadn't seen that statement from MastCell. What the Hell's going on here? Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Same ole, same ole: admin abuse. That is what fuels the frustration. There's some poor newbie on Rklawton's talk page, trying to write a medical article about fear of flying, and not only has Rklawton given him consistently bad information-- go look at the horrid, snarky responses at Lawton's talk (unless he's already deleted them). Those are the kinds of folks sporting tools in here !!!! Bish turned in her tools so she could see what it felt like on the other side-- that, interestingly, is one of the reasons I never wanted them. I wanted to know what it felt like, always, to be a regular bloke, I wanted to understand as well as I did when the FeloniousMonk cabal went after me-- just what it was to be in this place where abusive admins exercise their tools, or the threats of their tools, for no other reason than to make their little peepees get hard. Nothing has changed even with the desysopping of FeloniousMonk (over evidence it took me a month to put together), and unless our increasingly dense (or whatever words MastCell used, see diff above) arbs get that it's all about abuse of the regular editor, nothing will change. Here's what is freaky: I'm a high profile, experienced editor with a clean block log and (I thought-- now I know not to be true) a lot of friends who could shield me from abusive admins. So ... what happens to the little guys? I shudder to think what it's like in here for them. I don't want to be part of such a sick place-- and I knew that when I saw an FA writer taunting another FA writer with his number of FAs. My work here fed such divas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you ought to blame yourself, but I did find the comment you're presumably referring to "only someone with more FAs than I have is allowed to unblock" incomprehensible. I'd be prepared to lay a pretty substantial bet that I've helped more FAs through FAC than I've ever nominated, and even turned down offers of being added as a co-nominator by overly generous editors such as Ealdgyth. The project seems to have lost sight of the purpose of its very existence; Sue was quite right about a "death spiral", but I don't think she has yet recognised what it is that's spiralling out of control. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sandy, fuck all these fools. Seriously. We're here to fix this shit because millions of people are googling how old Beethoven was when he died or what the hell the difference is between Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo. And they are ending up on Wikipedia, so we need to make sure they have the right information and that it's as professional in presentation as possible. I would personally stick up for you until the day I die, but in the end ANI and ArbCom and all these silly venues are no more meaningful to me than if I had a sunken pit of drunken hogs in my backyard that just rooted around and oinked and bit each other all day. They make a bunch of noise and sometimes smell bad but mostly they are just there for each others' entertainment. Let's get back to work, shall we? Sandy, Ed, Malleus... you've got shit to do. And it ain't suffering fools. --Laser brain (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, Laser, but it's just not like that for me anymore. Like Malleus, all I did in here was help others get their rewards, improve content, some of those people turned into divas, some of them are selfish, and for that work-- and giving an honest defense with diffs against a false, undiffed charge-- I got threatened with a block in the most unsavory terms:

  ... if you persist, I will recommend you be stopped. As for Bishonen, there were significant health issues involved with her winter hibernation, but you would deliberately deceive people here into believing she left over a single world (sic). Shame on you! Rklawton (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not interested in working to improve content for a place that is rife with copyvio, nobody cares, and where even folks with a good record can be spoken to like that by an abusive admin. Worse, I can't even defend myself now, or he could block me. The analogy is I don't want to be part of the sunken pit of drunken hogs in my backyard. Fellow admins and arbs-- no one took him to task. So what happens to the next guy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you persist Rklawton I'll move Heaven and Earth to see you desysopped, as you ought to have been long ago. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I first came to Wikipedia when someone sent me an email in response to one of my articles. I thought: "but I haven't written any articles on Wikipedia!" But when I looked I found that I had. Several in fact, lifted from my web pages. And everywhere I looked, all I could see was crappy articles. And every time I said that an article sucked, all anyone would do was suggest that it be fixed. So I decided it needed a little work. That was six years ago. And after all this time, we still have vandals, we still have copyvio, and we even still have (God forbid) MOS violations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  And we still have trigger-happy admins like you as well. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sorry Malleus. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  When I first came to Wikipedia, an admin cabal went after me. Viciously. [14] One of them ended up permanently desysopped, another temporarily, and all of them came into line by hook or by crook. Lo and behold, another set of abusive admins just cropped up in their place. If Rklawton has his way, I'm not allowed to defend myself against false charges exactly as those from FeloniousMonk were demonstrably false so many years ago. How dare I speak to the truth to an admin !!!! So what's your point, Hawkeye7 (other than the jab-- God forbid-- about MOS violations)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  What I find very strange, well, one of the things I find very strange, is that this has all blown up at a time when cultural institutions are beginning to cry out for help with their Wikipedia presence. It may only be visible to those in the UK, but the British Museum, for instance, is advertising for a Wikipedian in Residence, salary a little over £30,000 a year.[15] Chasing off those who can actually write stuff was never a good idea, but it now looks like a suicide attempt. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  Is it possible to live in London for "a little over £30,000 a year"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That'll be the British Library (The BM had an unpaid one in 2010) & it's a fixed 6mth contract, so £15K. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps depends on whether you live with your parents or not, or share with friends, but that's not the point. Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a touch above the average London wage. oops, no, that's nearly £34K, apparently Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Malleus, I think you'll find that the two are in fact quite closely related. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the drama side of things (my head hurts just from reading through it), I can say just from the bit I've done at CCI that it's a tough job that very few are actually willing to tackle. I get why Sandy's frustrated with it, since it shows there's a huge amount of plagiarism we have to find yet. I only did the diffs Rlevse himself posted on that TFA (the only major text addition was the current second paragraph of the lead), which means we have paraphrase issues with the editor who wrote most of that article (the original sentence in question at the talk was added here. As for my point, well, I have three. Copyright is something that needs to be tackled, but if I went berserk every time I caught something I would have been carted away from here long ago. Second, those are the types of editors we need to find and add to our ranks, those who are knowledgeable about the process and can tackle it, since few do now. Third, those running the main page should make sure nothing rlevse nominated gets put there again just to be on the safe side. As for me, I'm going to start shopping Burnham, now that I'm looking through the entire article there is quite a bit of trouble, a lot of it dating back to 2006. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Which was my point too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy,

Don't give up hope. I would remind you that I objected to the "toxic/poison", "courting the Wikipedia fraternity", and "crying into her table cloth" aberration, for which you later received a public and voluntary apology.

I had no idea what to say when TCO wrote the "pussy juice" remark, but I did end the discussion.

More generally, I did remove RodH's sexist remarks against an editor (who had asked me to ignore her).

I don't think it fair, either for yourself or for me, to imagine yourself so isolated and bereft of friends, who want to help you when you are attacked, particularly when you face sexist attacks.

Hawkeye apologized here to Malleus. We all have potential to reform ourselves. Don't despair!

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ping, email. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry I've not been there for you recently when you've been under fire. --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Real life has been biting me on the butt... usually without warning. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A bit late, but

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.

Sven Manguard Wha? 14:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Chin up

Been a while since I sent a Saturday tune, but [16]. Youve done incalculable good for the project, my own experience is how helpful you were in the Sex Pistols and Punk Rock FARs when I was starting up here, and how you scholed, guided and encouraged me, and Im not alone in thinkingn that. Dont let all this drama let you forget your worth, FAC would not half what it is if you had not been there fighting and bringing in standards, against often bitter resistance. Ms An Hero. Ceoil (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

May you have a day full of WikiLove

	Happy Valentine's Day
	All the best for one of Wikipedia's best! (Feel free to send this to your other Valentines) Smallbones (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A note of appreciation and respect...

...for your contributions till date. I wished to add an adjective to qualify your contributions, but didn't as I was afraid it might have read sarcastic - which is not my intention. My sincere regards and respect... Wifione ^Message 16:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

		The Monarch of the Glen Appreciation
		Thanks for your working helping so many articles to become Featured. It's much appreciated by His Majesty and myself, Ben MacDui 10:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Adiantum viridimontanum

Sandy, thanks for your promotion of Adiantum viridimontanum to FA and your useful suggestion about redirects. (I'm normally rather punctilious about those for my railroad articles, but I'd forgotten to pay attention here.) I look forward to long-term maintenance and graphics improvement of the article. Yours, Choess (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent WP:MEDRS change

Hello, I made a comment on a month old discussion [17] which you may not have noticed. It concerns the guidelines which now strongly imply that tertiary sources cannot be used to determine balance/due weight. I'd appreciate you taking a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindjuicer (talk • contribs) 18:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

SG on FA

Is this what you were talking about earlier? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's only a very small part of it. She never really retracted that (mis)interpretation, it appears she's unfamiliar with how Wiki works, and some folks got mileage out of that (against FAC). The bigger problems are elsewhere, though. The effect on medical articles of recruiting students to edit-- the overall drive for quantity over quality, the disregard for established knowledgeable editors as well-meaning WMF employees seek to increase editorship ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrators

I've followed a little of what you've been through with the forces at work here at Wiki, and I would like to comment. I too have seen the shift here at Wiki, and I am troubled by the attitude of the administrators. Power hungry and immature seems to describe their behavior best from what I've seen personally. We can only hope that this may change sometime in the near future. Good luck in all things you do. JuSlayer (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ju Slayer? What does that mean? Jew Slayer? I don't think I need that kind of help, thanks anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what "JuSlayer" meant, hopefully it wasn't "Jew Slayer", but I just wanted to say that I find these these "thanks for for all you've done here" postings to be more than offensive. That may sound strange, but what they're really saying, to my ear, is "OK, you've done a bit, but piss off if you want to, Wikipedia can easily do without you". I'd also like to take NYB to account for his open encouragement of pre-teen administrators, which I think has led to Wikipedia's imminent collapse. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy. I've paid the price of semi-retirement it seems; content to tend my own uncontroversial articles in the walled garden I'd built, I didn't see until too late the shit you, and FAC, have gone through these last few weeks and months, and which I've just spent the last couple of evenings wading through with an increasing disheartenment I'm tempted to let vindicate my decision to leave. I can't say my input would have made any difference, even if I'd chosen to give it, but I shouldn't have let my disillusionment with the project blind me to what was happening to those still attempting to make a difference. Anyway, words are the easiest shit I'll ever take, and I'm sure you've had more than enough of that; you know what an influence you've been without my having to join in with the general eulogising. All the best, Steve ^T • C 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Steve, it is always a joy to hear from you; I often think of you and hope you're well. The dung flung at FAC was disgusting, but that wasn't really the worst of it for me. It is most thoughtful of you to take the time to write: kindness heals :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW JuSlayer stands for Justin Slayer (pornstar) JuSlayer (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Sock = blocked. Jclemens (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, i just thought that i would say "hi" (a little blast from the past). we both know that the problem with some of the admins is not new. the amazing thing is that the remaining "authority" here (such as it is) cannot admit to mistakes of the past. Consider the known case of User:Orangemarlin. he was the person who falsely accused me of attacking him as an IP which is the very reason cited for me being blocked indefinitely. now that they figgered out that Orange was a bad player (he very well may have set me up and "attacked" himself, he and KillerChihuahua blamed it on me from the beginning even though User:Fred Bauder told them that check user did not confirm their suspicion) they still don't want to fix mistakes. i have emailed Jimbo a few times about it. early he would respond with a request for diffs (which i supplied), but nothing happened and now he doesn't answer emails. so, even though i never used an IP (or any other account) before getting banned, i'm pretty used to editing under the radar now. i will not start up another account, i want my original account to be vindicated. maybe in another 5 years. take care, Sandy. sorry that there are so many dumb people wielding power here at WP.

L8r, r b-j 19:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia article feedback tool

Have any of you copyediting experts sampled this tool? The results make no sense to me. I see someone has commented here. Quisquiliae (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sialoblastoma; Neuroendocrine Adenoma Middle ear; Ceruminous adenoma

Good morning: Thanks for your comments on my pages and for "clearning up." I would greatly appreciate someone adding the ICD-10 codes to the bottom of these tumors. Once I have seen one filled in, I hope to be able to add to subsequent additions. Also, I hope the photographs can have similar additions -- but I haven't seen an easy way of me adding the ICD10 or ICD9 codes to them. Pathophysiology is not the same as Pathology. Pathophysiology is the disease mechanism -- not the findings on microscopy. Microscopic findings would be fine -- but Pathology sort of covers both Gross (macroscopic) and histologic (microscopic) findings. Could you please clarify why these were changed? I changed them back until I can understand about this distinction unique to Wikipedia. Thanks for clarifying the signing! I thought it was odd -- since I didn't see it on other pages -- but I completely understand. As you noticed, I am a physician, a pathologist specifically, and I am fairly well recognized in my field. It is for this reason that I was disappointed as well as "agitated" to see that when patients search for specific tumors, the information is random, non-coherent, and anecdotal. So, since the Wiki is more well respected, reliable and peer reviewed and organized, I figured I would contribute about 50 or 60 pages over the next year or so (1 per week) on the topics that are not in the Wiki. If you have some good advice for me -- or better yet -- I am happy to contribute the content and make it as good as possible, if someone like yourself who is more familiar could perhaps monitor my contributions closely, and give guidance as you have here for corrections and layout guidelines so they are more conforming. By the 5th or 6th one, I hope to be more proficient. I remain, Lester D.R. Thompson, M.D. 18:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soca1zim (talk • contribs)

Hi, Soca; do you prefer to be addressed as Lester, Dr or Soca1zim ?? Nice to meet you-- it is encouraging to come across someone who is making good additions to our medical content.

I am not sure what you mean about adding the ICD codes to images; I don't work with images (better stated, I'm scared to death of working with images because of our copyright issues-- I've never uploaded an image). Have you seen the standard medical infobox, that includes ICD codes? If you can point me to an article about a similar tumor, which has an infobox and provide the ICD codes, I can show you how to add the infobox. Alternately, someone over at WT:MED may get to that more quickly than I can, since they know the other conditions and codes: I mostly edit in the neuropsych realm (Tourette syndrome, etc.)

Ah, on Pathophysiology then, perhaps those sections should have been "Causes" instead of Pathophysiology? I am not a physician (layperson), so I'm sorry for that mistake-- there is a section in WP:MEDMOS which explains our standard headings, and that may help you decide how to name those sections. Perhaps these would be "Causes" rather than Pathology Findings (and if we used Pathology findings, the F would not be uppercase per WP:MSH). Also here.

Yes, there is a good deal of bad, even dangerous, medical misinformation on Wikipedia, so it was a relief to encounter your work. It is something the med editors battle constantly. It would be wonderful if you would wander over to WT:MED and introduce yourself; you will find others there who will be of more help to you than I am, since the doctors hang out there. On the issue of citing yourself, you might want to carefully review the information at WP:COI to make sure you are in compliance (you may want to make some sort of identification on your user page, which is at User:Soca1zim. If you add something to that page, the link will turn blue and we'll know you intend to stay a while : Also, you can sign your talk page entries by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your edits, and when you get really ambitious, you can click on your Preferences tab and set up a custom signature.

I'm curious about one thing, just for my general knowledge: you've created a number of fine articles, without apparently coming across WP:MEDMOS or WP:MEDRS in your editing time. This is a source of frustration for many of us. If you don't mind the intrusion, I'd be interested in knowing more of your editing experience, how you came to Wikipedia, what path your editing took, and what we might do differently so that other new editors would encounter our medical guideline pages sooner in their editing career? For example, it appears that you started out at WikiProject Articles for creation, and no one there guided you to our medical pages: perhaps we can work on better educating the folks who hang out on that WikiProject ?? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to take a few days to reply, but I have a full time job:) I know that Wiki is used by patients and if they don't find something they will go somewhere else, where the information is not nearly as accurate. I have written 6 books, working on the 2nd edition of one of them now. I started out as a newspaper editor in high school, again in college, and am now the editor of Head and Neck Pathology journal (a publication put out by Springer). I find the difficulties in editing quite challenging, since there are several very arbitrary requirements. The ability to link, etc is very nice. The photograph loading is much improved now versus just a few weeks ago. I think it would be very nice if there were two components: a scientific editor and a copy editor. The scientific editor (such as myself) who is entering the information and making sure the content is accurate and medically correct. Then, a copy editor would go through it and make sure it is formatted correctly, that the citations are linked correctly, that the photographs are appropriately labelled, and that the specific order is correct. I am not sure if such a function actually exists or not. Perhaps it would be helpful to match a scientific collaborator with a technical collaborator; then, these two can work on a single entry to make sure it works well. Hope that helps. Lester D.R. Thompson, M.D. 23:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soca1zim (talk • contribs)

Reactive attachment disorder

Thanks for helping watch this. I keep on eye on it for obvious things (like the sock that keeps showing up) and Fainites doesn't seem all that active. I will watchlist other medical FAs and help keep an eye on them re: MEDRS. --Laser brain (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a big area of concern-- it can go downhill really fast. I see that Fainites hasn't edited for several weeks, so I emailed her. Other than that, it will be hard to help because I don't have sources, but a whole lotta text that has been chunked in there doesn't seem very necessary, and speculation about where DSM5 will end up is still premature. Glad you're watching it, but if Fainites doesn't surface, it may be hard to keep that article in shape. And I'm always surprised at how few editors are aware of how very closely the APA guards their copyright on DSM info; we have to be very careful about how we even paraphrase the diagnostic criteria. They've come after us before, and we had to launch a whole massive check and cleanup of every article (I know because TS was also on their list even though I was aware of this issue and had very carefully written it in my own words, so I was cleared, but being investigated was unpleasant). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of guts...

Your question here started me looking. It seems the answer (nothing, at least in the UK) is in the Forfeiture Act 1870, if hanged, drawn and quartered is to be believed. The former article needs a lot of work, if you're looking for some distraction. Perhaps a quote can be worked in:

Treason doth never prosper? What's the reason?
For if it doth, none dare call it treason.

LeadSongDog come howl! 22:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

PISA in Miranda

Sandy,

You wrote "Miranda was chosen because it is wealthy and accessible". That's wrong. I am actually involved in the PISA project and I was the one who put the OECD in contact with the government of Miranda after some Venezuelans (including me) had asked the national government to let the whole country take part in the PISA programme. You have no source to say "Miranda was chosen because it is wealthy and accessible", so I will put the PISA back. PISA is a voluntary programme and all countries are called to participate. The national government led by Chávez does not want it because it hates transparency (which I cannot prove but then I don't state that in Wikipedia). The Miranda government DECIDED to take part. I hope this does not become an editing war, please inform yourself firstly. --Periergeia (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know of my mistake-- there is no need for aggression. The source supplied was a primary source, slow to load, and not very helpful. PISA wasn't linked, so it took me a bit to figure out what it was. I have now found an English-language secondary source via Google; if you could better source the addition, it would be helpful. If you could additionally find a source that says that Miranda decided to take part, as a direct result of Capriles, it would be even better. Btw, I don't edit war; do you? There will be plenty of editors along later (closer to elections) who will try to diminish Capriles' bio, so making it as good as it can be early on will help. The fact remains (as stated in this source) that demographics and socioeconomics affect scholastic results universally, so directly linking something successful to Capriles would help make that entry more relevant to his article. [18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now looked at the text you added; it is original research, synthesis. No source given mentions Capriles, nor compares it to the Chavez administration policies on education. Please have a look and revise to address. Regardless if I remove it, someone will, and it does not help the article to have poorly sourced info to prop up a candidate-- there are plenty of secondary sources in English that discuss Capriles' education policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my!

Thanks for making me laugh - I'm touched that you noticed! My impressions of RLevse are somewhat influenced by reading the early history of GAR. Neither reverence nor disdain for his contributions/former-status seem to me to be helpful responses: tolerance, acceptance and mentoring make more sense, at least given genuine community engagement on his part in response. Geometry guy 21:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I can predict the next step. Someone criticizes you or me for pointing out his bad spelling, and then I have to mention that with the possible exception of Tbhotch, there is no one on the entire 'pedia who makes as many typos as and spelling errors as I do :) I do appreciate that post of yours, though; now I see it's hard to know which he meant! I've never said he shouldn't be unblocked, but some others there persist in presenting the whole Rlevse thing as some sort of witch hunt, based only on copyvio. I think he can be productive, and should probably be unblocked, but not with his fan club as mentors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh god that's funny. Reminds me of a love letter I wrote in first grade that was oddly scorned. It began, "Dear angle face..." --Laser brain (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If only it had been to Geometry Guy, all would have been well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I find "angle face" only marginally better than "angel face", but largely because I dislike trite cliches, rather than because I like the geometry of angles. If the subject of your affection was truly worth your time, Laser brain, the originality of your typo would have been met with appreciation, not scorn, so consider it a lucky escape :)

Meanwhile, Sandy, I hope Tbhotch has been notified that his/her name has been taken in vian?? :) Geometry guy 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

He acknowledges it in his sig-- maybe I should do same! If I added something to my sig asking folks to fix my frequent typos, do you think they would? :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I knew a guy who, without I think ever having ridden a motorbike, had a leather jacket studded with "Hell's Angles". It is of course a pun with a very long history. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, but given the nature of Wikipedia and the disputed credibility of the admin corps, such editors might also, occasionally, be blocked for doing so! There is no easy answer... Geometry guy 23:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I knew a guy who said "Lucy in disguise with diamonds". I got rid of the dummy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Years ago (in the early days of electric typewriters), I learned that the patterns of my typos were a result of the thinking while I was typing (in the days before word-processors, thinking while typing was a big no-no). So I have an excellent excuse for my typos. --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hallmark

Thanks for helping out with Hallmark of Hall of Fame movie Front of the Classs. I couldn't get the image to work for me, but it's there now and that's what counts. Also thanks for finding more sources and filling the blanks, such as summaries and plots. That's not my kind of thing. I was surprised no other user took the time to make a movie link, when Front of the Class was first announced. Especially since there's so much information out there now for Hallmark movies.

Your help is really appriciated. GiantTiger001 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ack! Thanks for the reminder that I was interrupted by Wikidrahmaz just as I was intending to expand that article from the sources. And thanks for getting the ball rolling. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)