User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch76

Trying to keep up

Hi, Sandy. I just wanted to let you know that I'm thoroughly motivated to stick with this (in fact, I've dreamed about it two nights running!), but I am very challenged at the moment by a work deadline with which I have no wriggle room. Most of the time, my job is gloriously undemanding, but when deadline rolls around I can be slammed. I'm off to read the various conversations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm glad the issues are in such calm, competent, capable hands ... I actually have too much going on to be able to keep up with it all, so am limiting where I weigh in. I'm very confused about why Sherwood is being edited without reverting to the pre-copyvio version, but I don't understand all of this as well as you do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not entirely calm, or I wouldn't be dreaming about it. :) The problem of copyright violations on Wikipedia is one that's had me wracking my brains for solution for well over a year. I haven't even looked at that article today and probably won't get to until later. I have no idea what's being done. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It's being actively edited without a reversion to the pre-copyvio version; I suggest consolidating work and commentary at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1 to try to get everyone on the same page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
      • … where you'll find User:Uncle G/Grace Sherwood noted and available. If Secret wants something to work on, there it is. ☺ If you're all happy with that as a basis, I'll history merge it in. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't keep up with that, Uncle G, but you copyvio people have impressed the hell out of me, and I'm sure you all will handle it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
          • That draft is more my article rescue hat than my copyright hat. See Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Rescuing a Featured Article. It's a quick stub to push the article up out of the dank and dismal depths. Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters

Some aspects of the FAC are now becoming nitpicky feedback loops, i.e., add detail, remove detail, add cites, remove cites, link, don't link, etc...etc...etc...I have been put on too many goose chases and random assingments from drive-by posters who don't support after their concerns are addressed. There are 6 supports as of now, how many does the article need to close the FAC? — GabeMc (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to run through FAC again tonight or tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, this is getting so tedious I am wondering if I will ever run another article through FAC ever again. — GabeMc (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is where you should have come in, as a supreme delegate, to sothe, but you ignored me untill I lost my cool. You could have smoothed things out SG but instead you let SV nit-pick away at things that don't stop her articles from being FA. You are biased, IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at Tomlinson and see if I am wrong? The article says he was an alcoholic, but it's not sourced, among other things. — GabeMc (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am just having a bad day, but your closeness with SV makes your objectivity questionable. — GabeMc (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

One negative exchange with Sv and the month long FAC is closed. Defend you friends much? — GabeMc (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done almost 2,000 edits to Roger Waters over the past 11 months, how can you close the FAC based on ONE negative comment to SV? — GabeMc (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This will be my final response and then I'm off for the day; if you disagree with my action, discuss it with the community at WT:FAC, and Karanacs or Raul can overturn me if necessary. To answer your question: first "one negative comment" that was perhaps intended to be antisemitic; second, without strenuous review, we end up with potentially crap FACs and debacles on the main page (a current concern, and we are attempting to address that at FAC), and third, it wasn't just one comment-- you targeted her FACs, after two warnings, in what looks like retaliation for the review, which if allowed to stand, compromises the integrity of FAC. But most importantly, reviewers invest valuable time and hard work in to helping improve articles, and it doesn't appear you are in the best frame of mind to incorporate constructive criticism. With all that you've accomplished on the article, I hope to see you back in a few weeks when you're ready to tackle it again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't being anti-semitic, I am 1/4 Polish Jew, I suggested that SV was being unfair to Waters based on Foxman's accusations that he was being anti-semitic. How funny, you just accused a 1/4 Jew of being an anti-semite. — GabeMc (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Closeness to SV???? I think you are a bit off there. While they can be civil to each other (as we all should be) SV and SG are hardly "close". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a seething sexual tension. Like Alexis and Krsytle Carrington in a hot tub. Rage and hot suds. --Moni3 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that what a short break is supposed to look like? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter really, if the FAC process discourages editiors Wiki will suffer in the end. Tedious is one thing, but over a month long? It's just way too much to be worth it, when you are a volunteer. I may not be a great editor, but I was donating my time, but don't worry, SG, Iyou won't ever see me at FAC again. — GabeMc (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It was over a month long because you took a 10 day break in the middle. Johnbod (talk)

No, it was more like 7 days, I was bust attending Roger Waters concerts, let's see, I sat 9th row center, 25th row center and 2nd row stage left. Yeah, I sure missed out. — GabeMc (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"but don't worry, SG, Iyou won't ever see me at FAC again" - that's unfortunate. The article may not have been FA-ready (well, IMO anyway), but that doesn't mean your contributions aren't valued. Its certainly a much better article now than it was when I looked it over a year or so ago. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, when Wiki is reduced to a popularity contest, I won't miss it. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You're looking at a pretty unpopular person (in certain circles) right here GabeMc, and I hang around with similarly unpopular people. Don't take it personally, even if you think others do - the article wasn't ready. My first FAC failed rather miserably. The FAC for DSotM also failed first time. Keep at it, and if you'd like my help don't be worried about asking, that's why I'm here.

Oh and I've lurked on Sandy's page for quite a while, I can assure you that she's one of the most level-headed people here. Parrot of Doom 23:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If SG was level-headed, then why close the FAC in retaliation for edits I did at Tomlinson. And I know I was right about some things at tomlinson because SV has now changed them as I suggested. Should the FAC be closed like this, is this even appropriate? — GabeMc (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You got that right PoD. I hate you almost as much as I hate myself. :lol: Maybe we should start an !RfA process, where the most unpopular editors get an even shake of the stick. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(to GabeMC) I don't think the archiving was in retaliation for anything. Rather the process was starting to become disruptive, due to your understandable frustration with the difficulties you encountered during the FAC. I believe those difficulties were primarily because the article isn't yet at FA-quality. Its that simple, really. People are reviewing the article you present for FAC, they're not criticising you - if they are, they're idiots, and you should ignore them. Parrot of Doom 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• SG, please reconsider closing the FAC. I know I slipped up today, I'm human, I apologized immediately afterward. I have worked on this for almost a year, surely one bad day shouldn't be enough to end it. — GabeMc (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not "ended". Just work on the article over the next couple of weeks to iron out the wrinkles that some reviewers complained about and take it back to FAC, when it should have a much easier passage. Most if not all of us have suffered similarly. Heck, I even had an article fail at GAN once, never mind FAC. Mind you, I was steaming mad about it, but that's another story. Take the time to prepare the article properly now that you know what kinds of criticism are going to be levelled at it next time, and next time will be a relative breeze. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Note

Heads up: I took your name in vain here. While I chose you as someone who would in fact be the diametric opposite of the term I used to describe you, there's a chance that people won't catch the ironic intent. So feel free to delete the whole thread if you want. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I just noticed that you've been going through some on-Wiki malarkey and that your pooch has gone to meet Brownie and Ginger. Please accept my apologies if my mention cited above has caused you any additional stress or discomfort. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all-- humor is always welcome, particularly in terrible times. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Extent of plagiarism

Hi Sandy, and sorry to hear real life has been treating you rough.

Just a little heads-up that I thought you might be interested in a note I left for Moonriddengirl.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 17:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What to think?

I am not overreacting, but I am not sure what to think about this edit. I was surprised to see the article called out like that on the talk page after passing what I thought was an unusually rigorous FAC, with scrutiny from both delegates and presumably Raul. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nasty Housecat, I think what Sandy is saying is that it is never a good situation when the delegates are the ones that catch potential issues even though other reviewers have supported the article. You did a lot of work on the article and were responsive to concerns, but it would have been nice for other reviewers (me included) to recognize what the "red flags" are when reading an article. Karanacs (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I've been a good boy—I've been copy-editing various articles flagged with the c/e template. :) So far so good: it wasn't a tease! — Deckiller 22:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Exteding a hand and a ? ...

Hey Sandy, I respect your comment and oppose at RFA. As I said in my opening remarks, I did not handle myself in 2008 with the proper decorum as an editor in the FA nomination you cite. However, I hope that you will not universally hold my editing styles of 2 years ago against me forever. Either way, I just wanted to extend my hand - as I know we "clashed" years ago - but would love the opportunity to work together with a clean slate in the present (regardless of what occurs at RFA). As an aside, because I am unsure, am I expected to respond to "oppose" votes or are we expected to discuss the issues you raised on the actual RFA? I believe I can provide ample replies to your concerns, and I am willing to, but not sure if that is usually done. Would discussion of your concerns be more appropriate for the RFA talk page for instance? Thanks.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, Ms. "notorious troublemaker". Thought you should know. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SandyGeorgia#Note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See also A Modest Proposal, the (perhaps-not-as-well-known-as-once-it-was) satirical essay to which SBHB must have been referring in the edit summary. It's a bit of a clue that it wasn't a serious reference... Bencherlite^Talk 23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought so! Sandy's not well known enough to be notorious :).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Right-o. I best be shutting my mouth as usual. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 23:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomic authorities

Sandy, it is commonplace to put taxonomic entities with their authorities thus: Regulus ignicapilla balearicus (Von Jordans, 1923). Until now, that seems to have been accepted as an adequate citation. I have been asked at a GAN that will be going to FAC eventually to provide a full citation. That is always possible either from a book or Zoonomen. However, it is convention in all books and journals to list citations like this Regulus ignicapilla balearicus Von Jordans 1923 Falco 19 Sonderheft p.3, that is, without the article title (if the original description is in a journal, rather than a book). Two questions

• I think the (Von Jordans, 1923) format is adequate citation, especially as it has never been queried in my articles or, as far as I know, in any others. Am I wrong?
• If a full citation is needed, in my view it should respect the convention of not giving article titles when citing journal sources. The original journals are often impossible to find anyway, so the title space would have to be left blank.. Do you agree?

Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jim, no need to alert the cavalry! I honestly thought that this was just a citation that hadn't yet been converted from Harvard style to inline citation (Vancouver, I guess) style, didn't occur to me as I was reading it that you were showing a species authority. Sasata (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Since we're here anyways, isn't it convention to not give the authority in parentheses, as that implies the name has been changed? I remember Ucucha pointing that out in one of my GANs. Sasata (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In zoology, the authority is placed between parentheses when the species is no longer placed in its original genus. Ucucha 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is the case here, I've added "as Sylvia ignicapilla" to make that clear. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I thought you might find this post, and its subsequent comments, entertaining :) Parrot of Doom 18:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I did. Reddit is fun to watch. Not so fun to cross. --Moni3 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post and The Guardian have the story too. Still, makes FAC easier now the whole of the Internet's PD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Links? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsure which linky is desired, but the original has inspired a Grauniad newsblog which isn't all that informative, and a rather better LAT piece (newsblog?) which gives further links, + the WaPO piece. Another recipe for fun is summarised in a guide by The Rabett, with a shorter followup. Interesting times. One useful link from that leads to the Office of Research Integrity..... dave souza, talk 18:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

PapaJohns.com Bowl

I just reviewed the article. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl/archive1. I'll go ahead and remove it from the template :) —Deckiller (t-c-l) 01:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Query

I have responded to you multiple times; I fail to see the point of another reply, especially since everyone disagreed with me. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Nyttend. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to take it to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Really?

I've only been keeping a tangential eye on the RfA brouhaha on Jimmy's talk page, but there's a point I wanted to get a clearer view of your opinion on. You really believe that the criteria at RfA are too low? I mean, I agree with you that the process is pretty much broken, and quite a bit for some of the same reasons you do. But you think that the current process lets through unqualified people rather than prevent qualified editors from getting the bit? — Coren ^(talk) 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the false positives are worse than the false negatives. But, I suspect those days are over, and it is no longer a concern-- more people are now looking more closely at the automatic, pile-on, MySpace "popularity" votes. Particularly when the candidate tries to evidence writing ability via DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Any time I see a bunch of support votes from people with razzle-dazzle sigs, I know extra scrutiny is needed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What's your standard for "razzle dazzle"? :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Does it disrupt the page, is it hard to read around (for folks with old eyes), and is it impossible for newbies or experienced editors to figure out the username and the talk page link. We do not all have young eyes: one has his username in a teensy tiny superscript, others have absurd terminology that doesn't indicate how to find talk, and others are just disruptive on every count imaginable (TonyTheTiger). Others are so colorful that they can't be helpful to vision-impaired editors. Others are so large or so small that they make reading FAC a chore ... it goes on and on. As long as they can't respect my age, I don't have to respect theirs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Sandy, I don't think readability concerns in regards to eyesight really factor into many people's thinking processes unless they're prompted. I don't think they're all kids, just people who like messing with markup a little too much... you can always leave a polite note at their talk page before you consider them callow whippersnappers (and they view you as Sandy the mean old witch.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen that work, no matter how often I raise it-- and, did it work with TonyTheTiger? Remember how long that went on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really... one of the benefits of not stalking your page that often is I stay out of the loop about most of this stuff (heck, I just found out about the whole Rlevese thing yesterday night.) You've probably tried the usual tactics and you put up with way more bull than I have to, so take my words with as little regard as necessary. :) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who had an absurd signature for a time, I can corroborate Herr Fuchs' comment regarding mere playing about with markup (when one considers typewriters to be high technology, the novelty of computers can at times lead to distracting experimentation). Additionally, I found a large red signature to of great use (also by reason of old eyes - and brain to which they're attached) when tracking which FACs I'd reviewed. Bombastic signatures can indeed be a red flag, but the content preceding them should always be judged on its own merit (or lack thereof). Эlcobbola _talk 19:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I believe I said on Malleus's talk that I had to accord them equal weight, for example, at FAC, but I didn't have to read them on someone else's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ecx2)Too many people have hard-to-read signatures. It's annoying if you're an old hand, but for newcomers it's really not good. We should try harder to encourage people not to be excessively fancy. In the relevant part of Preferences it points to the guideline, pointing at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing_your_signature, but ideally the entirety of the paragraph "When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind" should be quoted in the Preferences, perhaps in a boxout to the right to separate it from the technical instructions. Anyone know how this might be done? Rd232 ^talk 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I said some days ago that page needed work, and my eyesight ain't gettin' any better, but I don't have time to work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well no doubt the policy page can be improved, but it would really help if the Preferences text was clearer and more prominent (though obviously it can't tackle all the issues in the limited space there). Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

David: Razzle-dazzle: "a confusing or colorful often gaudy action or display" (M-W). Tri-tones or more, boxes, non-standard characters, easter-egg links. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And let's not even get in to choice of usernames, which is another problem! Heck, I've got more than one editor mad at me because I have a habit of trying to address editors by name, and often get them wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, just wanted to thank you for bringing up the sig issue. For readers with vision issues and other screen related issues, it's a valid concern. Sigs that are overly large, brightly colored, and use hard-to-read fonts distract from the text and can cause headaches. Pastels are okay - bright colors, not so okay. Now all I have to do is figure out how to shorten mine to TK ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry that I still have failed to e-mail you about your eye surgery and migraines (I think I'm well beyond derelict now), and hope you're doing better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about - you'll get caught up someday. Maybe. Hopefully. It's not as though things haven't been a bit busy around here lately. Just wanted to add to the sig discussion because people don't realize how distracting the colors are. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And look at the kind of mindless things that can be done when not actively editing ... TK (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I should be joining you soon, as IRC is probably all in a whirl about which admin gets to block me for calling a spade a spade. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Mindless indeed - like removing no source concerns from obvious copyvios ([1], [2], etc.) I do hope concerns about this user's (lack of) competence receive community attention. Эlcobbola _talk 21:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently non-admins know how to apologize :) "Community attention" is not applied equally to admins; should he or any of my detractors succeed in having me blocked for telling him he has no character, integrity or scruples, let it be known now that I do not want ANYONE to remove the block, period, without a full airing of the double standard at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the spirit! Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you're getting your spirits back, too! Hard times recently for everyone: what doesn't kill 'ya makes 'ya stronger, and there may be hope for this place after all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am. I've come late to the realisation that no matter what any of us do here there will still be a queue a mile long dissecting it in infinite detail, looking for the smoking gun that proves we're the bastards they always believed us to be; all we can do is what we believe to be right, and bugger the consequences. Thinking about wikipedia in terms of Transactional Analysis also gave me some insight into where I was going wrong in my approach, in particular taking some nonsense too seriously. Replaying old scripts in the context of the TA Parent-Child-Adult relationship finally allowed me to see the wood for the trees. It took far too long though, must be getting old. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, come on ... I want all the credit for your turnaround! I've been trying to cheer you forever, but I do sense that you've finally gotten now to where your heart can go back in your chest instead of on your sleeve. For me, I'm sick of hearing the arbs tell us to use Dispute Resolution, when we all know it's broken. We Shall See ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You certainly told me that many times, but I never really understood what was causing it until now, because I'm not like that in real life at all. Anyway, we'll see how the arbs deal with the growing unrest amongst the peasants. My guess is that Iridescent had it spot on; they'll close their eyes and pretend that everything is hunky-dorey. Time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, (re Coren at thread top) ...consider the problem of children promoting other children at RFA, when none of them know anything of the fundamentals of the project or adequately scrutinize the candidates, because they don't even know how? I get slapped on the wrist every time I try to bring this issue up, but perhaps it's because I make it on the right talk page rather than in obscure places such as Jimbo's talk page that might not even be on everyone's watchlist (It's not on mine). Your suggestions, along with those of some of the other heavyweights, are among the most focussed, and if threads such as that were to be kept in one place, your comments would carry even more weight and we might eventually get some action. --Kudpung (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Heck, I'm so busy I can barely type, much less in the right place :) I still think the best way to turn around RFA is by example-- if they don't, can't, or won't read, show 'em by example! And it is getting better, IMO, just in the two weeks I've been following. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, even though the process is supposed to be a debate, no crat can risk overturning a clear majority of pass or fail !votes, even if they are made by kids. But that's only one of the many reasons why RfA is a trainwreck.--Kudpung (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep! The only place on Wiki that isn't a "vote" is FAC. One well placed oppose-- even comment-- can prevent an ill-prepared article from being promoted. No Such Thing at RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

GAR used to be a vote, but moved away from that in 2007-2008, and although GAR discussions are closed in a fairly conservative way in general, the conclusion has sometimes been contrary to the majority view, on the grounds that comments were out of date or did not address the GA criteria. I don't know if RfA can learn anything from this, but it raises an interesting counterpart to the "well-placed oppose", namely the "invalid oppose". Geometry guy 20:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

G guy, I saw that oversight soon after I typed it, but never got around to fixing it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no worries: I would have commented yesterday if I was at all bothered about such matters! For instance, GAN is also not a vote (to both its advantage and detriment), but that is not a terribly helpful example in connection with RfA!! No wait, hang on a minute, how about a system where one admin appoints another until s/he screws up... and only then we have an RfA?! ;) Geometry guy 21:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

FAR talk page

Hey Sandy, can you put your 2 cents into this? I don't know what to say to him. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Error on page

Sandy, apologies. I posted while running out the door to go visit family, and I've only just now got back to the house. If you go to User talk:Elen on the Roads you'll see what happened earlier (rather amusing). I have corrected the statement, although I do believe it makes no difference, as several of the participants are in my opinion making a significant effort to avoid looking at the evidence. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

King Vulture

I can't do a damn thing right anymore, can I? No one's gonna answer on the talk page; it hasn't been touched in 10 months at least. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you weren't aware of the new instructions, but we don't need a long back-and-forth (I don't make the rules); please finish fixing it, as I'm busy. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see that discussion on the talk page first is now a requirement. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

3rd opinion needed

I was looking at DYK nominations the other day and found copyright violations at Hamersley & Robe River railway, and User:JamesBWatson rectified those concerns. Now, User:Calistemon (the creator) comes along at Talk:Hamersley & Robe River railway and says that "I really think, you need to gain some understanding what a copyright violation really is, mate. I go with User:JamesBWatson opinion that this is really a trivial matter". I would like to obtain your opinion on whether my concerns were "trivial". This is the text in the article (before rewording) compared to the reference:

• Article "With 1,300 kilometres of track, it is the largest privately owned heavy freight rail network in Australia."
  • Reference "With a network of 12 mines, three shipping terminals and the largest privately owned heavy freight rail network in Australia, our Pilbara operations make up a major part of our iron ore activities globally."
• Article "Each train comprises of up to 234 ore cars, each ore car with a load capacity of approximately 106 tonnes. A fully loaded train weighs approximately 29,500 tonnes and is about 2.4 kilometres in length. Each train has an average cycle time of 28 hours."
  • Reference "Each train is operated by a single driver, and comprises up to 234 ore cars, each ore car with a load capacity of approximately 106 tonnes. A fully loaded train weighs approximately 29,500 tonnes and is about 2.4 kilometres in length."
• Article "Treasurer Wayne Swan declared that access to the rail lines by third parties would increase competition, stop infrastructure double-ups and reduce damage to sensitive native title and environmental regions."
• Reference "Mr Swan declared the rail lines accessible by other users for 20 years on the grounds it would increase competition, stop infrastructure double-ups and reduce damage to sensitive native title and environmental regions."

Do these concerns seem petty to you? Whwya (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm really understanding how you feel. A 2005 admin, User:Moondyne threatened to block me for incivility personal attacks. Whwya (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You remove my warnings from your user talk page and then post them elsewhere out of context. So for the record, the warning was referred to this edit. –Moondyne 07:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, where exactly was the personal attack? Whwya (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to give you the pleasure of me republishing your words here. Anyone can see what you wrote. –Moondyne 08:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think the "largest privately owned heavy freight rail network in Australia" is a copyvio. Every single one of those words is essential to the statement: remove one and you get a different (and wrong) description, and the adjectives are plain English everyday terms one would naturally use, making it difficult to suggest alternative wording. Perhaps someone will correct me if I'm wrong. However, I don't think your comment at Talk:Hamersley & Robe River railway ("If you cannot realize that that is a copyvio, Wikipedia isn't the place for you.") was wise. If you end up being wrong about it, I hope you're big enough to offer an apology. Colin°^Talk 07:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the question, I agree with Colin on the first one. The second one causes me more concern, because there are idiosyncratic phrasings that are reproduced exactly. The third one is acceptable in my view. The thing is, sometimes there are a limited number of ways of saying something, and the author picks the best way, and the other ways are vastly inferior. If one adopts the author's phrasing once or twice in a large article, I see no problem. If it is routine, I see a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My 2c would be:

• First one is completely acceptable; "largest privately owned heavy freight rail network in Australia" is a statement of fact, necessary for the article, with no obvious way to rephrase it which would not decrease from readability;
• Second one is acceptable, in that it's a technical statement, but would probably benefit from being rephrased (and not by changing the correct "each train comprises…" of the original to the incorrect "each train comprises of…" of the Wikipedia article!)
• Third one makes it clear that it's a quote ("he declared that…"); although the quoted text ought to be in quote marks, I don't think anything's being breached here.

All three are certainly marginal breaches at worst; in the circumstances "If you cannot realize that that is a copyvio, Wikipedia isn't the place for you" was a totally inappropriate comment. – iridescent 11:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, question is whether there is a pattern or not, and that would take a close review of the whole article, which I will leave to the article's editors. There are times in writing articles, where I have to adopt the author's phrasing, or pretty close, because there is no good alternative phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There are also times (for example, in medical articles) where some phrases are so-oft repeated across all of the literature that they become part of common venacular and are the best language for expressing a consensus medical view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We should always edit articles to avoid any question of copyright violation. While it would be good to successfully defend a claim of violation, it is better not to be put in the position of having to defend it to begin with.

On the first sentence, it looks like the synthesis could have introduced an error. The quoted source does not say that railway is the largest because of its length (and I'm going strictly by the information here), yet that is what the article's sentence suggests. The railway may have 1300 km of trackage (or length of route -- which is it?), and is the largest, etc., but is that "largest" measured by length, ladings, or capacity? This could be an example of where an attempt to rewrite inadvertently introduces error.

The second item could be reworded, or specifically quoted. I agree that a rewording would resemble the source as it really is a calculation.

The third item can have quote marks. While the present (on this page, at least) does have attribution, without quote marks it is more likely that the phrase will later be edited to change its meaning.

The examples suggest that the draft article was a copy-and-paste. Once someone starts an article by copying and pasting a source as a first draft, it becomes too easy to adopt the structure and phrasing of the source. Kablammo (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As the "accused", I might just chuck in my opinion as well. As to the first and third sentence, I see little I could have done different, and little need to do so. The second sentence is a different matter. I should have made a better effort there, I will endevor to do so in the future! I think, with this opinion I'm pretty much in line with most other people here. Calistemon (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ghost

Are you planning to archive this, or have it deleted? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Crap, I dunno what to do. There's a history there, and every time one of them is deleted, it means I can't go back and track. I've lost the plot on those "Pumpkin" accounts, because I can't see deletions. I think we should leave it until The Rambling Man weighs in, as those have been a repeat problem. On the other hand, TRM can see deletions, so do whatever you think best-- it does make it harder for me to keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And while I was posting, TRM deleted it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Done with Pedro Álvares Cabral

Hi, Sandy! The last remaining issue with Pedro Álvares Cabral has been dealt with (Here: [3]). Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Change to PANDAS

I made an addition to the PANDAS article (Research). Please check it for appropriateness and completeness. Make any changes you deem fit, I won't quibble. Regards. Mensch (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there SandyGeorgia, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:SandyGeorgia. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm going to be away from Wikipedia from Nov 13th until the Nov 27th. (Traveling from the 13th till the 23rd, then flying home for Thanksgiving and packing for a move) I'm trying to empty my plate between now and then. Is there anything that needs my attention before I go? Raul654 (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Lennon

You're right. Thanks for the heads up. DocKino (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Mainpage appearance

Epa ! Un monton de gracias por hacer estas notificaciones, but they've got a typo :) It should be appearance, not apperance. Thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, "appearance" added to my summary, thank you :). Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Por nada, y muy agradecida! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Eyeglass fund

Seed investment for fund :-) Carcharoth (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC) thumb|right|Seed investment for fund

Seriously, why don't "they" move that button! I hit it twice in 24 hours. I shall send you the proper documentation for your tax returns just as soon as I set up the 501(c)3. You will be a founding member! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Placing .page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none;} on Special:MyPage/vector.css or Special:MyPage/monobook.css (whichever you are using) will hide the link from the watchlist. Ucucha 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, works, happy camper! Ucucha, is there anything you don't know? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would someone actually want to rollback an edit from the watchlist? Ucucha 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha! I do it all the time; it's embarrassing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did it to the arbs-- top that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't work - is there one if you don't have a css page? I haven't done it to the arbs, but have done it by accident to a few admins. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you clear cache, with ctrl-f5? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, did that and set up a css page. Still not working. Will give me something to play with for a moment - I'm supposed to be doing real work, but taking a break. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Weird—you're not using Vector by any chance? Ucucha 21:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Can you look at my page and see what's wrong? I use Safari - maybe it's that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind - got it. Very cool! Thanks so much... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Donation, please ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Now back to hermaphroditic snails... Ucucha 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I had exactly the same problem. Think we can persuade them to make this the default? I can't think of any reason anyone would want to undo an edit direct from the watchlist. – iridescent 21:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested. Ucucha 21:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I will look into it too. As you know (and have commented on, Sandy), it's easy to miss on a handheld. However, I am addicted to iphones, Words with Friends (same user name if anyone wants to play, warning, I'm good) and when in California, I got addicted to ... addicted to ... um, babes on the beach?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the image of the gold dollar is a copyvio. People posted a lot of coin images thinking regardless of source, that because most US coin designs are in the public domain ... however, a coin is a three dimensional object and so photographing one requires at least some skill.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. That was my fault. Sorry Sandy - I liked the gold dollar. Now I owe you something else ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Take one of the images from Saint-Gaudens double eagle with my blessing. They have been vetted.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Quicker filing of 3RR reports

Hello Sandy. If it takes you 13 minutes to file a report, consider trying the script at http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php next time. It does almost everything for you, including the diffs, provided you feed it the name of the article and the editor. The script is mentioned in the header of AN3, as the '3RR report helper tool.' EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed-- I did try it once a while back (can't remember how long), and it made me make a worse mess of things. If I have another opportunity (hope not!), I'll try it again to see if it, or I, have improved! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

On my to-do list is to write a better 3RR script, one which will combine adjacent edits into one revert and otherwise do a bit more to assist with preparing a report. Of course, doing so would probably take me longer than just filing the reports by hand, but if I make progress, I will let you know. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, MC-- I think it was you who originally linked me to the tool. I Hate Filing 3RR reports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You want Wikipedia:WIKISPEAK#3RR. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not easy being green

hey Sandy - long time no see. So about Lennon - the card is actually green, and it's commonly referred to as the green card, which people will be more likely to understand than the actually incorrect phrasing "received his permanent residency". You don't receive permanent residency, you receive certification that you are a permanent resident..... which is the green card. I tweaked the text a tad and re-added "green card" - it's really not jargon, it's common parlance. At least that's how I see it. Whaddya think? Good to see you! Tvoz/talk 23:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The green card in my house wasn't green ? I know it's common parlance, but does everyone know it? I don't feel strongly about it if you want to change it back, but they really aren't green-- the dollar bill is more green. Glad to see you at work there ! Things may get worse as Dec 8 approaches :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at the samples here; the one in my house looked like the bottom one-- no color or picture. They really are not green, but yes, I know they are referred to as that-- I sat through the interrogation, in separate rooms, about what kind of toothpaste I used and what color my pajamas were. :) But your tweak clarifies it nicely for non-US readers who may not know the jargon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sandy; "Green card" is an Americanism which will mean nothing to the other 95% of the world, and even the US ones haven't been green for decades. – iridescent 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked INS websites, and they call them green cards, and it even appears that maybe the newer ones are (??)-- but they weren't always, and we still have to think of non-US readers. But Tvoz's tweak handles that ... our article is a mess (no surprise there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think green card is common enough, through popular culture, that it is OK. And yes, green cards were pink once but that just made them better trivia questions. Yes, a few won't get it and will have to click a link, but really, doesn't even "permanent resident" require explanation or a link? It's hard to write an article that is entirely self explantory.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

[ec] Well, the ones I've seen are green - the one in the linked article on the bottom dates back a while, but what about the top one, the May 2010 picture? Looks pretty green.... I have family members in the process now, so, with any luck, I'll know first hand what color they are these days, and soon. In any case, Iridescent, I'm not so sure that the appropriate split of readers of en.wikipedia US vs world is really 5%-95%, and that movie was directed by an Australian and starred a Frenchman, and funded by those two countries, so I'm not clear that this is only known to Americans. (Of course Lennon's green card issue was an American issue, but that's another story.) I'd like to leave it as tweaked, as I think it is now clearer. And Sandy - I've been on this article since 2006, with over 100 edits, but it sometimes gets too contentious for even me (veteran of several wikiwars) - I think I may head for the hills on Dec 8. But I care about this one, and although I don't love everything about how it has been edited, I do think it holds together well as FA and I hate to see it rewritten as poorly as some of the recent folks in there have done. Was very glad you set it back to earlier version - that's what got my attention and brought me back in. Anyway - onward! Tvoz/talk 23:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I like your tweak, I don't care about green cards anymore, and I'm glad an experienced editor is in there before Dec 8! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Short attention span? <just kidding> Tvoz/talk 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really: when I'm done with something, I'm Done. :) Found! Now someone has to fix our article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's well known enough for Green Card (film) with that notorious alien Gérard Depardieu. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, although the film wasn't called that in most non-English speaking markets (generally some variation on "Marriage of Convenience"). I agree that Tvoz's fix is fine. – iridescent 18:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do the Argentines always have to be different? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, the Argentine version of things is usually marginally cooler than anyone else's, for some reason; from the music, to the architecture, to the football, right down to little things like the layout of Bue's city parks and the design of the subway map. (What gets me on the list is Quebec insisting on their own title, even though "Green Card" was perfectly adequate for France itself.) – iridescent 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cooler? Right ... like the suicidal person who landed on me, the bomb that blew up the house next door, the kidnapping I witnessed, the office blownout by a bomb, the long poultry strikes that force you to eat bife, bife and more bife, the shootout I was caught in, the armed guard I had to have after being followed escorting a child to preschool to avoid kidnapping, the discriminatory firing of Jewish women over Catholic men, and having to be smuggled out of the country to give birth because kids' names have to be on an official list or you can't get a passport. Yep, that's cool ! I could go on at twice this length, but ... oh, left out my favorite. All pregnant women must have a smallpox and tetanus vaccination while pregnant, by regulation, or a Dr. won't treat you. Hence, the smuggling out in the cockpit of a DC-10. After all, they may give birth in a barn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

PS, my fix to our article isn't complete-- I can't find a reliable source discussing why they were called green cards before they green. I imagine it came from "greenbacks". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(re 1) Hell, I wouldn't live in the place if they paid me, but I'd still rather spend a month in BA or Tigre than a month in Sao Paolo, Bogota or any of the other Latin American places that have suddenly become cool to visit. All the crime problems, the surrounding slums and a national diet that makes Glasgow look like a culinary capital, disguise the fact that central BA is still a genuinely nice place.

(re 2) Probably—in fact almost certainly—when they were introduced in Ellis Island days they were actually green and made of card. (I feel vaguely left out that I don't get a card—my British equivalent is just "given leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for an indefinite period" stamped in my passport, and a tacky red-and-blue credit card sized National Insurance card.) – iridescent 18:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I doubt that. This search shows 2 RS uses of Green Card from the 1940s. No doubt the stationery has been changed a few times since then, if only to hamper forgers. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You have a point: in Sao Paolo and Bogota, I had an armed guard and driver with me at all times, even to cross the street. But people know that about those cities, and strangely, think BA is different. Go fix our article :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

BA was the South American city I felt safest in, I wandered around freely. In SP and most other cities I got a car and driver. Although Cartagena, where my brother lives, I felt very safe in. But then I'm a guy ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I would pretty happily walk around downtown and take public transport in most cities I've been to in South and Central America. The major exception is Colón, Panama, where I didn't get out of the taxi except at the duty-free port. There are some downtowns where I wouldn't want to be walking after dark: San Salvador, Lima (with exceptions), probably Caracas. Buenos Aires, in my experience, is fine after dark, and so is La Candelaria in Bogotá. (I haven't been to Sao Paulo; I'd be wary in some but not all of Rio.) Of course, there are suburbs that you should avoid night or day: this is supposed to be one of the most dangerous places in Latin America, and it's a barrio of Buenos Aires. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I felt fairly unsafe in Lima, and always had a driver, there is an excellent English-speaking service. The mid-size Brazilian cities I was in (Puerto Alegre, Curitiba, Gioiania, Recife) I erred on the side of caution. Bogota I had no trouble with but my brother, who has lived in Cartagena for years with no trouble he's told us about was with me, and he speaks excellent Spanish.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Autism

Hi SandyGeorgia, User:Anthony started a discussion on the Talk:Autism#Ambiguity_of_the_word_autism page, which I replied to. I'm wondering if you could reply with your insight. Thanks. :) ATC ^{. Talk} 01:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism and RFA Bashers Central (for the admin abuse department, I direct you to Malleus

Your talk page is fun to read. Keeper | 76 03:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon

Will you please review SlimVirgin's revert of my edits to John Lennon today. I really think I improved the awards section at least, and why not mention rock and roll in the lead? — GabeMc (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What is "an early teenager"? A prehistoric specimen of a teenage homo sapien? Parrot of Doom 22:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The phrasing might not be the best, but the point is to not stop at mentioning skiffle in the lede, as though it was his main influence. — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Gabe ... I don't know much about Lennon, and Slim Virgin, Sasata and Tvoz all have better prose than I do. The mainpage date is still a month away, and there are plenty of editors in there who know the material better than I do, and know FA standards ... take the long-term approach, and don't let day-to-day changes worry you. It's only going to get worse as mainpage day approaches, and less knowledgeable editors start weighing in, so do your best to help everyone get along now, don't sweat the little stuff, before it gets worse :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's good advice. Thanks Sandy. — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for listening, Gabe :) What someone needs to do (quickly, hopefully) is get to a library and get their hands on that Playboy article, to iron out the sourcing issues. There are plenty of experienced writers in there, so if you can form a bond, iron out sourcing issues, and work towards consensus, you'll all be in better shape to defend the article once the onslaught starts. When every Tom, Dick and Harry starts weighing in there, it will get worse, and if y'all don't hang together now, the article might not even make it to the mainpage, which would really be a shame. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you at least look to see if you think the awards section is better my way, if you look now, you will see I fixed the text sandwiching. — GabeMc (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's changed every time I look-- at one point, someone had added images. It's best not to add any images now, because the ones that were there were vetted at FAC, and image licensing is an area few editors know well-- there are enough images, best to minimize any additions. Text squeeze is something that can be fixed at any time ... sourcing and size is what matters more now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect

Perhaps you would like to look at "peer review" yourself, rather than unilaterally deciding what is or isn't up to standards before anyone else has had a chance to look at it. Vyroglyph (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

See the WP:FAC instructions (you've never edited the article); FAC is not the place to make a WP:POINT about public domain text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS/ANI

Sandy, I responded (thoroughly) to your question on MastCell's talk page. If that doesn't cover anything or you have other comments, let me know. Ocaasi (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

MastCell is such a wise owl. His point #5 about those who edit policy pages is spot on. Re: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC on the relationship between the sourcing policies and guidelines, I'm going to be away on holiday for a couple of days so must leave you guys to it. Colin°^Talk 09:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You go enjoy yourself, and don't let it get to you again. I like to remember the pendelum-- sometimes, even when you lose (I've long said the same as MastCell, that we should have a BLP-equivalent for medical articles, because it is so important to get it right) you end up winning, as more people eventually come to realize what happens when policies are weakened. And I like MastCell's point #1, too :) Go have fun; Wiki won't change in your absence :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK problems: Principles versus action

• Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Actions speak more loudly than talk page promises
• Template talk:Did you know#Geoffrey Crawley

Here's irony. After hundreds of KiBs of talk page discussions, during which people express fine principles that doing nothing would be wrong and that recycling old content is not the point of DYK at all, as soon as it is pointed out that a DYK entry is recycling the information from a featured article from six months previously, and those very same people dig in and clamour that everything's all right and that there are no problems to fix. These fine principles go out of the window, it seems, when it comes to actually putting them into practice in even a single case. Uncle G (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Uncle G-- I have no free time today, will try to look when I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oh please! You choose to throw a hissy fit based on a plain misreading of the rules, and where you hadn't followed the actual reviewing/commenting procedures. Four different proposals have been deemed passed for implementation in the last hour, and discussion on others continues briskly. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I hope the hissyfit wasn't mine (???)-- I've got bigger RL hissyfits on my plate today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No - in Uncle G's first link. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly my point demonstrated. You've come up with a lot of work for others, including poor Coren, but when it comes down to it, your enforcement of review standards in your actual substantive contributions to the process rather than KiBs of talk page discussion, including the very "novelty" standards that permeate the whole of DYK, is to take no action, to deform the rules of DYK completely out of shape in defense of doing nothing, and to abrogate even the most basic of checking requirements (e.g. the hook against the articles that it links to) because they are "ridiculously" hard.

    I've just noticed that the section of Wikipedia talk:Did you know immedately above the aforelinked is a section where someone points out a problem with a hook, and people say that "Oh noe! The horrible outsider didn't comment when the DYK entry was on the conveyor belt.". Ironically, when I in the very next section comment on entries that are on the conveyor belt, you raise a din about that, too. And you try to use personal attacks (which I'm sure SandyGeorgia is about to notice several of the fundamental errors of fact in) when you run out of actual argument, just as you are here.

    You're not really working for change. You're expending reams of discussion and enacting no change in yourselves when it comes to what you do when it comes to actual cases. This is what the "horrible outsiders", which is the rest of the editorship, will see of you. Uncle G (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Some time ago I objected to a candidate DYK article because it came from another article. The conclusion, as I recall, was if a new article reuses existing text, the new article needs to meet the 5x expansion rule to qualify for DYK. Is that the issue here? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No, the article was new but the hook fact was indeed already in another article, in fact an FA. But there has never been a requirement that the hook fact has never been included before in a WP article, nor (imo) should there be. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found time to get to this. Is it still an issue? If so, I will try to look later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

zOMG

Did you just accuse me of not paying attention? I'll have you know that... wait... where was I? Oh well, enjoy the champagne. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

<burp> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It must be something good! I hope you don't suffer for it tomorrow... Geometry guy 23:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I fibbed ... I never actually got to the bubbly since all my girlfriends were toooooo busy for me, and none of my Wikifriends (except you two :) paid attention. Happy as a clam. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OMG - very slow on the uptake. Just noticed this. Sorry I missed it two days ago. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Malleus

He hardly needs any assistance from you; but he does need to receive support from the community at large, which I see dissipating rapidly, given his history. There are limits, and I see him pushing them beyond rationality. Nobody's fireproof here, and it helps to sustain an editor's credibility if they follow the commonality of editorship without being obviously confrontational. To achieve the latter whilst retaining credibility here requires significant effort to subvert from within rather than adopting a stance that is anathema to the vast majority of editors and admins. Adopting an apparent position of intellectual superiority here is frankly, doomed to failure, because it's just unsustainable. However, if he wants to open an RFC on me, I'd be happy with that; "bring it on". I just want him to realise that admins aren't that special, but neither are FA/GA editors. Finally, whereas mavericks in a community are tolerated for a while, they can easily outlive that. Rodhullandemu 04:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Plank-->eye. Malleus isn't an admin: you are. Your conduct is far worse than his, and if it keeps up, I'll be happy to start the RFC. If you can call people "wankers", bait and poke all you want in spite of two warnings at ANI, it seems that you are the one who isn't understanding whose patience is wearing thin with your poking. And please don't start the "admins aren't special" on my page; everyone here knows very well that if one of us called people "wankers",[4][5] we'd be blocked. If you can't post with some logic and introspection, please don't take space on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Make my day. But please don't rake up dead issues that have gone nowhere. Rodhullandemu 04:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't test me: methinks admins calling people "wankers" and failing to heed warnings about poking Malleus will go somewhere. If you think an admin telling an IP "rfor fuck's sakle shut up and let me reply!!!Q wanker!!!" will go over well with the arbs, perhaps you'd like to test that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That would have some legs if it were connected, but it isn't, even if sourced. But clearly "rfor fuck's sakle shut up and let me reply!!!Q wanker!!!" is not a rational edit, and I challenge you to attribute it to me, as opposed to an editor who might have had access to my WiFi connection in the same house. That's one reason why I no longer provide such access. Rodhullandemu 04:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you stop digging and back away from the computer for the night; I don't think claiming your admin account was compromised will go over any better, particularly considering your history of using such language. And kindly stay away from Malleus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Declined Mallleus should fit in here, or he should go away. Until he accepts the basic values here, he should not be welcome. Simple as that. Rodhullandemu 05:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused now. I thought this project was about writing an encyclopedia, which I do and you don't. Malleus Fatuorum 05:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Referred to WP:ANI, since RFC/U isn't the proper forum for compromise of admin tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Archiving your own talk page

Hello. I came across your user page when I was searching the Wikipedia community for regular contributors. I am curious as to how archived your talk page. I am about to archive my own talk page, but I noticed yours is very organized. My OCD brain is very envious. I am assuming you are using a subpage method. I am planning on doing the same. I liked how your archive list is hidden. How do you do that? Also, I know you have more comments than I do, but I liked how you put several archived pages under one link. I am a beginner, so I am going to follow 5Q5's tips and the archiving instructions on Wikipedia's help page. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I will check back on your talk page for your response. Thanks! CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

See User:SandyGeorgia/Archives; if you view that page in edit mode, you will see how I've done it, you can copy the pieces you want, and you can paste them into User:CreativeSoul7981/Archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I will do that. I am good with computers, but have minimal html knowledge (or still new to using templates, etc.) and need to read more Wiki articles on editing. Thank you for your help. One more question. Is there any reason why the templates for "Talk archive navigation" and "talkarchivenav" are the same? I noticed another editor using the "talkarchivenav" (with appropriate brackets), but the Help:Archiving_a_talk_page only has "Talk archive navigation" in the blue Archive template box. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure-- it could be that the short one is a redirect to the long one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yeah, Sandy's right; {{talkarchivenav}} is a redirect to {{Talk archive navigation}}. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry for all the questions. Sandy, I tried to copy a piece from your talk page, but I can't seem to find the code for it. I think it's because your page is protected. I am trying to insert an image with an collapsible archive box on my own page, but I only know how to add an image and a box separately. I like how you've done it on your page. The photo of the purple flower has a bigger border (not sure if it's because it's combined with the archive box), and then it has "Archive" in a yellow box. I'd like to do that and perhaps add a search tool. So many editor's pages lookprofessional. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

CS, if you give me (or one of my Talk Page Stalkers) permission, we can just copy some of the basic parts to your Archive subpage and your talk page, to get you going. Then you will just need to change the image. I have the search tool on my userpage because I don't know how to add it elsewhere-- I'm not that good at this stuff, set mine up by copying other people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: RE

for the link! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Edmond Malone in Johnson and Boswell bios?

Hi Sandy,

Sorry to ping you directly about this (I know you're quite busy), but if you could possibly take a quick peek at my query here I'd much appreciate it. Oh, and please don't feel obliged to do any actual research on this; you're just a likely victim by sheer edit-count on Samuel Johnson and I'm hoping to get a rough idea from what you can recall off the top of your head (unless you happen to have the relevant books' index immediately to hand to check without too much effort). Thanks, --Xover (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Xover, thanks for asking, but no, I can't help with that one. Yes, victim of sheer edit-count by virtue of having watched that article since 2006, and the way I edit, but I only worked on the Tourette syndrome portion of the article, and don't have access to any other sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Saturday toil

Be nice, and thanks for bring glamour and class to my talk. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand/archive2

Hey there Sandy. I was wondering if you could take a look at this second FAC. There are no more opposes but one editor, Sturmvogel, has not replied to the page since I addressed all of his concerns and asked for him to comment back. I'm not sure what to do now seeing as the article's FAC has been untouched for a few days now. I'm sure that the FAC is now winding down and should close soon. What else should I do?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 17:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I will read through more carefully later today, but I don't think you have to do anything yet. Many uninvolved reviewers won't touch the boat articles, so we often have to let them run longer than others, hoping for independent review. FAC is not currently backlogged (I suspect nominators are now holding off considering copyvio concerns, since submissions are way down), so I'm not worried about some noms running longer than usual. When I read through today, if I see anything, I'll add a query there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sasata has added a few comments. They are very minor though and I'll likely finish them later today or tomorrow.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 14:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Premier League FAR

Hi. I've left a question for you at the Premier League FAR. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

With Woody in there, I'm not worried-- trust you all to work it all out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrator issues

Sandy,

I've seen you post a couple of issues for review of administrator action or conduct since we last talked about the topic, and I'd like your honest feedback on how you think the community has responded to your latest missives. Do you think the response has been sufficiently fast and adequate? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jc, my apologies, but I've got a million things on my plate, and I can't recall the last conversation we had ?? Yes, I do think the community has started to respond more adequately, and quicker, if that answers the question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It was an exchange at ANI on the topic, where I offered to support your RfA... and yes, your answer is sufficient, although I am interested in your ongoing thoughts on the topic as they emerge. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Your ArbCom guide

Please consider inserting the {{ACE2010}} template at the top of your ArbCom review page. I ask because it will allow people to more easily manuver between the your guide, the other guides, and the election pages. Thanks, Sven Manguard _Talk 01:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It was there, I've made it slightly more prominent, will work on improvement later, but I still don't know if I'll even write a guide this year (more worried about whether we will have ten good candidates at this stage). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Easy listening

If you're in the mood for something marginally less absurdist than Wikipedia, I recommend "Ek Shaneesh" by Das Racist. Definitely one of the top acts in postmodern hip-hop, although it's the kind of thing that works better if you're drunk, or high. Like most postmodernism. "I'm from Queens, man - ain't shit to do but cook / I'm watchin Tony Bourdain, plus I copped his book..." MastCell ^Talk 01:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ate unwashed warthog rectum? Honestly, MC, with friends like you, who needs enemies? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think the unwashed warthog rectum is being given undue weight. And in a BLP, no less... :P MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nyttend RfC

Hi, not meaning to be picky, just interested: are you genuinely suggesting that the Nyttend RfC should be a model of how I should have behaved, especially given the content of the first outside view? (Or did you just mean that I should have opened an RfC?) Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that when you go up against admin misuse of tools, at ANI, you will only get a three-ring circus, and you have to impeccably follow DR if you expect any results, considering the double standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough, I guess. Meanwhile Sarek's run off again with a, "Read the RfC but not telling you my thoughts. Back in a bit," sort of excuse. It's true, I suspect that this will fizzle out with no recognition by Sarek that they did anything wrong. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 17:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is again why you must impeccably follow DR yourself if you expect to get anywhere-- and you won't ever get anywhere at ANI. It seems that many admins aren't fully informed about the use of RevDel, in spite of it apparently having a very big disclaimer that they have to click before they use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editcountitis

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Good lord, I hate those things. I don't think I've ever talked to you, so I don't know how I could have a talk back. And I can't find one there. If you want to talk to me, I suggest doing it here, without those god-awful templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

FCDW

You may or may not know we have something pending right now at the Signpost, on reviewing Good articles. Wether or not you want to give the writer grief over not going to the right place blah blah blah, I don't know. But the current system simply does not work. FCDW is an afterthought. No one goes there for anything. They have an idea, they write it up themselves and post it directly to the queue. The process should be changed. The process is not for FCDW, it's for the Signpost.

• Eliminated the concept of "members." Members for what? Things have taken the form of someone coming and writing a bit for the section. No one stalks the page thinking "oh, what will I write for Dispatch". We need to emphasize openness. Something to the form of "ask these people for advice" would be much better.
• Move the whole thing under the Signpost banner. This is for the Signpost: unless you start publishing separately, it should be centralized under the Signpost.
• Start from a clean state. Go over the processes and look for things that could make good future topics. What's there suggested right now has been there for years now, with no action.
• Put less stress on the damn process, and more on actually producing results. The written work should be open to critique, but this can be achieved just as well on the News page as it can on here. And the way it is right now, FCDW is an afterthought.

So there. My proposal. Take it as you will. I want to hear a response, please. ResMar 17:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't work now after it was systematically murdered. The problems at The Signpost are bigger than just the Dispatches-- please stop messing with a forum that worked. Once the Signpost gets back on track, it will likely work again. And I think you're misusing the word "afterthought"-- you might peruse the number of excellent articles the Dispatches produced, and compare them to the current quality of writing in the Signpost. And, since you're so worried about it being defunct, how about keeping your fingers off of it so something will still be there when the Signpost returns to solid editorial oversight with good writers? Why are you so interested in deteriorating the writing there if no one is even reading it, and certainly not you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The workshop does not produce them, writers do. ResMar 18:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"One-off"? Telling readers what to note? Keep up the good work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I dunno, I dun see any regular schedule here. Do you? ResMar 18:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

After members have chosen a topic and principal writer for each date - that's disturbing...ResMar 18:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

ResMar, I don't have time for your games, and I don't know why you're messing with a page you and others killed. Go do something worthwhile. If you don't like the writing there, take it up with Tony, who ce'd it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry your dream fell a little bit short. Methinks its current state is a far cry from the "assign the writers / publication every week" mentality that originated. Before I came along the current chief editor hadn't even ever touched the thing before. It's a good thing, I'm trying to revitalize it (successfully), I say go along with the flow and see what happens. Make fewer demands, not more. ResMar 18:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

ResMar, I would be very pleased if my orange bar would stop going off over this triviality. Go finish killing off the Dispatch, and leave me out of it. I don't read the Signpost because it's become highly editorialized, full of poor writing, POV, and I really don't care what you do. Should the Signpost get back on track, I can easily revert to restore a workshop that used to produce good work, so go have a ball. Maybe AWickert and Hamiltonstone will clean up after you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are so dumbfounding, I haven't had this good a laugh on Wikipedia since I got blocked for harassment. Thanks for that. ResMar 18:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

ResMar, what were you trying to accomplish here? I mean, other than ...defecating on Sandy's talk, it seems you may have had a (albeit snarky) point above.

Honestly, I don't think that many people read Signpost. And since it's neither (a) something I'd do for fun nor (b) something non-Wikipedians would read, it falls outside the scope of my contribution interests here. So if you can improve it, great, and if not, probably better to spend your time elsewhere. Awickert (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Vindicated, not that I had any doubts on your position. I'll remind you that Sandy raised the stakes, not me. I came here to present a plan for putting the read back on tenuous track, and then the conversation turned rather dumb. ResMar 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "vindicated"? You started out this conversation with an accusatory tone, and it ran away from there. Sandy responded in kind, but if you had started out with a can-do attitude, then this wouldn't have become a mess.

By the way, you didn't answer the question, so I'll repeat per the norm: what were you trying to accomplish? It sounds like some of this stuff would be good to be said at the Signpost talk pages. Awickert (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

He's been on this hobby horse for a while; it would be most interesting to hear his answer about what he's trying to accomplish, but I don't want it on my talk page anymore. It belongs at WT:FCDW, a workshop that used to produce excellent and collaborative work of which I was proud, and why ResMar comes here to talk about it escapes me, unless he's just trying to poke and needle, which is looking more and more likely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

He goes through cycles of being nice and helpful to being condescending, unappreciative, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-ish. I love when he's the former, but my experiences with the latter are so extensive that stuff like the above just slips out sometimes. Awickert (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To expand: I think he hates me for sinking Hawaii Hotspot because of major factual errors across the article that he didn't realize, and I'm not too pleased with him for being pissy, demanding, and unhelpful while I was trying to help him correct those issues. Awickert (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But, Aw, he's got more important things to do-- he writes for The Signpost! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I feel bad for saying the things above. My silly conscience. Awickert (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI comments

[6] [7]. FYI. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Precisely why TT should have followed DR and then started an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If TT wants to do that, I will co-certify. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The arbs have repeatedly made it clear that RFC/U should be pursued before escalation to ArbCom. Even if you get nothing but pile-ons at the RFC stage (note the pile-ons in the RFC I started :), the arbs (theoretically) will give things a solid review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean co-certify a RFC concerning SoV's use of admin tools. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Clutch sizes

Re this, I'm not aware of any reason why the clutch size was specifically 13, as opposed to 12 or 13. I'm not aware of any source that says anything more than "usually in clutches of thirteen" without further explanation; it seems to be one of those things that's just taken for granted. I'll hazard a (fairly certain) guess that's the maximum that a Dorking (the breed usually used for incubation) could or would comfortably incubate, but that would be pure OR at this stage. – iridescent 20:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, remove my inline, it just stood out to me as weird ... attached to the number 13, myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Must be something satanic mwahahahha Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Magnum Rolle

You are being completely unfair. "More than three weeks up, no consensus to promote, unresolved sourcing issues and unclear image review." There was one support, no opposes, and a bunch of resolved issues. I see no unresolved sourcing issues, I have no idea where you are getting that from. The image review was a bit short, true, but Geni said everything checked out. Please reconsider your decision to close, as it frankly makes no sense not to promote it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed, the FAC backlog has increased a lot recently. FACs that sit stagnant for a long time usually take up space, and it's not like you can't re-nominate. Take a few weeks to improve it some more and then re-submit it. ceranthor 23:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, one support is not considered consensus to promote. FACs need at least three supports before they are promoted - some have upwards of six. Take a couple of weeks, chat with the editors who posted comments but no support/oppose votes to make sure they have no other objections, then bring it back to FAC for a fresh start. Articles with long review pages that sit at the bottom of the FAC page have a hard time gaining the supports they need - they often fly by when brought back to FAC after a bit more work. Dana boomer (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It sucks that no one supported it and that it took up too much space, but none of that is my fault. Is it possible that I could start fresh now, renom despite the stupid three weeks rule? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not three weeks, it's two; it happens to lots of noms because of lack of reviews (please don't take it so hard), that sometimes (not always) indicates problems so that reviewers are reluctant to weigh in, and your best shot is ironing out every single thing you can before FAC for a clean start in two weeks. You might ask Jappalang, Stifle or Elcobbola (politely) to look at the images in advance, when they aren't under the time pressure of FAC. If we carried every nom indefinitely, the page would always be over 100, and FA quality would suffer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Spot-checking

Went and did a V and COPYVIO check on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Limbo (video game)/archive2. Let me know if it looks good/if I did what I was supposed to. If it is, I can do some others today and tomorrow; no time for me to do full reviews, unfortunately, that's about all I can contribute to FAC right now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Be sure to mention that when it comes back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That's better :) Thanks, looks good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Borrowing your TPSs...

Wasn't SmackBot supposed to stop changing template names to uppercase? This just popped up on my watchlist, (which I've reverted, because it's annoying..) but did I not recall that a big hullabaloo went on at ANI/AN about this and it was supposed to stop? I gotta admit I find AWB/bot tendancies to do this sorta stuff very annoying, especially when they remove tons of spaces between sections/templates, which makes things harder to edit. I wasn't aware that a line break put that much stress on the wiki servers to store it... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

TPS away...! Rd232 ^talk 16:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it has been said that I can call on admins any time I want (right, where are they when I'm told to STFU?), but that was good anyway! Surely it's all my fault, 'cuz I'm so ruthless-- and I sent you an e-mail, too, to get you to do that, didn't I, Rd? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur, wow, and thanks. We'll see what happens, but that sorta fudgeting around is just plain annoying... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I feel it's only fair to remind you that when someone was rude to you I intervened by changing out the offensive material and warning the offender. Was there something else you feel I ought to have done? --John (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No, John, and I did appreciate that ... I guess the message is a different one ... that if Malleus or I or anyone else had done same, we would have been blocked. But I do appreciate that both you and (I think?) Courcelles did do something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure when I tried, I got merely more rudeness. Sometimes being an admin is as much fun as herding cats, no matter what you do- or how much you do it- it can feel like you've gotten nothing accomplished. Courcelles 23:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Only sometimes? Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally you can find a backlog you can actually clear... until it fills up again the next day, that is. Courcelles 01:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Try this. Two and a half years backlog, and I have been the only person dealing with it recently, but somehow, I feel somewhat lonely in chipping away at the coalface. Rodhullandemu 01:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There are many coalfaces Rod, your's is just one. Anyway, I thought you'd quit? Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Going to Commons is like going to Italy. I can speak enough of the language to navigate without getting lost, but not necessarily enough to be certain that what I said is really what I intended. Courcelles 01:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have any problem figuring out if I was understood in Italy-- how hard is it to interpret whistles, piropos and being "touched inappropriately"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

@Malleus: Indeed. But unlike Richard Nixon, who said "I am not a quitter", shortly before resigning in 1976, I am here for the long-term, whatever it takes. I have a long list of articles to create and a schedule of other work to be done. Apart from being cold, tired, depressed and hungry, I'm sure you will give me the chance to do that, won't you? Rodhullandemu 02:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rod, there would be more admins to help out if more of them were nicer to the regular folk; I could put up at least 20 RFA noms in a day, but folks aren't inspired to join the crowd. Kindness works :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have never tried to stop you doing anything Rod, but you have tried to stop me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it sadly funny

Nothing really changes around here. The main actors change roles, new ones come in, old ones leave, but the LOLDRAMA remains a constant. And now for something completely different: [8] I think someone forgot to remind the cat that it was lower on the food chain than the gator. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Geez ... that was awful on every level ... people get that close to those beasts? And sit by and wait for it to eat a cat, doing nothing? ack ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I trouble you for feedback?

Can I trouble you or a talk page stalker for quick feedback at Talk:Battle of the Centaurs (Michelangelo)? The question at hand is whether this is grammatically correct:

Battle of the Centaurs was a remarkable sculpture in several ways, presaging Michelangelo's future sculptural direction; Michelangelo had departed from the then current practices of working on a discrete plane to work multidimensionally, was also the first sculpture Michelangelo created without the use of a bow drill, and the first sculpture to reach such a state of completion with the marks of the subbia chisel left to stand as a final surface.

The question is subject/predicate agreement. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

MRG, you aren't familiar with my infamous prose? My TPS will bail me out :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL! No, I'm not. So I'll wait for a TPS, unless you have somebody else you would recommend. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Toilet Paper Soldier? HalfShadow 23:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Careful there; might be some civility police around that might think you're saying that my talk page is a cesspool. You wouldn't do that, would you? [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

They're all right here, but they're too busy having fun to pay attention to a sloth like yourself :) :) Do you NEVER sleep ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Once a month or so. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In a word no, it isn't grammatically correct. The second sentence drifts away from its subject about halfway through. It starts off talking about Michelangelo and then switches rather awkwardly to his sculpture. Even if it was grammatically correct it would still be rather ugly. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus. :) I'll link to this thread. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Malleus doesn't need a backup, but I agree; the problematic verb is "was" in "was also the first". It wants to have the sculpture as its subject but the semicolon cuts it off. Mike Christie (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's always nice to have backup Mike. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The root of the problem lies with the sentence construction. It's too long and uses too many big words ("presage" and "multidimensionality", for starters). Simplify it and not only do issue of subject-verb agreement usually sort themselves out, but it also becomes far easier to understand. Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. I keep trying to convince my students to write as simply and plainly as possible and it's more likely you'll be thought of as intelligent, but they won't believe me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! There's at least three sentences in there, with distinguishable subjects or objects. What do people have against short sentences (although I'm a terrible offender, so really can't speak to the subject at all).Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As a classic example of why I'm on break from FAC source reviewing...

See User talk:Ealdgyth. I mean, who could not be warmed by a thread that starts with "Reservations" about somethign you've done and continues with other lovely gems ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cut 'em loose, Ealdgyth-- no one is super human. Send him to Shell Kinney-- she might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Hello, SandyGeorgia. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by May Cause Dizziness (talk • contribs)

You're a naughty, naughty girl SandyG. When should I come round to give you a good spanking? Friday would be good for me. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 03:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I might have time in about a week, but I'll get my spankings elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That should be fun to watch! Poor fellow doesn't know I'm not in Canberra, and just about every CU knows my IP :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dabomb87, I owe you a kiss-- that really cheered me up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this situation as you have. Very time consuming, I'm sure... NillaGoon (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Hi SandyGeorgia. There's currently an SPI case open about you. Should you want to chime in about it, you can see it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SandyGeorgia. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WHAT??? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a rather uninformed editor submitting me to WQA and SPI ... where's Wehwalt when you need some popcorn? More importanly, where is anyone when a disruptive editor takes apart an article so badly that it gets sent to AFD, then sends me to WQA and SPI? I mean, how much of this do we have to deal with every day? Poor fellow-- he's CUing me with an Australian IP :) Must be my good friend Tony1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here ya go! XD Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 10:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Torinir! But I can't carry all that on the plane :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We deliver! However, with all the drama going on around WP, I think the bag will get eaten before your flight. *steals some popcorn* ;) Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Look what I did while I was socking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's closed. We can forget this ever happened. People these days... Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Darn, I always wanted to be CU'd! Thanks :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Me too because I've always wondered how it would look on a college campus. We couldn't though for privacy reasons. I mean, you could always just sock and get checkusered. That's always the sure-fire way to get one. I guess we'll have wait another day or so until you finally go looney with the job stress. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was a bit overworked tonight, and the CU gave me such a laugh it popped me out of the plagiarism/copyvio funk :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Golly Sandy, for goodness' sake don't let anything distract you from the Flopsy Bunny stuff - looks like there's gonna be a shed load of revisions to checking to be done and reverts of copiyvios. I didn't realise that the Ruth K. MacDonald bio was only the tip of the berg when I asked Plad2 to look into and she bounced it on to MRG :)--Kudpung (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Shall we say it's been a fun evening ? :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll get the champagne! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Does the FA process promote the creation of excellent articles on non-core topics?

Hey Sandy,

Just something that's been weaving its way through the back of my mind lately:

It is much easier to write a comprehensive featured article on something that is obscure than it is to write one on a major core topic. Indeed, looking through the featured article list, I see tons of excellent articles on bite-sized chunks of history, science, medicine, pop culture, etc., but not many at all that are major disciplines/topics.

So do you think that because of the difficulty in creating such comprehensive FA's, there is a bias towards writing easier articles? Or do you think it might be something else (e.g., required background, scope of projects that people are willing to do for fun, etc.)

Awickert (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Per my comments elsewhere, one unintended consequence of the rewritten 1(c) has been that it's almost impossible to bring a core topic to FA; it's impossible to have "a thorough survey of the relevant literature" on most core topics, within the size constraints of Wikipedia articles. – iridescent 20:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Iri, and would add that the bigger the article, the harder it is to avoid POV pushers or other sorts of cranks. I'm trying ... slowly... to bring Norman conquest of England up to FA status, and between the insane amount of information I have to process and the various hobbyhorses of folks, it's just a lot of work. I'm also involved in the Equine projects attempt to get Horse up to FA standards, and just reading the GAN for Horse should prove instructive about the various obstacles that lie in wait for anyone trying to bring up a "core" topic. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The other thing, AW, is those topics get hammered by every Tom, Dick and Harry. Cas & Co have a heck of a time keeping Lion in shape, for example. Have a look at WP:FFA to see what core topics or larger articles have fallen into disrepair-- they're just too hard to keep up with on "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". I'm watching as John Lennon's mainpage day (30th death anniversary) is approaching, and it's getting clobbered by poor edits already. So, I think it's less that people won't take them on, then they know they won't be able to keep them in shape, so it's a waste of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Looks like I am indeed missing a lot of history on this debate, and that I'm not alone, so I'll look around for past thoughts / comments on this.

I am thinking of trying to (someday) bring geology up to FA: I'm usually not a FA-writer, but it seems like something worthwhile to do. I noticed the said clobbering in geology; went back a month ago and fixed it up a bit.

To Ealdgyth: if/when you get Norman conquest of England up at FAC, I'd be happy (actually, psyched) to help read/review it. Not an expert by any stretch, but I love history and have read a little about Europe at that time. Awickert (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still gathering sources... which is just plain scary, since I studied the period in college and I've been writing about the period on Wikipedia for almost three years now, but I'm not anywhere near "comprehensive" yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Comprehensive" is very hard! I'm still at a university, so be in touch if you want me to get an article or scan some pages of a book. You'll be giving me an excuse to step away from the computer / put down the soldering iron :). Awickert (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

For anyone interested in earlier debates, the last big thread on this topic I know was in September at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive47#FA category changes over two years (takes a while to turn to that). The issue hasn't gone away. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've written two core biographies this year. One passed FA; one was archived. Will not write any more - at least not in the foreseeable future. It's a huge commitment, a huge amount of work, and honestly, at times discouraging. I think we should be focusing on core topics because those are the ones used in schools (this I know for a fact) but very very hard to do. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A further thought: I can't help thinking that the issue of plagiarism, both at DYK and now FA, is related to the concentration on tiny topics that have very little source material, especially if you restrict yourself to internet sources. If you are using a major source that has only 300 words on the actual subject, and you want to cover the same ground in about 300 words, the dreaded and mysterious "close paraphrasing" can be hard to avoid. If you are summarizing 10 pages into a paragraph, it's very easy. All the examples that have had so much publicity recently fall into the former category, as far as I remember. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Election watching, Wiki style...

Well, we're up to 9 candidates now.. maybe we'll actually get to choose rather than just grit our teeth... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm relieved to see some of the later additions. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding claims of plagiarism

I have tried to digest your comments regarding what you see as plagiarism and been that much more careful to avoid the possibility when creating new articles. I have tried to look through past articles to see what might have triggered the claim on your part, but any more specific guidance as to what you believe constitutes plagiarism on my part would be most helpful in making sure that the issue exists and is properly addressed. If there are any article that I have created that have any plagiarized content I want to be sure that the articles are rewritten in proper fashion. Any suggestions on tools and other means to check for possible plagiarism in my articles and other articles that are being reviewed for DYK would also be of great benefit. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Alansohn, my apologies for my delay in responding. I've looked at some of the tools, and unless you can figure them out better than I can, I haven't found them to be very useful. Generally, the concern that I noticed on some of your articles is that you adopted the structure of obits, with some wording changes. When putting up a DYK, which typically involves only a few sources, it's hard to avoid adopting the structure of the source, but it's best to read the sources and sit down and write your own words from scratch, with your own article organization, so that you're not following too closely the structure and wording of one or two sources, with just a few tweaks. This is still good info. With a good faith nature editor such as yourself, awareness will solve the problem-- it's the others that are keeping the poor copyvio people so busy :/ Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns and will continue to ensure that the articles I create are free of plagiarism. If you have any specific concerns about any article, please let me know so that any issues can be addressed. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Story of Miss Moppet

Send Miss Moppet to AfD or blank the page. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it. It's fixable - might take a little time though, and I'm a bit busy at the moment. Can you help?Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Me? No, I'm busy doing something else. Send it to AfD. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it can be fixed. I'll do a run through and leave comments on the talkpage. Unfortunately my prose isn't great, so might need some smoothing later.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done what I can on Miss Moppet until I can get to the library tomorrow; Ruhrfisch is helping as well. These articles are in my subject area and I suspect they all need cleaning - how to proceed? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It will need a top-to-bottom plagiarism/copyvio check-- if you're up for that, much appreciated. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Susanne2009NYC and User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC. I'm going to be traveling, so can't do much else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it has to be done and I know Children's lit. I'm cleaning as I go - have done Beatrix Potter as well, but huge pieces are unsourced that need checking. What I've found is basically straight cut/paste or copying out of books. Not good. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl can't do it all herself, someone has to submit the SPI, and I guess I'd best start reviewing FACs myself. You can coordinate on the subpage of my userspace (see above) if you want to use it -- I just won't be able to help out as I'll be traveling. You're a gem, TK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you've forgotten - we're hot chicks! Many of these articles are GAs and have to be fixed, as does Miss Moppet. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we know we're hot-- we also know we're overworked. A bit mystified that nominators and reviewers resist my frequent calls for source checks. At minimum, we should do a serious check on every new nominator. Well, I guess it's a great time for me to be traveling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a good time to be gone. It will take forever to fix this mess, but it has to be done. FAs and GAs can't just be deleted. They have to be cleaned. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As soon as you get to the library, and have some evidence, you may as well submit the WP:FAR to get things moving-- FAR is the place to coordinate rewrite and see if FA status is retained. (If I'm not around, remind Dana boomer that it's a copyvio situation, even though recently promoted.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet/GA1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict - I've already rewritten a lot of it from gbooks - no lack of evidence. I'm adding quotations and attribution as a stop gap - but yeah, FAR is the place to go. I have a busy work week, so won't really be able to sink my teeth into this until the weekend, but can work at night. Will go look at the GA page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was doing some rough cleaning up the Potter book articles before Susanne2009NYC (and Kathyrncelestewright) began working on them. I'm not sure what the usual time frame is, but if the investigation drags on it would be possible to revert many of them to what they were before her edits while awaiting review of her material. They were in a pretty sorry state (mostly plot summary only) but at least they were copyvio free. Siawase (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The thing is, the writing is good - because, well, it's been taken from the sources. So a reviewer wouldn't really know without the sources. Maybe it's okay to have bad prose - certainly I worry enough about how bad my writing is, but might stop doing that. Post ec - thought about reverting - that may be the best solution. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't just revert back-- the copyvio people have to clean the histories on online sources, at least (and a revert back to an FA renders it no longer an FA, hence WP:FAR). They know better than me how to proceed, see the copyright investigation page and look at the struck edits in the history of Grace Sherwood. I'd like to see the next person who complains when I demand a source check on every FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh - so everything has to be rewritten. I'll have to hook up with Moonriddengirl to see how to follow through on the investigation - right now I'm looking at which articles need cleaning. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a nice one: Talk:The Tale of Peter Rabbit/GA1; you need to go to my user subpage and look at every sock. Might as well focus on the GAs-- just putting a list of them somewhere might take a whole day :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. The articles all use the same sources, and much of the material is redundant and repetitive, which is somewhat helpful in identifying and rewriting. Giving up for tonight. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The article history problem is basically a mess. I spent a lot of time and effort on this article, but it now appears that if anyone in the past added copyrighted material, even though it's no longer there, then all my work has to be thrown away. Not exactly encouraging. Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's how it works, MF; MRG knows better. My hat's off to her. I don't know how she keeps on doing it. Solution: every FAC needs a source check. Period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't how it works. See the short Easby Cross, where I spotted & removed by a normal edit a copyvio para, then expanded before asking UncleG to redo the history in the approved manner. The article was as I left it - well you can't see this but it is. Think of it as giving UncleG something positive to do. God knows how long it would take on a really big old article though. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be impossible. Take a look at Manchester Mark I for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think the issue is more that all the changes in the edit history, good and bad, are made invisible up to the point when the last copyvio is removed, so destroying the transparent edit history of which we are all so proud. I notice your (MFs) many edits to Grace Sherwood no longer appear in the summary of contributors figures, as they have all been "vanished". Expect to see your edit count starting to fall if there is much more of this! Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't even worry about the article histories. These are some of the best articles about Children's lit on Wikipedia, and they're full of copyvios. An entire discipline needs rewriting. Big big sigh. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I supposed to be cheered that it's not only FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at this way - without the FAC review, this would not have been noticed. Go FAC! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? Ottava Rima is a literature person, and his name is all over these, and he was a FAC reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a big problem. But these didn't get to FAC until recently and I really do think you asking for source checks in the past weeks has hit pay dirt. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Truthkeeper is right. These are great articles, but ... Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Before I log out, I just have to ask - where are the admins when they're needed to do a job? That was probably one comment too many, but this should be a blockable offense. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, one of them who frequents this page, and has experience with sockmasters, is curiously not breaking out his tool kit and reading the manual for when to apply DUCK. Long story short, someone has to file an SPI, and I'm plum tuckered out. I put the pieces in my user subpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

volunteer--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, try using your own words. Wiktionary is not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You have mail. Risker (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Fiddlesticks-- my BB says I got 25 e-mails in the last half hour, and I still can't get Wehwalt to review a FAC for me! I 'spose all the Wiki wants to know if I'm socking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, to the entire Wiki, no I was not implying that Ottava Rima was socking-- I was saying that we even good reviewers (like Ottava, on the GA) missed some of these. Apparently Ottava was on it long ago (would have been nice for someone to tell me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw this section. Johnbod (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To keep your orange bar from lighting up, I thought I might post on the talkpage of User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC if I need. I haven't investigated the full extent of this; am focused on working on the Beatrix Potter FA, the FAC, and then onto the GAs. Enough to keep me very busy. Also, in response to the discussion above, I'm not sure I approve of wiping the entire history of articles, for whatever that's worth. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Filed SPI [10] - she might as well go in the confirmed section. Damn if I didn't think there was something familiar about her when I was reading the Miss Moppet FAR. It's worth remembering (pace above comments) that User:Kathyrncelestewright had Ottava fooled - no reason I can see to expect a good content editor should have a nose for sockpuppets.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Elen ... similarity in topics also might be mentioned, anyway, not much more I can do today, others may want to add on there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

New account editing the same articles today - MerryMerryMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Added to your subpage. I've watchedlisted many of these articles. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

TK, I can't keep up with all of this today, and need to get ready to travel-- that needs to be added to the SPI EotR started, with evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'll apologise if the editor turns out unconnected. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Elen - seems very DUCKY to me, but I'll also apologize if wrong. I have my head stuck in books trying to rescue Miss Moppet (I don't even like Beatrix Potter!) and need to take a break. Good trip to you, Sandy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

D'oh, now she's just having fun. Dabomb87, Ucucha or Laser can deal with that FAC, and block her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Handled. That one isn't just DUCKy, it's screaming and wearing a nametag. Courcelles 18:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL! :D I've asked for an IP block or rangeblock, if appropriate, at the SPI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I just deleted the FAC under G5, if you'd rather it be archived formally, just let me know and I'll restore it. Not something I've ever had to do before, that. Courcelles 18:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, since I'm still trying to get myself together to get on a plane ... no, those cases aren't archived, just deleted. You delete the FAC page, remove the transclusion from WP:FAC, and remove the FAC template from the article talk page. Thanks so much, Courcelles-- Dabomb87 and Ucucha also know how to handle them, in case I'm not around. We only archive legitimate FACs with feedback-- trolls, drivebys, etc better deleted so they don't clutter articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This conversation makes me rather sad. I enjoyed reading Suzanne's articles. I even GA reviewed one of them. They were/are delightful. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually rather shocked. They were indeed delightful, and very well written I thought, but of course we now know they weren't entirely written by her. Come to think of it, I reviewed one of her articles at GAN as well, The Tale of Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle; I feel such a chump now. Thank heavens that Truthkeeper has stepped up to the plate. She needed something to take her mind off Ezra Pound anyway. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole situation is bizarre. Her articles were indeed very good, but we're obviously dealing with an individual that has problems with community interactions and reacts in extreme ways to criticism. Now there's a persona we've never seen before! --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's much easier for the main contributor to make the changes rather than having to step in and figure out an article, as I'm doing. I thought I'd make a few small changes, but have had to check every cite. Malleus I looked at Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle last night - it's one of the few that doesn't follow the sources very closely. I think you copyedited out the close-paraphrasing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It was completely by chance then, I assure you. Just goes to show the depth of my arrogance, I even think I can write better than the original sources. :lol: I agree with you that it's always much harder to pick up something another editor has written than to write it yourself. My pet hate is having to scratch around looking for citations to support what someone else has written. You're doing a grand job though TK, earning your salary this month. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What salary? You mean someone's getting paid to edit? :O Why was I not informed of this? And more important: Where do I sign up? :P Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were all being paid. Is it just me then? Oops! Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed is SoniaSyle (talk · contribs); those contribs need to likewise be scrutinized as with the others. One of the articles she worked on, Cry (Michael Jackson song), is a GA. –MuZemike 21:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

To Autumn

Wikipedia:Featured article review/To Autumn/archive1

There is a response to your comments on the foot of the page. Do you want me to cut and paste my analysis of the changes to the article, onto the talk page? It is where it is because it is relevant to the accusations of sweepiing changes and deletions to an FA article. I don't know why someone has dragged all this up again. They were obviously offended by the fact that it was worked on by others, rather than by the actual changes, and have called in reinforcements to get it reverted. Amandajm (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't care where it goes, but the page is being used to soapbox and not evaluate whether the article meets WIAFA-- what I want is for the FAR delegates to get control of that issue, and for them to figure out how to get the page back on topic, which is "does the article meet criteria", and not "does Ottava get to proxy from outside of Wiki for his preferred version". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I dropped a bit of a hammer - MHO there were issues with the way Ottava was being involved in th discussion which did not fall within the guideline for proxying established by ARBCOM, and I didn't want any trouble for him or anyone else. I've shipped virtually the whole shooting match onto the talkpage. Ottava has done a source analysis - at first glance it doesn't look like he's flagged anything dramatic. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

EotR, I'm ever so slowly catching up, and I see your "hammer" was (unfortunately) reversed. FAR has gotten quite off track, that one in particular, where the page is being used for everything but its purpose. I've stopped following FAR closely for these reasons. The purpose of FAR is to help improve FAs and determine if they still meet WP:WIAFA; it is not a soapbox or dispute resolution, and when it's being used as such, they should simply be shut down as default keep until the participants can behave. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, please read more carefully. EotR "hammer" was not completely reversed. Some of the info she copied over was legitimate analysis of the complains against the article, and as such were perfectly legitimate for the main review page. Also, the page is partially so huge because EotR copied a huge source analysis from Ottava onto it, so it is not just "everyone else's" fault that the page is so big. Dana boomer (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Still needs to be shut down-- nothing productive is happening there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A request

Your talk page may be involved in an administrative action I would be taking soon. I wish to inform you about the same in advance through email preferably. If you're not ok with an email, I can leave a message here too. Sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I prefer here-- since I'm going to be traveling, e-mail might be better on this occasion, since it will come in to my Blackberry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that answer the question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin "status"

Sadly, this has made me think again about my constant contention that non-admins are rather paranoid. Maybe we do need to redress the issue of adminship being presented as a status.--Scott Mac 02:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hard to make a general case about anything whenever Cirt is involved, unless you're making a case for unnecessary redtape and drama. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately nonsense like this, and elitist crud like WP:NAC, just encourage the caste-system. In the midst of the ANI drama is a keen volunteer person being BITEN hard.--Scott Mac 02:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I just read through. Classic Cirt. Rules, rules, rules, bite, sarcasm, obfuscation, perseveration, and once forced to back down, says "OK, I won't do it again". And then does it again. I'd go over there and help out, but getting anywhere near Cirt gives me allergies, and I've got to finish packing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cirt is best avoided, especially at FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I agree with him here, most unusually. His initial request was phrased perfectly reasonably, but got a big FO response. Johnbod (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom subcommittee to review admin actions

Sandy, I really liked your idea of having an ArbCom subcommittee to investigate complaints about administrators' conduct. If you have a free moment, I have a few details on which I'd like your thoughts:

1. Would the subcommittee be composed entirely of arbitrators (like BASC) or a mix of arbitrators and non-arbitrators (like AUSC)? If the latter, should the non-arbitrator members be elected? Would such an election need to be specifically to this particular subcommittee, or could we have a general election into a pool of subcommittee members for both the new subcommittee and AUSC, to allow easier replacement of members who leave mid-term?
2. Would the subcommittee act only as a fact-finding body and leave any discussion of sanctions to ArbCom, recommend sanctions but leave it to ArbCom to actually enact them, or enact sanctions on its own?
3. Would the subcommittee conduct investigations off-wiki (like BASC and AUSC) or on-wiki? If the latter, are there any good models for how such an investigation would be structured?

Thanks for your time! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In general terms, this is not an awful idea. However, it seems to arrogate to Arbcom something outside its remit, viz, editor conduct. A better makeup for the committee would be non-admin editors in good standing (no recent blocks is probably the best metric, let's say ~six months of a block-free existence) in order to remove the notion that admins protect their own. Have one Arbcom member as an advisor, solely in order to comment on those actions which non-admins can't see. (For a real-world parallel, see civilian oversight bodies of police orgs.) This group could check whether admins overstepped their bounds, and then refer the situation to whatever venue (Arbcom, RFC, etc) would seem to be appropriate. Once again, however, this brings up the pressing need for a desysop process that is driven by the community; that would be a necessary adjunct to such a committee. Perhaps, indeed, this could be the catalyst for such a process; aggrieved editors could bring complaints to this group, and only those complaints found to have merit could (possibly, depending on the severity) be moved towards a deadminship process. What is important, however, as in all such similar constructs in the real world, is that those without power (because let's face it, admins do have power here, and abuse it not infrequently) be the check for those with. Qui custodes etc. All such investigation should be conducted on-wiki; this is blatantly obvious. Elections would make sense, let's suggest a basic criteria of six months block-free, one year of editing. I would like to suggest that all candidates consent to a checkuser to guarantee no sockpuppetry, but that is unlikely to fly. (Frankly, I want that for any rights from sysop and up, but let's not fool ourselves.) And, of course, recusal for cases involving admin actions that have affected each admin committee member. → ROUX ₪ 06:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How is this fundamentally different than the AUSC? Wouldn't it be simplest to just add admins to their jurisdiction?   Will Beback  talk  06:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There are some similarities between reviewing CU/OS actions and reviewing admin ones, but there's also a fundamental difference in that the former by definition involves privileged information, and thus cannot have any sort of on-wiki process, whereas the latter is almost never concerned with privileged information, and is therefore amenable to public (or partially public) methods. The difference is merely logistical, in other words; based on my experience trying to keep these things running, I'd prefer to have two subcommittees, each with a single process, than a single subcommittee using two different processes. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. There's a logical division between processes which legally (or ethically) require privacy versus those that don't. Aside from that, though, the processes should probably be as similar as practicable.   Will Beback  talk  12:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tony1 made a lot of progress on getting an admin review board started a couple of years ago. Perhaps what ever he put together could also be mined for good ideas. Cla68 (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I vaguely recall seeing that, but I didn't follow it closely; does anyone have a link handy? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

user:tony1/AdminReview. The talkpage is also worth perusing for ideas. Skomorokh 12:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Kirill

Hi, Kirill-- it's always good to hear from you! I will put forward some preliminary thoughts here, that hopefully others will provide more feedback on, and then I must focus on FAC for the remainder of the day, as these governance and copyvio issues have kept me busy for two weeks and I've let Karanacs down in doing my share at FAC.

I'm pleased to see that the need for doing something, anything about admin misuse of tools is becoming evident: it is not a "small but vocal minority" that is affected, and a) often the affected parties either don't know how or where to deal with the issues or b) don't have sufficient "voice" to bring attention to the issues, or c) must get involved in lengthy Dispute Resolution processes that have variable results because of things like "piling on" or ineffective use of AN/I or RFC/U or limited participation at RFC/U. Or, inappropriate use of tools becomes part of massive arb cases, when the tools bit might be examined more expeditiously apart from the other issues. None of the past proposals for dealing with admin misuse of tools have been effective or workable, and I suggest some recent cases highlight the shortcomings in some of those proposals. I have been giving some thought lately to something that happened to me in 2006-- before we had BLP policy, before we had awareness of copyvio, and while I was still new and didn't have the knowledge to deal with the situation: that situation was backed by a former arb, against me, and not one piece of her position would withstand scrutiny in today's environment of increased BLP and copyvio awareness. We are at a crossroads on the Project where we can see a fundamental change in how we deal with the growing problem of admin misuse of tools or lost of community trust in admins, similar to the change when we enacted BLP as policy. It is my hope that we can put something in place that will curtail the never-ending ANI circus.

While there are some good thoughts, and evident good faith, in Roux's post, I have to disagree with a good portion of it, for reasons I'll elaborate below. Desysopping is within ArbCom's remit: my proposal for a sub-committee was intended to help expedite clear cases, provide some structure relative to the unhelpful sorts of things we see at ANI or RFC, and allow for the (not infrequent) cases in which evidence simply must remain private and a full community airing of issues is in no one's best interest.

I can think of at least five different situations in which examination of admin use of tools or the need for emergency of temporary or permanent desysoppping arise, and any proposal has to account for the different kinds of situations:

1. Emergency or temporary desysopping, even when there has been no misuse of tools, due to highly personal issues that simply should not be aired in public, and are no one's business except the arbs the community has elected, whom we trust to handle serious personal issues quietly and discretely. (This highlights a problem with the typical Dispute Resolution processes-- some cases are simply not best brought forward through RFC/U or AN/I.) To Roux's proposal, no, having non-admins or non-arbs gaining access to highly confidential information cannot work in these kinds of cases (and Wiki is not the real world, it's the internet). Checkusering candidates doesn't cover it-- arbs are elected, must disclose their real names to the Foundation, and they are accountable, hence more trustworthy with highly personal information. These cases cannot be put forward in public or with non-arbs, and they should not be within the community remit. I strongly disagree with Roux that all cases must receive a full public airing (although many cases should). In these cases, Wiki's well-known inofficious intermeddlers and the immature disrespectful commentary at ANI and other places need to be curtailed, arb decisions need to be issued expeditiously, and I won't get into the infelicities of The Signpost reporting, as that would open a can of worms that would detract from the purpose of this conversation.
2. Cases of clear misuse of tools, and where the admin isn't responsive to community feedback (for example via an RFC/U or talk page or ANI feedback). We've had at least two such cases in the last few weeks, and there is another similar case at ANI today. When an admin clearly violates policy, it should be within the community's remit to simply put that forward to the arbs, and let the arbs decide which remedy to enact. A prior RFC/U can be helpful in these cases, if for no other reason that it brings forward other cases. Non-admins are of limited usefulness, since we can't see deletions. Arb sanctions could be a warning, a temporary desysop, or a full desysop depending on the case, but when policy is clearly violated, we shouldn't need a federal case to get some action. Having non-arbs on a committee to review such cases wouldn't seem to hurt, if it lessens the load on the arbs, but do the arbs need extra help in those kinds of cases? Those cases don't seem to require a committee made up of non-arbs; they are already within the arbs' remit.
3. Wheel warring. I don't know enough about policy to comment in this area, but I suspect it's similar to No. 2-- when it happens, and is brought to their attention, arbs should be able to make a quick decision and decide on remedies.
4. INVOLVED. I haven't given much thought to misuse of tools when the admin is involved, because I haven't personally seen such a case: I'm not sure how a sub-committee would best handle such cases.
5. Garden variety, everything else, the community has lost trust in the admin's judgment, or the admin has become abusive in ways that aren't as clear as misuse of REVDEL (tag teaming, involved, personal grudges, whatever). These are the cases which are not within the arbs remit, and I suspect that in most of those cases, an RFC/U has not been done, and it should be. I don't think we need a whole 'nother layer of DR to deal with such cases; we need an RFC/U before the case is submitted to the arbs. I can see where a sub-committee including non-arbs could be helpful in those cases, and could put a summarized case and recommendations before the arbs.

So, those are my not-very-well-thought-out first thoughts. I strongly disagree that all cases should have a public airing; I strongly disagree that anyone but arbs should have access to highly sensitive personal information; if non-admins or non-arbs are put on a committee, their role in pre-examination of cases prior to submission to the arbs would have to be determined; I suggest the arbs are able within their current remit to handle the simpler cases more expeditiously via a sub-committee and to decide what sanction to enact (warning, temporary desysop, etc); and I suspect RFC/U is underused for other cases. I cannot really see a role for non-arbs being on such a committee-- most of the cases are simply too sensitive, and some amount of personal private information is often involved. So, I'd like to hear what others think about the different kinds of cases.

I guess the only other thing that I could add is that, from what comes through my inbox and across my talk page (admittedly, a biased sample), the community feels that the arbs do not act strongly enough wrt disruptive users and abusive admins. Even people who share the POV of certain editors at Climate Change believe the sanctions weren't strong enough there. My sense is that the "lack of governance" criticisms seen lately is because editors want to see stronger, more decisive action from ArbCom to reign in the craziness here and allow good faith content contributors to get back to work. Of course, I would tend to hear from editors who hold that view.

I'm typing this hurriedly so I can get on to FAC today, so I may have to take my foot out of my mouth later today, but wanted to at least give some preliminary thoughts. There are very good reasons why some cases don't warrant a full public airing, and we don't give non-arbs access to highly sensitive information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as one of those seen as part of the problem, I'd suggest that the problem isn't "ZOMG admin abuse" so much as it is the totally unstructured and drama-driven way we deal with the disciplining of regular editors (justified or not). Any admin can block for any length of time, an unblock template secures a random review on the talk page, and the admin taking things to ANI for peer review ends in an arbitrary result depending on who shows up there grinding what axes. I yesterday blocked two regulars in controversial circumstances, I asked for peer review on ANI, and that review dis-endorsed my action. Now, that's fine. My actions (it appears) were not my finest and peer review is the correct way to sort that. But is anyone surprised admins don't seek peer review, when you consider the nasty vitriol that is ANI? The result is a lose/lose. Regular editors fear they may experience arbitrary blocks, admins fear that certain people get a "free pass" because someone will always howl at their blocking and undo it. The complaints of "admin abuse" and the complaints of "special treatment" are not incompatible, they are two sides of the same coin. The problem is that we've got no real structure short of arbcom, so blocks on regulars cause maximum drama and arbitrary partisan review.

You can't fix this simply by punishing admins, you need to fix this by replacing some of their unilateral discretion with more consistent disciplinary processes. My suggestion would be to formalise the (sometimes de-facto) "immunity" of very regular editors (including both admins and content contributors) by saying that (outside of arbcom enforcement) admins should NOT EVER block unless it is a clear 3RR, or absolutely necessary for preventative reasons (run amok vandalism etc). If they must block it may not be for more than 24 hours. Instead, such users would be dealt with by a clear structure: some form of "arbcom lite". This body has a pool of members (transparently chosen) with 5-7 "on duty" at any time. An admin who thinks something needs a non-urgent block, reports it to this group, who will make a ruling within 24 hours (and the admin must report any emergency block to them for review). Their ruling will not have the thoroughness of an arbcom adjudication, it will rather serve the current role of ANI - but with a consistent panel of participants. Now, some will say this is too strong, but really, how often is it necessary to block an established contributor? I suspect the panel will be less cumbersome and a lot less dramatic that unilateral blocks and ANI dramafests. It will also be easier to sent out a message to regular contributors that they cannot rely on friends and politics to keep them from blocks if they engage in repeated incivility. I suspect this type of system would allow writers to write, knowing where the boundaries are, not fearing arbitrary admin actions, and not having to be constantly involved in the politics of our disciplinary process. (I know, tl;dr)--Scott Mac 16:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not tl;dr-- I followed that case, I'm not qualified to comment on the specifics, but I would point out that what admins far too often fail to take into account is that even when they subsequently reverse themselves, or another admin subsequently undoes an unjust block, the recipient is still tarred, and that isn't removed from their record. And that has a few content contributors permanently perturbed. Gee, I said I was going to get busy at FAC and not follow this conversation today :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is also true. But I think the problems on all sides are symptoms of the same "lack of structure" problem, that frustrates everyone. What we need is a structure that will only block when necessary, and then only reverse if there's clear error. That way people on all sides learn that shouting doesn't cut it. Ultimately, the structure at the moment leaves too much admin discretion - and when they get it wrong the only remedy is the use of pitchforks. (And the pitchforks are often used regardless of whether the call is good, debatable, or clearly abusive). I don't think sharpening the pitchforks, by desysopping admins, helps here. What we need is a structure all reasonable people can follow, and no one can game.--Scott Mac 16:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scott that as much as possible, admin actions should be structured by checklists or formalized processes in order to standardize how admins respond to repetitive situations. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite what I'm saying. A red-tape based set of rules can't possible cover with the nuances of what might happen. We need pragmatic human judgement. However, I do think for the small number of times we need to discipline high-contributing users, and the immense and disproportionate amount of drama it generates, we could do with a more structured approach - which involves more than one individual making the call (and carrying the can).--Scott Mac 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this goes back to one of my original questions, which was whether we wanted a review body or a sanctioning one. It seems to me that there are two alternatives which, while not quite mutually exclusive, at least focus on different elements and lend themselves to different structures:

1. We could have a body whose remit is to review particular administrative actions and determine whether or not the action was a proper one. Such a body would fill, in a more structured fashion, part of the role currently played by AN/I; when an administrator's actions were questioned, the issue could be brought before this body, which would take statements, examine the situation in light of the relevant policies, and issue findings of fact and/or recommendations regarding the matter. These findings could potentially cover both the propriety of the action (i.e. whether or not it violated policy) and its appropriateness (whether, though the action may have been proper, it would have been better to do something else); the recommendations, correspondingly, could involve the acting admin (e.g. reminders, restrictions, etc.) and the underlying action itself (i.e. reversal, reduction, etc.). In most cases, the body could function more or less autonomously; only when the body recommended an actionable sanction would ArbCom proper need to be involved to actually enact it. However, a body structured like this would necessarily be oriented around reviewing specific actions; it would not be suitable for things like Sandy's first point, above (although quite frankly I'm not convinced such private matters need to be delegated to a subcommittee in any case).
2. Alternatively, we could have a body whose remit was to discipline administrators. Such a body would essentially act as a miniature version of ArbCom with a narrow scope; it would consider allegations that a particular administrator was abusing the tools, conduct a hearing, and recommend sanctions (which I imagine would generally be desysoppings). This body would have more "teeth" than a simple review body; however, it would also necessarily be more limited in the cases it could examine—both the effort necessary to conduct a full hearing, and the levels of stress involved, would mean that only credible allegations of misconduct sufficient to warrant sanctions would be of interest. I don't believe, in other words, that it would be feasible to have this body review every single questioned block, for example.

My initial inclination would be to focus on the first approach. I'm not convinced that a regime of more frequent desysoppings would a good thing in and of itself, and I'd rather see a more structured process for examining and reversing admin actions before things escalate to that stage; we don't have so many admins that we want to start losing them in bulk.

Having said that, I'm interested in what everyone else thinks: what kind of subcommittee are we really looking for here? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Kirill, I continue to commend your efforts and diligence in addressing this issue, and admire your integrity and perseverance, but I've lost all interest in helping out on admin reform; it seems we've got bigger problems at higher levels. I do encourage others to carry on here and try to help find solutions for this particular issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer checks at FAC

Sandy, I noticed today that you posted some requests at various FACs for reviewers to do specific verifications on V, COPYVIO, and close paraphrase. I know you already expect to see image reviews and source reviews, and probably prose reviews too, though by the nature of FAC you rarely have to prompt for that. It made me wonder if this is a change to the basic FAC process that might warrant some discussion: I'm asking you rather than posting to FAC because I expect you've thought about this already and I'd like to hear your comments.

We've had discussions at FAC in the past about whether we should change to a system in which every requirement has to be checked off: my recollection is that 1(b) and 1(c) were usually the focus in those discussions. Those suggestions were generally rejected because (again, this is just my recollection) reviewers felt it would be an unacceptable burden on FAC to require specific reviews. We simply don't have content experts available to review some of the specialist articles, for example.

I know you're requesting these reviews because of recent events, and that there are definite risks where an article is not reviewed for these points. But FAC is a volunteer forum, run by reviewers who form a consensus on how it can work best. Is it possible that we're drifting into the sort of review process that we've discussed and rejected in the past, because of some specific problems that may nevertheless be quite rare? Mike Christie (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I decided to try it out this week to see what the response is-- it's not really motivated only by recent events, but that I've long been troubled at promoting when no one checks sources. I'm thinking before we propose anything formal, we should see how it goes. Perhaps some reviewers do check sources but just don't indicate they've done it? What do you think? Also, I've reviewed some nominators' work myself and know they don't need spotchecks, so it may be just another piece of data that gets stored in my brain ... but on first-time nominators, we need some method to check sourcing beyong Ealdgyth and Brian's work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to watch my daughter play oboe in a few minutes so won't be able to respond much this evening (unless I try to do it through my iPhone), but I'd be interested to hear other opinions. For myself, I try to check all the FAC criteria when I review, though I don't bother to say so -- I think the default should be a restricted support ("prose only") if a reviewer doesn't do that. I generally spot check a few things in the sources and so forth; I have never checked for copyvio and think it unlikely to be high value -- it won't generally catch the "derived work" issue which is the problem Rlevse seems to have (unwittingly, I assume) run into. I don't check everything in MOS but I look for the things I know about and periodically try to learn more. And so on. Mike Christie (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Many reviewers don't provide that info, though, so I was hoping my queries would prompt some specificity. We have reviewers who enter support without ever looking at a source, and some reviewers seem to think they're only supposed to look at prose; I'm hoping just a few questions will prompt reviewers to start indicating what they've checked. Go have fun! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and offer at least a spot check on the South Park FAC, since I don't feel it meets FA criteria now regardless :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I might be developing paranoia in my old age, but I have been worried that recent reviews at FAC that do not specifically address all the criteria are found wanting by the delegates. This makes me feel obliged to comment on criteria that I feel I have little expertise on and makes me reluctant to post a review. Of late, I often feel that I cannot add my support (or even write a review) because I haven't thoroughly checked all the sources and images - and now I have potential copyright violation to worry about. Graham Colm (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No one has to do everything or even most things, Graham; I just need to know what's been done, and some reviewers have started specifying that. It just helps me know what's been reviewed. You know you can do no wrong :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WRT source checking, nobody is going to check every source, or even be able to if they wanted to in many cases. Personally I usually only check when something feels not quite right, although I have taken to running even GA nominations through CorenBot since you know when. I think Graham's point is a good one; I've noticed reviewers becoming more reluctant to support, and I don't think that's a good thing. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This too shall pass-- always does. This time next year, we'll have the copyvio issue under control, and it will be something else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've slept on it, and I still think it feels like a de facto change to the process. I guess the best thing is to wait and see how it works out; perhaps I'll post at WT:FAC. Sandy, do you see where I'm coming from? FAC regulars have long resisted formalizing the process, but delegates can guide FAC to process changes, and I think that's what's happening here. I still have to think about whether it's a change for the better; at the moment I'm just concerned that it's a change. And it feels like a substantial change, though perhaps it's just an incremental step that made me become aware of the change. Mike Christie (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly happy to be more specific in what I've looked at closely in commenting at FAC FWIW...not sure about formalising it (if that's what's being asked here...?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel an urgency to formalize anything, since we're still finding our way around how to deal with this new issue, but it's always been helpful if reviewers tell me what they've looked at, so I know what's left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

@Casliber: my concern was more that we may be changing the nature of FAC without any formalities. But, as I said above, perhaps it's a beneficial change. @Sandy: I'm replying here instead of below because your response below relates to some issues I wasn't even aware of before I posted. I hope you're clear that I had no intention of impugning you or the way you go about your job as FAC delegate. I'll wait a while before posting anything to WT:FAC. I was hoping to find a link to where this sort of thing has been discussed before but a brief look at this and the archives of that page convinced me it would take forever to find it; and there's also WT:FAC and its even more voluminous archives. If I find it I will post a link. Mike Christie (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, Mike; I know your intentions, and we have a darn good group of editors at FAC, who aren't in the habit of impugning each other, because we respect the work of nominators and reviewers. I'm sorry I took off on your post to respond to the broader issue, but I knew it was coming, and I knew from just where it would come, and it happened to come at the same time you posted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

SG response

Mike, it's not a fundamental change, it's actually a return to the way FAC worked before I became delegate. When I reviewed articles (and I reviewed many FACs that were "maturing" towards promotion), I spotchecked for compliance with Wiki's core policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV. That meant spot checking a selection of sources, and checking the article talk page for any indications of POV disputes. After I became delegate, I have frequently noticed and exhorted reviewers to please check sources; I was in the position of having to judge consensus and promote articles that had no review of sourcing. That led to Ealdgyth (and later Brianboulton) stepping in to help out by doing very helpful, tedious, but minimum checks for at least reliability of sources, but not compliance with WP:V (the limitation of those reviews was frequently stated at WT:FAC). I continued to request that reviewers spotcheck sources; we frequently find reviewers supporting on prose exclusively, without even a cursory check of sources, and often over Ealdgyth's concerns about reliability. And we all know where that ended: in a copyvio on the main page.

If reviewers don't indicate what they've checked, and if sources aren't checked at least once for new nominators and repeat nominators, that quite simply means to me that I will need to take off the delegate hat and start reviewing them myself, since I am not going to promote an article without checking for compliance with Wiki's core policies and risk ending up with another copyvio on the main page. I am relieved to see that we now have several reviewers doing these kinds of checks (and finding uncomfortable amounts of close paraphrasing and text copying), and hope that means I won't have to do it myself.

However, in an environment where an arb is making irresponsible statements, aimed at FAC's diligent and hard-working reviewers who get no thanks for the work they do, I am not going to open up FAC for such irresponsible and ill-founded statements from a disgruntled and very unprofessional arb to attack the integrity of FAC,[11] [12] [13] even if that means I have to do the work myself. We have here an arb making unfounded, inaccurate, unexplained and completely unhelpful statements at a time when FAC is struggling to find ways to deal with these new realities. Curiously, Shell Kinney, in maligning "the entire group at the FAC review"; claiming that "a more thorough review of Featured Articles needs to happen have stalled in a number of places, often due to calls for someone's head" (?); and asking what "are the pack of editors at FAC really doing during these article reviews?" fails to notice that a fellow arb, accomplished FA writer and reviewer, stated that she had watched the development of this article. Such a statement, obviously, is given weight in the decision to promote, and yet an irresponsible arb has maligned the entire group of editors who work at FAC for the faults of another arb who inserted the copyvio. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I have no intention of opening the door for an irresponsible arb to take more pot shots at our hard-working and conscientous reviewers, even if I have to do this work myself.

At the same time that we have Kirill working on this page to advance some working solutions to some of Wiki's fundamental problems at the admin level, we find that Wiki has some issues to address at levels higher than the admin corp or FAC reviewers.

Now, if you think further maligning and demoralizing our reviewers by taking this discussion to WT:FAC will result in anything positive, you're welcome to copy this over there. If there are, in fact, calls for someone's head, I suggest those heads are revealed in the diffs above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

Some explanation for your ill-founded, inaccurate, and highly irreponsible and unprofessional commentary would be helpful. For example, who is this "entire group" you refer to, where have discussions stalled "due to calls for someone's head", and where are you getting this information? Since I'm unaware of any such calls for anyone's head, or pointing of fingers on Wiki, it appears that you are bringing off-Wiki discussions to Wiki, and it would be beneficial for all to be aware of your sources, particularly in light of your highly improper disparaging of FAC reviewers, who are not responsible for the copyvio of an arb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So you believe it's appropriate then that articles with copyright problems make it through the featured article process? And you think the various attacks against that arb were an appropriate way to handle the situation? Shell ^babelfish 20:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw no attacks on the arb, and when the problem with Grace Sherwood first came to light I was ready to help, but events overtook me. I have said before that I have seen blatant copyright violations even in in texts produced by prestigious publishers like Academic Press, and have complained to those publishers about them. I think you're looking the wrong way here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. We all know the facts (if we're paying attention), and none of Shell Kinney's allegations are true, unless something is stirring backchannel and someone is looking to blame Rlevse's copyvio on someone else.

Background:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka
• User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes#Shell Kinney
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dirty Dancing/archive1
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbmurray

You see, Rlevse's copyvio is all our fault, FAC is doing nothing about it, and discussion is stalled by "calls for someone's head". Who's head might that be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yours? Mine? Who knows in this wiki dreamland? Why is it so hard to admit that the only editor to blame was the arbitrator who had clearly been copy-and-pasting from copyrighted sources for some considerable time. I find the charge that others didn't catch him soon enough to be at the very least dishonest. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I blame society. Nev1 (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of backpedaling going on over there, but the diffs are clear; Shell Kinney is looking to cast blame, and not on the person who made the mistake, but on all of FAC, and wanting "someone's head". I doubt that will be yours, Malleus :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, Mally here's my argument against term limits for admins, as predicted! If admins know their term is about to end, they're more likely to go cowboy towards the end of their term. D'oh, I didn't realize this until now, and wasted a lot of time over there thinking she might apologize. Term almost up = no apology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost it is the primary responsibility of the editor to follow Wikipedia policy (not to mention copyright law) and avoid infringement. That responsiblity cannot be shifted, even by the arbitrators, to those volunteers who reviewed the article. We should expect from all editors, especially the arbitrators, knowledge of, and adherence to, WP policy. We also should expect judiciousness from those elected to serve as arbitrators. We should not expect sneering, such as displayed at this page. Kablammo (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to Ask

I saw your post earlier today at ANI, to my shock you stated you were not and Administrator! I thumbed through Arbcom cases, ANI and can't find a reason to why you would not pass. (at Least in IMHO). I have to ask why you have not made an Attempt? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

TRA, if you have to ask it makes me think you haven't looked hard enough. You could start by reading the torrents of abuse on this very page from people whose "opposes" would count for three times more than each "support". I think Sandy would probably pass, but it would possibly be the most foul tempered exercise in Wikipedia's entire history, and for a virtually worthless position. – iridescent 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

But Iri, that's not the correct answer :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If Sandy ever runs, the popcorn concession could be the business opportunity of the year, though! Courcelles 23:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I figured I was missing something and probably am, I just see you around alot and always struck me as one of the more level headed Editors. So I was just curious The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you seriously ought to run now. They'll let any idiot become an administrator the last week in November without too much fuss. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but think of all the fun things I'll be doing at the end of November, while you're dealing with trolls, vandals, POV pushers, deletionists, inclusionists, and disgruntled kids on Thanksgiving break! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Level headed, good understanding of people, needs the tools, plenty of energy, light hearted...I'd support. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the scariest thing is that there are people who would oppose. ;) ceranthor 23:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the scariest thing is that all these people show up every time someone asks why I'm not an admin, but nobody showed up to pop bubbly with me on Friday night! (Except MC and G guy, whom I will eternally remember :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Why I am apparently asking silly questions Would you please run in WP:INDECISION2010 The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's how to make ArbCom work: co-opt Mast Cell, Iridescent, Colin, Geometry guy, Slp1 and Yomangani via write-in votes. They have no say in the matter. They'd decide every case in a week, and write up a 40-word summary. NYB, Roger and Kirill would be useful, too. The "other guys" can handle all the nasty private stuff, AE and desysoppings-- they'll have their hands full with just that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ain't gonna happen. – iridescent 00:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Had that linked on my userpage until the Celebration ... I don't see candidates coming out of the woodwork to sign on for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Did someone mention popcorn?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you still trying to peddle that popcorn, Wehwalt? It might sell well at the Zeraeph "bullying" concession stand-- try e-mailing her, if you're still looking for buyers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You should run for adminship. Regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 04:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd nominate or co-nominate. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 14:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd heartily oppose. ;-) We can't waste useful wise wikipedians on admin duties. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC) (Unless things actually became serious, then it'd be interesting)

Arbcom

Sandy - per your comment above at 23:37 14 Nov, I wouldn't if I were you. It's permission to wield a mop, not a prize - and you've got better things to do than mopping. (Quite apart from the fact that these days even a successful RFA can be pretty stressful.) Up to you of course - but there's only so much time in a day, which is why Wikipedia is full of people specialising in different roles. Rd232 ^talk 14:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, Rd-- those who know me know that I wouldn't even consider it. I learned how rotten the admin corp and RFA process was way back in 2006, and I can be more effective without being an admin. By the way, ArbCom candidates are looking extremely dismal and integrity at the arb level is apparently as lacking as at the admin level; have you thought of it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Have I thought of it? No! If adminship is mostly a thankless task, being an Arb is a thankless task with vast amounts of homework. Besides, my wife already tries to make Wikipedia crash by the power of thought alone... Rd232 ^talk 15:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Gods, who else is running? I see three candidates... and didnt' they change the thing so that we are electing so many whether or not they get a decent amount of support??? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Four. Not gettin' any better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, Tony1 worked hard to take away Jimbo's discretion and push through the new structure, so that we are now apparently in the position of having a larger committee of ill-prepared arbs, when we already have evidence of problems among the arbs. So, yes. Kids and grudge-bearing arbs will be running the circus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That inevitably flows from the pool of kids and grudge-bearing admins from whom the arbitrators have to be chosen though. Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"grudge-bearing"? Surely a larger arbcom makes recusal easier to handle, since it's less likely to result in a handful of arbs deciding a case. Rd232 ^talk 15:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Malleus: D'oh. I 'spose, unless some better candidates surface, the only alternative now is for everyone to oppose every candidate, and let Tony1 figure out how to allow Jimbo to deal with that. This place seems to be irretrievably breaking down. For those of you who work in content areas that aren't frequently attacked by trolls, vandals and POV pushers wanting to insert their pet fringe theories based on primary and non-reliable sources, you may be able to continue working here and producing quality work. But I can't; the kinds of articles I work on are frequently subject to that kind of editing, and we find some editors working to weaken sourcing policies, at the same time that the admin corp is out of control and the arbs need to clean their own house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we all mostly realise that the way things are there are some topic areas it's virtually impossible to work on productively. In my case it's anything to do with Irish republicanism, in yours Venezuela. Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

MF, I'm referring to medical articles, where in my opinion (and many others) we have a greater responsibility for high quality sourcing than even in BLPs. And we have boatloads of horrid medical articles, at the same time good editors give up while others try to weaken sourcing policies. The problems with Venezuela articles aren't Wiki's-- they are complacent, corrupt and comfortable Venezuelans who want someone else to do the work for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation can help, but it's hard work. I'm quite pleased with what I managed at PIRA in the dispute about the lead there a while back, but it was hard work. Rd232 ^talk 16:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

@Rd, what good is a larger pool of kids and grudge-bearing unprofessional arbs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well hopefully they're not all kids, and hopefully there are variations in grudges and recusal will limit its effects. Rd232 ^talk 15:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Doubt it, Rd-- most likely, the various grudges are what led to some very unsatisfactory resolution of cases this year, and sensible arbs being unable to prevail in clear cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, because of the wave of retirements there are now 11 vacancies which are to be filled come what may, so unless there's a flood of candidates virtually anyone who runs will get in. (Nobody seems quite clear what will happen if someone only has about 5% support but still scrapes into the top 11.) I agree with Tony's drive to take away Jimbo's discretion, though; if a couple of Toxic Personalities were to finish in the top 11 but be vetoed by Jimbo, all hell would break loose. The way to stop the gamers getting through is to find someone else who will do better than them and persuade them to run. That said, I'm not sure it matters so much who gets through; with all due respect to the Brads and Riskers who do work hard and try to keep the thing on track, Arbcom's credibility is at an all time low. – iridescent 15:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the saying that those who choose to run for office should be disqualified from doing so, because they're either crazy or power-mad. Dragooning people might be the way to go - suggestions for victims? Rd232 ^talk 15:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is how well it turned out last time they tried the "appoint a Chosen Few without bothering to hold an election" route. I don't think anyone wants to go through that again. – iridescent 15:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite what I meant. I meant more (not seriously, of course) nominating people for candidacy in the election without them necessarily agreeing! But, more seriously, who would we like to persuade to run? User:Elen of the Roads springs to mind. Rd232 ^talk 15:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Mast Cell, Iridescent, Colin, Slp1, Geometry guy, Yomangani and how about adding Elen of the Roads and Rd232? At least these are people with some goddamn integrity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Iri: And getting lower by the minute, if they let an arb malign FAC reviewers for a fellow arb's mistake. I really wonder what Jimbo is going to do with this mess, because I'm unaware of a single qualified person willing to put their hat into that ring. @RD, reminded that I didn't "run" for FAC deletate ... Raul had the good sense to set up a structure whereby the delegates serve at the discretion of the community. If I pulled the kind of crap admins and arbs get away with, I'd be gone. Rd, I've put up my list of victims many times, and they're all too smart for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Two corrections on the above; Jimbo still makes the appointments, but the recent RfC established significant consensus for the proposals that he ought not appoint anyone who did not stand in the most recent election, and no-one who got more oppose votes than support votes in that election. I agree with all that the field of candidates is looking dismal and the pool of possibles likewise. Skomorokh 15:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what's going to happen when they all get more oppose than support? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I imagine if the electorate decides that all the candidates are inadequate, we are down to a 7-member ArbCom or rule-by-Jimbo. I think finding responsible candidates is the better option. Skomorokh 16:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to post something along the lines of "Noooooo, don't do it! Don't go for admin!" But then I saw that wisdom had already prevailed.

As for the Arbcom, we'd been projecting that it would eventually fail, I don't know, probably sometime around the last time it failed, over half a decade ago. Can't we just let it die in peace this time? :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

They don't seem to need our help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking out loud: part of the problem with Arbcom is the weight placed on it by the relative failure of other DR processes. RFC/U and RFC are underused; ANI works well sometimes but often is Drama Central. I had suggested in the past trying a sort of "citizen's jury" system for RFCs where you have a list of people willing to be asked, and then a bot picks people at random to give their input (in addition to any who want to turn up of their own accord, and with no more weight to their input than anyone else's). Rd232 ^talk 15:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been singing the tune about broken dispute resolution for four years, since I was first attacked by "we admins"; it's not going to change. Kirill's proposal cratered and led to his resignation. The only thing that will give us an effective arbcom now is removing the requirement that they divulge their real names so that we can get some decent candidates, and that's not going to happen either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Kirill's proposal cratered" - I seem to have missed that. What was it? I think I agree about the name requirement: let people vote for candidates who haven't, if they wish. Rd232 ^talk 16:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development (I turned it down, I think Iri did as well, can't remember who else: I supported the notion, Iri opposed it).

Ah. I actually opposed that in not unvociferous terms, if you search for my username on that page :) Rd232 ^talk 16:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I confess I've never read that page, and don't intend to. It was obvious to me why it cratered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, that proposal was totally different than my lottery approach, which would involve a category or list anyone could add themselves to, with a bot just checking for some minimum qualification requirements when choosing people at random to request input from, in addition to input from the usual routes. Rd232 ^talk 16:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The thought of something random, considering the disproportionate amount of psychopathy and personality disorders evidenced on Wiki [14] is just too frightening to contemplate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. First, the proportion isn't that high. Second, the problems come out mostly in areas that people are heavily invested in. A random "request for input" approach mixes things up, and should ensure more and better quality input. Anyway, because it would supplement existing input, there'd be no harm in trying it. Even for Arbcom, it wouldn't hurt to have additional (non-voting) non-arbs selected at random to assist arbs in chewing through the issues of a case (with appropriate recusals). Rd232 ^talk 16:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What's up with WP:MEDCAB, WP:MEDCOM, WP:EA? Less visible perhaps, but at least somewhat operational, last time I checked. <goes off to check> --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely you jest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not jesting, and they still appear to be operational in their intended role of defusing at least some situations before they get to arbcom <looks puzzeled> . However, these subsystems are designed to deal with inter-user conflicts, not necessarily with more complex cases. <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Note that I'm sort of on wiki-break in recent history, so I end up double-checking things I remember, to be sure they're still true

Fully intending to state the obvious, how many people with the skills necessary to be a good arb would willingly subject themselves to a couple years of whiny, painful online interactions? It's amazing that we have any of these at all. Awickert (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite. Rd232 ^talk 16:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want whiny, painful online interactions, Wikipedia is probably not the place to be. Some days it seems to consist of nothing but. At least the Arbs get to swat away (sorry, I mean "admonish") their more vocal irritants. – iridescent16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I usually have a lot of fun on Wikipedia, sans drama. Other than dealing with SPA fringe POV pushers in science, here is my MO:

Awickert walks down the street, whistling, holding an ice cream cone (mint chocolate chip, of course) in his left hand, and a pencil in his right. He hovers over Earth Science articles, making a few small changes here, a few major ones there. His friends pass, and they wave.

All of a sudden, darkness falls. The sun is blotted from the sky, and police officers rush the streets. One of them looks at Awickert and says: "son, this could get ugly." Awickert looks around, and sees Wikipedians locked in hand-to-hand combat. He rushes over to try to break it up, but to no avail. He yells, "Um, maybe you could sort this out like reasonable people? I mean, Wikipedia is supposed to be fun." But no one listens, and he's drowned out by the sound of helicopter rotors overhead as arbcom members dressed in black body armor drop down on ropes into the fray. Anyway, it's hard to break up a fight or be taken seriously while trying to keep an ice cream cone intact on a dark and ominous street.

So he shrugs and thinks about the things he likes to do for fun, both here and in real life. "Whatever," he mutters. And then he takes a mint-chocolatey-chipey bite and follows the lead of Brave Sir Robin.

And is why I am not an admin :). Awickert (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Which reminds me-- I've got a trip to prepare for, and I don't intend to spend the next two weeks thinking about which arb is waging a grudge against me on the internet! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Right on. Awickert (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And, we come full circle-- how much less unpleasant would serving on ArbCom be if we cleaned up ANI, RFA, and the admin corp? But, I will continue to assert that the arbs are doing a darn good job of shooting themselves in the foot and assuring that qualified candidates won't want any part of that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely the unique attraction of being on ArbCom is to be allowed to to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. For help in determining of the copyright status of this quote please see Conan the Barbarian (film) and the vast reams of recent discussion among the confused. Yomangani^talk 16:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To wit-- the posts that led to this thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

@Yomangani: Unfortunately not :-( You can't even really crush *other* peoples enemies. It's most depressing. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC) What is unfortunate for Yomangani may well be most fortunate for wikipedia ;-)

Ah, but they can still try. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To crush or shoot themselves in the foot? Lately I've been seeing an ambidextrous combination of the two going on. Those feet, always in the way! Awickert (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Two-fer! (For the sake of argument, let's think about how long I'd last at FAC if I didn't put aside past issues I'd had with any nominator or reviewer, and judge the article and consensus on their merits or recuse when necessary?) Or how fast I'd have to resign if I had obviously done that, ever? No similar accountability to the community in the admin corp or now on ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir. Awickert (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Back to admins

That reminds me of a couple thoughts I've had rolling around. It's a growing problem that quite a few administrative decisions seem to have an undisclosed back history. I think acquaintance with another editor's habits can be relevant, but probably everyone has seen some instance or three of an admin blocking someone in conflict with the admin's friend. It seems wrong. Yet, getting a genuinely uninvolved admin to review something is nearly impossible; as volunteers, people tend to do what they know about or are interested in. The BISE stuff got me to thinking - would it be possible, or useful, to set up a framework so uninvolved people could review a situation, and which would not be overly easy to game. What if there were a place to ask uninvolved admins to review stuff? Theoretically the unblock template does that for blocks, but in practice it sometimes appears a block gets "reviewed" rather quickly by an admin's friend, with predictable results. So what if some group like arbcom had a list of admins or editors, and assigned one to review a situation, perhaps to act, or perhaps to provide recommendations back to arbcom? Sort of like a special investigator.

Another wild thought was, what if the rules for admin conduct were only written by editors? As in, admins had zero say in the consensus formation of blocking? I hope that made you laugh; I know how easily that could be gamed. But the concept seems interesting. I doubt non-admins would authorize admins to make indef blocks for "incivility" from a user on the user's own talk page. Just saying. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What if there were a place to ask uninvolved admins to review stuff? Isn't that ANI is supposed to be? Unfortunately, it's not always populated by adults. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You know the problems there. Even in the best case, it still depends on who is interested enough to respond, and so the result is usually swayed by pile-ons from involved editors or admins who don't identify their involvement. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What about the lottery idea I mentioned above? It's not practical in situations requiring a quick response though, even if the lottery asks multiple people for input. Rd232 ^talk 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's quite likely that some non-admins would be quite happy to authorize indef blocks for any reason at all, so long as they were only applied to the editors they disliked. You see that at ANI almost every day. Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but if policy discussion really did end up with a no-tolerance view of "incivility", it would have to apply to everyone. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And the chance of that happening is as close to zero as makes no difference. I've always found it to be the case that those who shout loudest about incivility are amongst the most incivil themselves. They only want to apply their rules to everyone else. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I find that unblocks by admins who hang out at the same user talk pages as the blocked editor and enjoy a very cordial relationship with them to be a more common problem. Just saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, Gimme, stop hanging out with The Fat Man, will 'ya!?! You might get fat on Wehwalt's popcorn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that, but YMMV. Anyway, some randomisation would help with that too. Rd232 ^talk 18:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sold all my popcorn to ArbCom, they want it to eat while sitting back and watching the annual drama.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You presume much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not with your RfA, with the elections!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Must I repeat myself? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt is just upset because he doesn't think he could get a block on me to stick. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, have you been ingesting something with your popcorn? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Only the stuff that went on half-price when Proposition 19 didn't pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You should lay off of that stuff; word is you're on the prowl for babes, and that stuff will just make you horny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a frying pan around here somewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the funniest blatant attack I've seen yet-- maybe that fellow wants to run for ArbCom, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be technical, it is a commentary on Wikipedians, not an individual.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To plagiarize one of our illustrious arbs "Actually I was referring to ... " your attack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to see how you come to that conclusion Wehwalt, but it did at least make me laugh. As did this, given your comments about "cowboy" admins doing exactly what you did. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you naughty boy! Caught with your hands in the cookie jar! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember how those cookies were baked ... but I digress. Which part of "after consultation" was Revdel'd?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Which part of "cowboy" don't you understand? Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just a matter of verb conjugation. I take a principled stand. You are a cowboy admin. See? MastCell ^Talk 23:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, tasty. How do you conjugate the third person?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Conjugation applies to verbs, not to prejudice and dishonesty, cowboy. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong school of thought that prejudice and dishonesty are needed before you get to do conjugation ...--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The heading of this thread is "Back to admins"; are we now "Back to arbs"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Back to arbs

A sigh of relief is heard throughout the Wiki: NYB is crazy (but in a good way). So we have SirFozzie and NYB in the ring, but we need 11 new arbs. I need to do more homework on PhilKnight-- soft on admin misuse of tools and not a content creator, but had clue with Elonka (reference Shell Kinney, above).

Back to Rd232's point above about a high number of arbs providing balance: wrong. Seven good arbs can arbitrate more effectively than seven good arbs trying to come to agreement with 11 others. We frequently see NYB float a number of proposals to see what sticks; we don't see what goes on backchannel, but we can guess. NYB, Roger, Kirill, and Risker can't do much if they've got a passel of other arbs to contend with who have no clue, and I suspect that's why we saw undesirable outcomes in a number of cases this year (huge committee made up of whomever passes is a mistake).

Unless we see more good candidates in the ring this year, choosing the "best of the bunch" to come up with 11 is probably a tactical mistake; I'd rather see a smaller but effective Committee. And I sure hope the current Committee is scurrying about figuring out what to do with the "institutional history" of highly confidential, sensitive and private information, and a restructuring of the Committee to handle such information, in the event they end up with a bunch of kids and marginal passes on the new Committee; I, for one, am not going to be communicating with the arb maillist any more, and if I have to send something confidential to the arbs, I'll pick those I trust to keep it confidential. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

re wrong. genuine LOL - laying on the subtlety with a trowel! (Sidenote: I used to love that show, but it tailed off...) Anyway, you may have a point, but the structure is what the structure is. We can only get as many good candidates we can, and see what happens. The trouble with not voting for OK candidates in a limited field (if that's what you're suggesting) is letting in bad candidates. Rd232 ^talk 12:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I lifted that Youtube from someone else, can't recall who, where or when-- will the guilty party please step forward? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree you in theory about better quality over quantity, but the fact is arbs are human volunteers, and we need at least the option of a larger pool to prevent burnout and greater turnover. As for a bunch of kids taking over the ArbCom... well, they at least physically have to be over the age of 18, and afaik only one would come close to meeting your definition of "kid" currently. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My definition of "kid" is anyone younger than my own. I already raised mine, did a damn good job, and don't come to Wiki to raise someone else's in the clear evidence of absent parents and good manners. I AGF until proven otherwise-- we have some excellent "kids" doing fine work on Wiki-- but if they're younger than what I know people of a certain age are capable of, they have to prove to me that they are an exception, rather than the norm, for their age. Them's my rules, and anyone who wants to can call me "ageist", tough cookies. We spend WAAAY too much time cleaning up after editors who should be out playing soccer or something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I missed an interesting conversation - I've been watching the nomination page in dismay since sunday. hoping that the prospects with clue are just taking their time before sticking their name in. And I agree with the points made on 'kids'. Kids are great for some things - I read somewhere that the average age of the entire RAF at the time of the Battle of Britain (including Stuffy Dowding) was 21. At the same time, when dealing with a whole bunch of people all telling you a different tale, it really helps to have some experience of life and a bit of...well, not cynicism, which is a negative, but a sense of caution. Dare I say 'wisdom', even though this is only a website in one sense, because in another it is a project where the people involved can feel they are 'making a difference'. You can't make the snap judgements of a teacher and heave the whole lot of 'em into detention. You need to be able to relate to people as adults - which sadly allows for recognising adult mendacity as well as dealing with people on a grown up footing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well since you've put your head above the parapet: can I draw your attention to the fact that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Elen of the Roads is still a redlink? :) Rd232 ^talk 14:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

<Tap, tap, tap> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a shortlist of people I'd like to see over there, and they're not there. I'm glad to see NYB back. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You guys aren't serious are you? Things must have got bad.... :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am, and they have. Honestly, you're one of the first names on my teamsheet, which doesn't run to a full squad... Rd232 ^talk 19:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Elen, if you run, I will ask you about [15], which I consider the type of response not helpful at ANI for a couple reasons. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ask away pet. I don't, in all honesty, think that you came out too well from that entire incident - as I recall, at that point, you were persistently and somewhat grouchily refusing to tell anyone what kit you were running that had the problem, while everyone else was reporting in to get as many permutations as possible. Since, given your refusal to speak up, it was entirely possible that you were in fact running Netscape 2.0 on a 286, I can't see anything wrong with the statement. It remains true of anyone that just because it doesn't work on whatever old tin box they are running it on, they can't break the wiki just to fix it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Brad on virtually everything, right down to the bedrock issue of "what is the purpose of Wikipedia?", but despite that I'd consider him by far the best of the current Arbcom. He's the only one who generally gives the impression of listening to all sides and weighing the issues, rather than deciding what he wants the outcome to be and cherry-picking those bits of evidence which support that outcome. Of the current candidates, he's not only the only one I'd support, he's the only one I wouldn't actively oppose. – iridescent 16:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry iri, that wasn't a crack at NYB, who I would also support even though I don't always agree with him. It was aimed at Sandy and Rd. I have re-indented to try to make that clear.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

@Sandy - I think it's a job I could do, but I wouldn't have thought of putting myself forward this year. Although it looks like everyone else thought that as well :( Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone's got to step up to the noose... and Sandy and Malleus and I have no chance, since we're not admins (pheeewww!) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Before the bandwagon quite leaves the station, I would remind everyone that there is no penalty to self noming late, and given the sheer number of questions last year, that was probably a good strategy. Elen, you still have to refuse the kingly (queenly?) crown twice more before you can run, there's policy on that someplace or other.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was pastries you had to refuse three times before you could accept.... Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That's only for the sports teams.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Do the editors commenting here really think that an inexperienced admin with less than 10,000 edits would have a chance at being elected? I'm not asking this out of meanness, and I really don't mean any disrespect to Elen, I'm just genuinely curious. I guess I always got the impression that you had to be an experienced admin with 50k+edits and experience at AN, ANI, SPI, AE and the rest of the alphabet to have a snowball's chance. Dana boomer (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically, you don't have to be an admin (although it's hard to see how that might work in practice). If you look at the list of arb activities they really are a very small subset of admin activities. It is primarily the ability to arbitrate (ie make a judgement between different arguments) that is called for. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

[16]---Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Most helpful. It does not seem to be generally required of admins that they are particularly good at dispute resolution, unless it is something they specifically put themselves forward for. A lot of admins work in areas that do not require this as a skill. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to be an admin; I saw somewhere recently that if a non-admin gets elected, they get the tools for the duration, to allow them to see deleted content etc as necessary. Anyway, I'm surprised at Dana boomer's reference to 50k+ edits, which seems enormously WP:Editcountitis. As with RFA, the main thing to select for is personality and experience. You need a lot of edits to demonstrate that, but you can easily get to 50k without doing so. Quality, not quantity. Rd232 ^talk 19:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's never happened and it never will. Too many vested interests. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you suck it and see? With apparently so few candidates, the chances as non-admin are better than ever. Plus, I do think the committee would benefit from a mixture of perspectives, and I think yours would widen the spectrum :) Rd232 ^talk 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why on Earth would I want to be an arbitrator? Why on Earth does anyone want to be an arbitrator for that matter? Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why does anyone want to contribute to Wikipedia in any capacity? Better question (to which there may well be an excellent answer - I can't for lack of time): why wouldn't you want to be an arb? Do you think you couldn't achieve anything? Or not worth the effort? Rd232 ^talk 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You might as well ask me why I don't want to be a lion tamer, or a traffic warden, as the answer would be the same; I have no interest in it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, you can treat admins in ways which would make you lunch for Leo, or lying on the macadam after that lorry hit you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess by the time you are at ArbCom, bringing together the parties in a room for tea, cookies, and compromise is a procedure whose ship has sailed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Most admins are in fact spectacularly bad at dispute resolution, as you can see even on this talk page. most seem to specialise in needling, to provoke a reaction that justifies their use of the ban hammer. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you hold an election at the right time, when the masses are tired of "the establishment" (this is true of RL politics as well), any kind of nut can get elected. Sometimes the establishment candidates who only look good on paper have the least chance of winning. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Realistically, given the number of open seats and the dearth of candidates, I think that anyone who puts together even a marginally credible case has a good chance of finishing in the top 11. Whether that's sufficient to guarantee appointment seems to be an unresolved issue. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the candidates are out there and will file. Given the tight election schedule, there are advantages to dropping in late, or so some might think. I suspect that we will see perhaps 15 serious candidates and three fringers.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. When I ran in 2007 or so, it was apparently a huge negative that I entered the race "too late" (I hadn't intended to run, but someone I greatly respected persuaded me to do so late in the game, and I was foolish and naive enough to follow through). And I didn't answer "enough" of the clueless 28-part hypotheticals that passed for Q&A. Another big knock was that I stated that I didn't use IRC. It was around that time I concluded that the process was seriously fucked, although I do think that the performance of that year's crop of Arbs (Brad excepted) was a turning point, and things might be a little more reasonable now. Anyhow, if history is any guide, I don't think it's advantageous to delay. MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if no one else jumps for it the next day or so, Mast, how about you and I's make a suicide pact to run like it's 2007 again? I'm only half-joking at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The only sane response to a request to join a suicide pact is: you first. Oops, I see you already took the plunge. :P MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Now you have no excuse! The oil is burning away, hop to it! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 05:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedreading

Hi Sandy, thought you might want to be notified that, based on the timing in his history (06:21, 18 November 2010—06:41, 18 November 2010), AlastorMoody reviewed 11 FAC and FLC candidates in 20 minutes. Must be some kinda record, eh? Sasata (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed—looks like he read all 11 articles in-depth before reviewing. 500+ KB of prose in 20 minutes—nice speedreading! ;) —Deckiller (t-c-l) 12:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedreading? Sounds like reading by osmosis to me. :P Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 12:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the time! (I smell the pitter-patter of little feet ... but will leave that to someone with more time. ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

When I used to do drive-by supports and opposes as a 17-year-old, I would always comment about some sort of tidbit in the article to actually make it look like I read it. </jest> In all seriousness, we should really discourage one-liner supports/opposes. Comments, on the other hand... —Deckiller (t-c-l) 12:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The best way to handle those in the future is just put a link to the editor's contribs on the FAC-- no need to make any comment, delegates have clue, and that way reviewers don't have to "tangle". :) It will also help me remember when I get to reading that FAC. (See here for how to link me to the contribs of concern.) DK, you're too much !!!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

List of FAs

Hi. Why did you make that edit? The list leaves off three of my FAs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I left message in edit summary and left you a talk message-- that page is built by bot, and the next time the bot goes through (which is quite regularly), your edit will be lost. You have to find the original entries in the monthly logs that the bot uses to build that page, and add your name there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. How on earth do I find those? I don't know anything about "monthly logs". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in an airport-- unless someone else helps you, I'll get to it tomorrow. Dig around-- you'll find it at that page, in the yearly logs. Actually, just go tell Rick Block (talk · contribs) (RickBot) what you want, and he'll fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a message for Rick. Happy travels! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixing Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2010 or the other yearly logs, however will work. Courcelles 19:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to add myself at W. S. Gilbert (promoted in 2006), Thespis (opera) (promoted in 2007) and Her Majesty's Theatre (Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008). I am not formally listed at the FAC as a nominator on these three, but in each case I was one of the two main contributors to the articles and responded to the FA comments along with the nominator. Please let me know if I need to do anything further. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl/archive1

I've been editing 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl like crazy, but I'd probably want to see a second user go through before supporting. There was a lot to tighten, especially given the dryness of the material (run-focused college football teams). If not, I'll try to give it a final pass early next week when I have fresh eyes. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Fasach Nua

Is there something that can be done about editor Fasach Nua (talk)? His participation in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco/archive1 was highly unhelpful (and I am being nice now) and I've noticed that he has the same behavior on other FAC nominations. Not only that, but complains from other editors fo that same behavior is quite common, and his tendency to erase messages sent to him in his talk page reveals his character. How can it be possible to such disruptive person be allowed to walk around FAC? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Lecen, my advise is to respond to his feedback as you deem appropriate and leave it at that. If he disengages, the delegate who closes the nomination will determine the appropriate action. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, I was planning to do exactly that until I noticed that he likes to take part in almost every single FAC nomination. And his reviews are awful and unfair, with highly impossible demands resulting from his own personal taste, not due to a rational objection. And his subsequent behavior, such as erasing messages sent to him and leaving his "oppose" untouched, does not help at all. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Lecen, I will remind you of the same that I've reminded you in your previous FACs; if you label reviewers as "disruptive", your FACs are unlikely to proceed smoothly. We have very few good image reviewers, we need them, if they are occasionally shown to be wrong, that doesn't make them "disruptive". If you disagree with FN on some review, all you have to do is ask another qualified image reviewer to have a look, but disparaging FAC reviewers is not an endearing trait. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, did you look at the comments in question? They have nothing to do with images... Lecen is understandably upset that a contributor is opposing his article based on a dislike of the way a navigation template is arranged. As navigation template arrangement has nothing to do with the FA criteria, I can understand why Lecen would think it disruptive... Dana boomer (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ummmmm ... who says "navigation template arrangement has nothing to do with the FA criteria"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dana, in fairness, Lecen did bring up the issue of other FACs ("I've noticed that he has the same behavior on other FAC nominations"), which have primarily involved image issues. Fasach's concern here seems to be the lack of external (i.e. WP:V) support/reasoning for inclusion of the entities in the template. He's made that clear.[17] [18] While I suspect you and I both find this an incorrect interpretation of the policy, Fasach nevertheless has the right to oppose the FAC based on what he perceives to be a violation. The bigger issue, which Sandy seems to have been attempting to address, is that calling contributions "disruptive" is not a particularly helpful approach - especially when they're not actually disruptive, as it the case here. There's no disruption when delegates have the ability to disregard comments which do not have basis in policy or support of consensus. Эlcobbola _talk 16:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere I mentioned any problem with images. I have to deal with editors who often ignore Wikipedia rules and stick with their votes based solely on their own personal taste. FAC nominations are more based on politics and the diplomatic skills of the nominator than actually on rules and article's quality. That's a real issue and it has to be dealt with.

Ow, since you brought the image issues into light, I'd like to share a thought on it. I don't remember ever saying that Jappalang was diruptive, although I still believe that he is wrong. I talked with two different editors, who are both administrators at the English Wikipedia and also at Commons and both told me that Jappalang is wrong (See "Re images of Pedro Cabral" [19]). Either Commons rules and the two administrators are wrong or Jappalang is wrong. The FAC's responsibles have to pick a side. --Lecen (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

While I haven't looked at the ins and outs of this particular image, if it's a question of whether to trust Jappalang or Dcoetzee over image copyrights I'd take the former every time. The latter's unusual approach to copyright has already led to legal action being taken against the WMF, gotten Wikipedia huge amounts of negative media coverage ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]), and done damage to our relationship with cultural institutions which still isn't fully repaired. – iridescent 18:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent, I do not mean to be rude, and I ask you to forgive me if you think that, but... what that has to do with my problem? We are not talking about images, but about a template. Fasach Nua has opposed the article I wrote based on a template he disliked. He did not care to read the article itself! Not only that, he ignored two messages sent to him by another editor requesting him to answer why he opposed. Not only he ignored, but he also erased those messages! (Here [26] and here [27]) That is not the kind of behavior someone should expect from a FAC reviewer. Not only that, but in his exchange with Andy Walsh (A.K.A. Laser brain) he told the latter that he would not answer back in the FAC nomination because the editor was rude with him. That is, he will "punish" me and the article I wrote for something that another editor - who I do not know - did to him! That's a childish and unappropriate behavior that we should not expect from a reviewer here at FAC. --Lecen (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(Od0 I realize this conversation has been silent for a few days now, but I only just came across it after looking over some of Fasach Nua's latest contributions. While I understand that FAC needs all the reviewers it can get, and that FN does excellent work much of the time on NFCC images and similar areas, it seems like their attitude can often be blunt, bordering on rude and uncommunicative. While in some FACs they give quite detailed explanations, in numerous others their reviews don't seem to help matters. In the FAC for Flower Drum Song, for example, in this edit [28] FN simply states that an image lacks an FUR, which it blatantly has quite a detailed one. Or here [29] where they simply say that the article fails WIAFA without any more details. This has happened a number of times, and usually any questions from FAC editors to FN's talkpage are deleted and not replied to. It seems like a lot of FACs that pass do so with his opposes still active and not developed upon. Again, I realize that FN is a valued FAC reviewer, which we need more of, and I wouldn't go so far as to call his behaviour disruptive. But is is incredibly blunt at times and very unhelpful to FAC writers, especially when they don't follow up on opposes and delete questions to their talkpages. Skinny87 (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom voting guide

Are you going to be putting together an ArbCom voting guide? Because I've found your guides a useful substitute for doing Actual Background Work myself in previous years. :P MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2010. AD 19:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - missed that. MastCell ^Talk 19:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

MC, whether I will fill it out this year depends on whether we get at least five decent candidates (which we didn't have last time I checked a few days ago). I'm afraid that all of the changes forced through last year have left us in a really bad way, taken all discretion away from Jimbo to handle unforeseen circumstances such as this year's particularly bad "crop", and set us up for the worst ArbCom ever. I notice the Iri pointed out elsewhere the irony that people who wouldn't pass RFA's 70% threshold (which IMO is too low anyway) are likely to end up on Arbcom with a 50% threshold. The whole state of affairs is most dismal, and as soon as I find time, I intend to ask the current arbs what they are going to do about highly sensitive and confidential personal information that could now fall into the hands of new arbs who are disliked by half of the voting Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a concern of mine as well. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Only a lunatic (or someone woefully uninformed) would give Arbcom "highly sensitive and confidential personal information." You don't need to spend more than a few minutes reading the discussions by our fine colleagues at WR to know that Arbcom leaks like a sieve. Didn't someone once post Arbcom email logs somewhere?

Anyway, I've been tempted to run myself. My platform will include:

• All admins receive extra ration of vodka. This will improve decision making compared to current process.
• Production quotas for all admins. Admin exceeding production quota by 210% will be awarded new pair of shoes.
• Decisions will be announced within 24 hours of filing case. Decision to be followed by one week for collection of evidence and denunciations of erring parties.

Other policies to be developed and retroactively applied (same as now). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Guess I'm a lunatic, because I've given highly sensitive and confidential personal information to ArbCom to protect the identities of others, rather than revealing the info publicly (although I certainly could have) in at least three cases I can remember, and I can think of several unsavory types I wouldn't want to be able to access that info on ArbCom but who might make a 50% threshold considering the absurdities of the new election processes. I would like the current arbs to tell us how old info is secured when new arbs are elected, because I would never divulge such personal info about other vulnerable users to most of the current crop of candidates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You might want to ask Brad direct on that. While I disagree with him on pretty much everything, there's nobody who knows more about how Wikipedia's policy and practice differ in reality, and I know from experience that he's aware of the issues with highly sensitive personal data. – iridescent 19:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just curious Sandy, did you send the info to a specific arbitrator or to the general Arbcom mailing list? I'd do the former but not the latter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Over the years, I've done both; I need to clarify confidentiality policy with the arbs because, depending on the outcome of these elections, I'll no longer use the arb maillist. There are individual arbs I trust, but I wonder if new arbs will have access to everything in the old maillist archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A pretty good summary. I voted earlier, and checking my conclusions against your list there were only two candidates we disagreed about, and one of them I was havering about anyway (wasn't Giano in case anyone's wondering). Not sure whether that's good or bad. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Typo: "trends hold". Easy to miss. Tony (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Debating whether I should toss my hat (and let my hair loss show) into the ArbCom election.

I don't know. I'd like to think I could handle ArbCom duties. I know I could handle the stress. (formerly a debt collector, tech support, and competition admin) Thoughts from the page lurkers and Sandy? Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 05:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Choice is always good. I cannae' say much else, for I'm a candidate and I know not what might deeds you have committed to honor us on the plains of battle, but... dropping the Viking parlance now... More candidates means more choice and more potential opinions and backgrounds to compose the ArbCom. If you've got the time and think you'd be able to handle it, screw ye courage to the sticking place :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 05:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a requirement for at least 1,000 mainspace edits? Franamax (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The requirements are located on this page. NW (Talk) 06:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I did more article talk edits than article edits themselves. Source hunting, etc. My prose style tends to be a bit too... short and sweet for a quality article. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 08:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvios on MP again

G'day SandyGeorgia. I thought you might be interested that I pulled an article from the main page today (T:ITN) that was a copyvio from start to finish: 2010 Colombia floods. It had been up for days and the copyvios were then when it was posted. I've been on wikibreak for a while so I haven't been able to follow what happened with the big "plagiarism on the main page" discussion. I thought you might be interested as I recall you were one of the main drivers of that discussion. If it's still ongoing, I'd be happy to join in. I've written a little rant/essay on the bottom of my userpage about my frustrations with the lack of main page scrutiny.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mk-- I've also taken a few days off, and am ever-so-slowly catching up; starting at the bottom of the page is as good a place as any! I actually did not intend to become a "main driver" of the plagiarism discussion, nor did I intend to become "Plagiarism Central", but alas and alack, so it has turned out :) What fueled that whole thing was me trying to discover how the "reward culture" on Wiki was fueling plagiarism and copyvio at DYK to feed ill-prepared RFA candidates, and I never expected the problem to turn out to be as big as it has.

Anyway, I think we can summarize what has happened with that discussion as 1) slightly more awareness of plagiarism and copyvio on Wiki; 2) much more work for our few qualified copyvio people; 3) little change that I've been able to detect at DYK or ITN (but I don't follow closely enough); 4) circling of the wagons curiously in defense of copyvio by some ArbCom members and some extremely distasteful commentary coming from some arbs; and 5) curiously, even some resistance at FAC to tightening procedures to detect copyvio, with a second copyvio getting through FAC only a week after the Halloween mainpage debacle.

On the copyvio you detected above, I'm not certain you handled it correctly-- by stubbifying the article, rather than adding the {{copyvio}} tag and alerting the copyvio people, you don't allow them to 1) look for other copyvios by the same author, 2) educate that author, and 3) remove the copyvio from article history. You might want to go through those steps as well.

As to the lack of mainpage scrutiny, I 'spose it will take time, a few more debacles, and a few less unprofessional arbs before the issue is taken seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious how you see arbs playing into this picture. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See here. It's one thing to defend an arb as a person who made a very visible mistake; completely another to defend his duck-and-run response to the issue, and the circling of wagons and finger-pointing at everyone except the person responsible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Not Sandy, but my talkpage seems to have morphed into WP:Bitch about Arbcom this week so I'm familiar with the ins and outs.) When the Rlevse issue was raised, two current Arbs (including one who's up for re-election) took the line that any faults were down to "the entire group at FAC" leading him astray, and not systematic plagiarism on the part of a serving Arb—copyvio, copyvio, copyvio, copyvio, and the CCI is only about 5% complete. Obviously, Arbcom members have no special status on issues like this, but for better or worse their opinions are generally treated with increased respect owing to the office, and from some (by no means all) of the current Arbs the reaction was clearly messenger-shooting. – iridescent 17:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That was hugely disappointing as there was what appeared to be an attempt by some to find somebody...anybody else to blame. And in the end they did him no favours, because it made him feel he was invulnerable until the point where not just the shit but the fan also hit him. I suppose it's because I work in an environment where probity (or at least it's appearance) is so significant, that it continues to surprise me that other people can't see that. "Look, I'm sure he's done nothing wrong and any investigation will clear him" is what you say if you're his staunch friend and yet in an unenviable position of some responsibility, not "Look, you're not allowed to suggest that he's done anything wrong, so find someone else to pin this one on." Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SG - a second copyvio got through FAC? Bloody hell. Anyway, thanks for the pointers, I forgot to use revdel on this article and have now done so. I blanked rather than listed at WP:CP because the violations fell into the "blatant" category and qualified for immediate removal. I've set aside some time this weekend to go through the contributor's other articles as I feel a CCI coming. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Was the second copyvio at FAC the literary article that closed last week? I know it didn't make it through, but it's the only relevant one I know of. The scary thing is that if the FAC community hadn't been on alert because of recent events, the article would have passed. If that isn't the second copyvio, which article was? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The two copyvios to get through FAC (that we know of, anyway) were Grace Sherwood and The Story of Miss Moppet. – iridescent 01:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The one that was at FAC last week was The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher - and was archived. Given that the Beatrix Potter material was exclusively cited to off-line books (although some snippets and previews are available on Google books), and the writer's style mirrored the writing style of the source, this is not entirely a surprise. What is a surprise is the how pervasive this is in the many many GA articles written by the multiple socks of the same user. It might not be a bad idea to see the source checking begin in GA reviews instead of waiting for FAC. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Source checking doesn't wait for FAC; quite recently I complained during a GA review that some of the text followed the source too closely, but there's a limit to what can be done either at GAN or FAC, unless we're going to demand that reviewers have access to all of the sources. Nobody is going to check every citation, only those that smell a bit funny, or perhaps a random spot check. That a few articles have reached the mainpage before the copyright problems came to light ought not to be a surprise, or a cause for beating of breasts. I'd lay a substantial bet that the majority of wikipedia's articles have evidence of some copying in their history. We need to keep this in proportion. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with with what you've written, and I think that a certain error rate has to be accepted. The problem with the Beatrix Potter series is that the error rate is huge - seems to be well above 50% in each article, and seems that most of the series is affected. A 7 to 10 percent error rate would be acceptable in my view, but such huge rates of error are beyond error. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I use the analogy of software testing. Testers take two general views: test the areas most likely to contain bugs, perhaps for technical reasons like nested conditional statements, and test the work done by the developers you have some reason to distrust. Even then bugs get through to production. I'm not up to date with current estimates, but from memory a figure of 15 bugs per 1,000 lines of code is about the industry average IIRC. It is prohibitively expensive to eliminate all bugs, and arguably impossible, so we do the best we can within our constraints. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. This is especially important as the blanking procedure on reported articles, as it seems to be practiced, hides all diffs in the edit history prior to the last removal of copyvio material, which in the case of old articles may be hundreds if not thousands of diffs. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing lesson

Reviewing lesson I learned today: check sources for copyvio/close paraphrasing before wasting time with MOS/prose issues. Sasata (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish more reviewers would learn that lesson :) I have never understood why anyone focuses on prose, MOS, anything else until they know if the article is well sourced-- without that, nothing else matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Well sourced" is of course at least a shout away from "copyvio/close paraphrasing", to detect which one would obviously need access to the sources, which very few reviewers will have if they're not available online. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have written to you via email concerning what appears to be a pervasive negativity in your posts outside FAC over the past half year or so, and to express all the same my confidence in you as FAC delegate. Tony (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you remain confident in my performance at FAC, even if we disagree in other areas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We look to you for leadership, but that seems to have dissolved lately into a porridge of negative sentiment. Tony (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Miss Moppet

After The Story of Miss Moppet was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.

Truthkeeper88, with help from Ruhrfisch, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet#Post-FAC cleanup review comments on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan)/archive1

I was starting to feel good about the prose in the article, and was just waiting for a second opinion since I made a lot of fixes myself. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 01:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In other words, I was about ready to support after a second opinion. Perhaps it should be re-listed immediately? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DK, in the time you've been gone, we've been battling a stubborn backlog at FAC; for some reason, reviewers stopped using the "oppose" button and ill-prepared candidates are hanging around increasingly longer, with FAC looking more and more like PR for prose tweaking. When a candidate has been up that long (a month) with no support, it needs to be retired to come back in about two weeks, to give other candidates a better chance at getting some of our limited reviewer time. You can see how much we need you back on board ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's you!

If it's you darling, it's most definitely "exciting."  Giacomo  17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Caro Giano, no need to butter me up for an endorsement-- you've already got that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cara, tu sei una FAstella, and I 'ave your vote; I am so 'appy.  Giacomo  17:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are increasingly fewer exciting people, and more exiting people, around this place. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I just knew someone was going to say that :-) Well times are a changing, in the words of the apalling, grining Tony Blair "things are going to get better", I can feel it in my bones.  Giacomo  21:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

apropos change: I have 3 improvement attempts in motion, if anyone's interested:

1. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Input_randomisation
2. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Annual_CSB_Improvement_Drive
3. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Newcomers.27_help_page and the related Wikipedia_talk:New_contributors'_help_page#Redesign.

Probably ARBCOM elections is not a good time to propose them, but I get the feeling of secularly declining editing activity, so we need to keep thinking about how to do better in attracting and retaining good editors. And personally, I'm perennially hovering near the door because of RL commitments, so I'm getting the proposals out while I can. Rd232 ^talk 22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What does "secularly declining" mean? Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Long-term trend of declining. Rd232 ^talk 01:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Before you argue, Malleus, that is correct (albeit jargon only economists use). – iridescent 01:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The term "secular" is used in opposition to "cyclical", usually appended to the word "trend". See Secular variation. -- Avi (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My dictionary tells me that "secular" can be used in the sense of a long-term decline, and is used as such in astronomy, as in "the secular perturbation of a planet's orbit", so I have no difficulty in believing that economists might use the term in a similar way. "Secularly declining editing activity" is just a barbarism though, as "secular" already implies a decline, and two gerunds one after the other is rather ... odd. "Long-term trend of declining declining editing activity" is even odder. Presumably what's meant is "secular editing activity", a phrase that hardly anyone would understand? Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest instead: "I get the feeling of of a secular decline in the rate of editing activity" or something to that effect. -- Avi (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

But "secular" means a long-term decline. Better would be "a secular trend in editing activity". Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, "secular" means long-term; one can have a secular increase as well. – iridescent 01:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that I didn't believe you, of course, but I've just checked with the OED, which has this definition: "In scientific use, of processes of change: Having a period of enormous length; continuing through long ages". Which means that "secularly declining" still doesn't make sense, as what's being described is a "secular decline". Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I agree with you that the term should be used solely as an adjective, and appending an "-ly" at the end doth not it an adverb make. Although Iridescent is correct as well that it has no connotation as to the direction of the trend. -- Avi (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I accept that I was wrong to believe that "secular" was used only in the sense of a decline. It's always a good day when you learn something. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I had no idea that this essay was going to be marked! :P Rd232 ^talk 01:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi/Question

Hi Sandy, I'm looking for an independent copy-editor to help me with a music related article. Can you tell me which are the 3 most recently promoted music related FAs? Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do would probably be to glance through the last few months of promotions (the logs can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log) and pull out a few that look close to the articles that you're writing about. Dana boomer (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WP and plagiarism

Because you seem to be plagiarism central, I thought you'd enjoy this link (the underlying article here. Wikipedia and plagiarism references. The NYT article leading to the two blog posts: Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age--SPhilbrickT 17:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm?

Hi Sandy. I noticed you added 1949 Ambato earthquake to the urgents list; it has 3 supports and some final commentary that I am in the process of resolving. Did I miss a review or something, or do you just think it needs another looksie? I'm just wondering. ceranthor 21:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

place to get involved with editing

Any advice on a good place to get involved with editing? I sorta like copy editing, sorta like content creation. Have an interst in good work regardless of if it is FA or not. Umm...and if I could learn something also, that would be nice too. Should I join the Peer review group or the Copy editor group? Or just edit away? TCO (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you know about Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit?--SPhilbrickT 19:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How about checking out Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Put a message there, asking to join. Thanks. TCO (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)