RFinlay72

Peer Review of Presumption of Guilt

@RFinlay72: I would like to have the Presumption of guilt article peer reviewed (for a variety of reasons). In order to prepare the article for a peer review I have to remove the "POV tags" ("multiple issues"). The reason I want to nominate this article for peer review is that the last few months of edits have been rather circular in nature. For the most part, they revolve around trimming and/or adding examples. This means that either a) a peer review would be a quick stepping stone to Good-Article nomination, or b) we have run out of ideas and need to bring in additional editors. In both cases, a peer review should help. Please so not re-tag the article until after the peer review has been accepted, as it would complicate things, and it would be redundant as during the peer review, other editors will point out the specific POV issues ("line x..."), and offer suggestions to improve them. This process will take some time, but I think it would benefit this article greatly. Thanks for your participation - ElectroChip123 (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review? I don't really know or care what that is. I have no opinion on it. However, I do have the opinion that you would do better to refrain from trying to be a newbee admin-wannabee (or whatever) and instead roll up your sleeves and try to do the some of the actual shovel-work (I see you've done some). "Thanks for your participation"? Who says that? And, who are you to say that to me? It's like you think you're some kind of higher ranking authority or something, a gracious one yes, but the message comes through. Relax, buddy. We're in it together. Let's discuss the article and improving it instead of jockeying for position or needlessly getting all bureaucratic.

Regarding your statements:

1) "Circular in nature"? What the heck do you mean by that?

2) About "trimming" -- Of course it's about trimming. The article was loaded up with uncontrolled scope and unrelated nonsense. Just about any article with "presumed guilty" in the headline(!) was considered reliable and includable. That's crazy. Headline writers are incentivized to draw the eye, not to draw reasoned conclusions. Most articles with "PofG" in their headline didn't actually discuss how exactly it was PofG. It was also clear that a single editor dominated the addition of almost all of the off-topic material, and that he had some kind of point to make. He was framing just about anything unfair in the world as PofG. So yes, trim trim trim!

3) It's unclear how removing the tags at the top would interfere with a "peer review" process. The single editor with the "everything unfair in the world is PofG" point to make had made his point excessively -- and the article still is not purged of that problem. It's on its way, but it's not there yet.

4) GOOD ARTICLE?!!! Are you nuts? :-) It's a CRAPPY article. It probably should be deleted for non-notability for crying out loud. Really. I'll say that again:

The article should probably be deleted for having no secondary sources establishing notability of the subject, AND for having no sources even defining the subject within some workable constraints.

5) If you want to save the article, pay some attention to the post I made about scope control and have at it. Find some reliable references (not just a headline) with a well-constrained definition(s). Packer looked like an excellent place to start to me. Look critically at the current refs as to whether they actually support the point. Look critically at the points as to whether they are in that to-be well-defined scope.

6) If you want to get others involved, recruit them to do some of that "shovel work" instead of that probably-useless "peer review".

RFinlay72 (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@RFinlay72: Regarding your concerns:

1. Circular in nature: You add something, Crawiki removes it, Crawiki adds something, you remove it, and it's all the same things being added and removed. For example, the bible verse was added and removed on at least six different occasions. That's pretty circular to the average reader. Clearly, the editing was going nowhere and others needed to be brought in.
2. "Trimming": well yes, but "Headline writers are incentivized to draw the eye, not to draw reasoned conclusions." is an issue that applies to all political articles, including our one on "Russian interference in the 2016 election". "It was also clear that a single editor dominated the addition of almost all of the off-topic material" ok and? That isn't inherently bad, after all, the article was rather small, plus, some of what you considered "off topic material" wasn't actually off-topic. Even my atheist English teacher(s) (not all of them were atheist, but the ones that were) said that one should read the bible just to understand the references in American Culture. Emphasis on atheist. "and that he had some kind of point to make". As did you. I mean, you seem to be trying to make the point that "presumption of quilt is ok", even though it violates the Universal Declaration of human rights. You are here to make the best encyclopedia possible, right?
3. The peer view process explicitly states that articles with tag will not be reviewed. See for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/guidelines
4. Hence why I nominated it *facepalm.gif*. The point is that it has the potential to be a Good Article, and based on points 1 and 2, it was going in circles.
5. You are welcome to give some feedback on the peer review page. Furthermore, "scope control" isn't very specific. Getting specific feedback is why I nominated it for a peer review.
6. Controlled mediated escalation. If the peer review accomplishes sufficiently nothing, I will nominate it, in its current state, for Good Article or Featured Article review. Of course, you adding the tag back on it voided the nomination. You don't own the article, and your revert made no sense because I explicitly laid out why I removed the tags in this very thread on your very own talk page (aka here). Either way, the point was to get feedback and invite other editors to work on and improve the page. That is the intent of the peer-review process. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

1. You're defining "circular" as an edit war? Or as the normal healthy BRD? Regardless, there was no real "back and forth" after Crwiki seemed to have stopped. Even so, going "back and forth" is the normal course of BRD. Nothing wrong with that. You seem to be troubled by it, but I can't help you there. The editing wasn't "going nowhere", as healthy BRD is intended to successfully go somewhere, which it did. You need to get over your aversion to BRD.

2. You seem to be trying to make some kind of deep philosophical points here, but I can't figure them out. Sorry. That's not an invitation to clarify it for me. I really don't care about your dumb "deep" ideas. You're probably not as deep as you think anyway, so just let it be.  :-)

3. If it needs a tag, it shall not not reviewed. That makes sense because the tag says that editors "on the scene" have decided already that the article is below par and review would be wasteful. The inverse of that is false: if one (one!) editor gets an idea in his head that an article must be reviewed, then any tag shall be summarily removed. Not only is that false, it's stupid. The desire for a review may certainly motivate actual improvement, followed possibly by a consensus to remove some tag(s). That would be very righteous. But, automatic tag removal just to push a bad, tag-deserving article up to a review is crazy.

4. Every article has the "potential" to be a "good article", duh ("FACEPALM.GIF"). But, an article should only be set up for a review if it has a reasonable shot. An article going through a short period of BRD ("going in circles") has nothing to do with any of that.

5. If you don't know what "Scope Control" is, then study up on it. It's a well understood idea. You've got a strange idea in your head (that you need to exorcise) that a bunch of editors are going to sweep in and save the article for you. It just doesn't work that way. This is just another article in need of major fixing (or just deletion). You'd have more success if you actually contributed to improving it more instead of dreaming your fairy-dream of a bunch of pixies doing it for you. You want "feedback", but you need a backbone.

6. If the "intent" of a peer-review process really was to get more eyes on an article, then not having a tag wouldn't be a requirement for it, so that's dubious. Regarding "owning" an article, you're out of line with that comment. Reality in these kinds of situations is that sometimes only one person is motivated to do anything, and for a time the history list has a lot of one editor on it. It doesn't mean that editor feels (he) "owns" an article (which I don't feel, of course).

RFinlay72 (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

In universe

The term in-universe is entirely appropriate for groups and publications that treat science fiction as reality. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)