- MaranoFan, thank you for drawing my attention to this interchange. Heartfox was not using MOS:CONFORMTITLE as a way of assessing article preparedness for FAC, but helpfully pointing out that without meeting this guideline an article will not pass criterion 2 and will be ineligible for promotion. That they were also gently reminding you that in their opinion you seem to be repeatedly bringing articles to FAC with similar failings. This is the sort of thing which reviewers are supposed to do: to quote the FAC instructions "the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria". Further "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism". Heartfox might reasonably have expected thanks for pointing out weaknesses in the article, especially considering that as they consider them repeated and systematic issues they would not have been out of order to oppose.
- Heartfox, thank you for your contributions - here and elsewhere - to ensuring that nominations to FAC meet the criteria. I appreciate them. However, it is possible that you are over-reacting to the diff you post above. I see no mention of you or any other editor; just an in context comment that MOS:CONFORMTITLE "issues should probably be fixed before an FAC, lest someone moan about it there". In this they are quite right - it is the sort of thing I have had reason to moan about myself when reviewing, and which I moan about further immediately above. I think it helpful that they are passing on such tips and do not, myself, find the mildly jocular way in which they do so inappropriate.
- I hope that you will both assume good faith, step away from the horse and concentrate on what you are both so good at - improving Wikipedia articles.
- For information, the closing coordinator will be taking into account Heartfox's comments above in reaching their decision, regardless of whether they subsequently decide to formally support or oppose. If time permits I shall review the article myself, taking especially into account MOS:CONFORMTITLE. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your participation here, Gog the Mild, and thanks for addressing me by my name which I prefer to "the nominator". And I do thank Heartfox for their review, which I think has improved the article tremendously whether they decide to support or not. Anyways, the fact that they went through seven (!) of my FACs and then also started reading peer reviews I was doing for other articles stood out as quite unusual to me. Obviously, my comment on the peer review was a general one and this user was not tagged or mentioned by name in any way. I do not anticipate being stalked all the time and having to censor myself everywhere I post... To date I have commented on only one or two of their FACs, which were years apart. I hope their review here is registered as a support because this was a decent amount of work...--NØ 12:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Gog the Mild I can't assume good faith here, not after MaranoFan's edit summary is a boldface lie. At no point publicly or privately have I "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process". Show me the diff, MaranoFan. You moved the comments here because, as you noted on my talk page, you think my review might dissuade other editors from reviewing. What a ridiculous thing to do to move comments to a talk page simply because the reviewer did not support and say it's because of "page loading time". There's three reviews; how can the page loading time be slow? Support is not mandatory, and there is no oppose, so I don't know what the issue is. I did not go through your peer reviews to find the comment. I am active on the peer review page and it is one nominated by Aoba47, who I have worked with frequently. I don't stalk you and have never even edited any of the Meghan Trainor or Adele articles you focus on. The featured article stats are all available publicly at https://facstats.toolforge.org/editor.php. I did not systematically go through your edit history to find anything.
- But you are recently commenting in various places clearly referring to me, but not by name, like at Gog's talk page about this FAC: "and it would be a good confidence building measure after someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards (my nom would be eligible for the same award) tried to derail it by starting political arguments". Wtf is this about? Nothing was derailed, there is no oppose (and never was), the review concluded (as I indicated), and the article is better. You are reading into things that are not there and continue mischaracterizing the review. The above comments should be returned to the main page as they were moved here under false pretenses, and I hope MaranoFan will retract their outrageous lie about my withdrawing from the review, which I never did nor indicated. In fact, I said that "Everything has been addressed". Heartfox (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Under no obligation should an inflammatory WP:ASPERSION like "Since the nominator has characterized my indication of MOS:CONFORMTITLE issues as 'moaning', I am not in a position to support as this feels disrespectful to my time and the process" that would clearly bias other reviewers be moved to the top of my review page, clear lie since this user's name was not taken. I will move to a noticeboard to discuss this behaviour if I notice this happening. Anyways, they indicated "everything [in their review] has been addressed" and they do not wish to !vote, indicating a completed review which is fine to keep in the talk page history. I was talking about the loading time of WP:FAC, not this individual review page. I think we are done here unless there are any further concerns with the article content or anything strictly related to the FA criteria (which is an article award, not "who's the sweetest cutuu reviewer" award). Please disengage immediately if you cannot bring it back to the content.--NØ 17:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @FAC coordinators: Can a nominator just unilaterally decide to move a review to the talk page? As someone who spent time reviewing the article it feels a little sad that my review is essentially being cast off to the talk page "to reduce page loading time as user has expressed wish to withdraw from the review process." No reasonable reviewer would consider my comments lengthy enough to impede page load time, and the second half of MaranoFan's justification is simply a lie. I have given them an opportunity to retract on their talk page, but they have not yet responded. WP:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE says that "reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive." I didn't know nominators can also do this, even when the resolved commentary is relatively short? I am struggling to comprehend my future at WP:FAC if nominators can just transfer all of my reviews to the FAC talk page because they feel like it. Heartfox (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- (Non-Gog or any other Co-ord comment) Impartial observer here. Don't take it to heart Heartfox—there's a strong body of opinion that argues for that to be the norm (i.e., that the only thing left on the nomination page at its conclusion should be a list of !votes, with all discussion and review minutiae parked on talk). I think SandyGeorgia will correct me if I'm wrong. In this particular case though, I'd agree that even if MF was entitled to move it, to move just this and no other (supporting) commentary is disingenuous, at the least. When combined with a highly misleading edit summary (see WP:SUMMARYNO) that verges on an aspersion, then I'd likely quote Jimmy Wales over it. By the way, you correctly note the advice of WP:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE. But I think the operative word there is "resolved". This discussion was clearly not resolved, so should not have been moved. 2¢ SN54129 14:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]On edit, and having said all that: I think this is a one-off and a storm in a teacup—starts with a couple of minor misunderstandings, then boom!—it's all over the place. I don't think, hopefully, that trouts or withdrawals are necessary, just a handshake and we all move on. I know it's easy to feel picked on or trolled in most of these behind-the-scenes projects, often precisely because they're behind the scenes and populated with a relatively small number of editors. For example, I've seen both of you around FAC—obviously we edit in very different areas—while I've always been impressed by Heartfox's reviews, and particularly GA work, and I've been equally sympathetic to MaranoFan's tenacity; they've encountered several barriers along the way, but have always come back cheerful and determined. That's why I think this is all—hopefully—one big blowout followed by an aperitif :) SN54129 16:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- SN54129 has it right; it's unfortunate that lengthy reviews aren't placed on talk to begin with, that reviewers feel that talk reviews are "cast off to a talk page", or that Coords don't do this kind of moving themselves or do more encourage reviewers to engage at WP:PR. I've been unable to load the FAC page for a long time, but this is not worth a storm in a teacup. There is nothing wrong with reviews being placed on talk, and long reviews on the main page are discouraging to subsequent reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- An ANI was archived with no action taken; additional comments here are understood but superfluous. Collapsing to focus on what matters for the good of everyone. New month, new mindset :) Heartfox (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
