User talk:SlimVirgin/August 2016

Icke

Hi, Please see User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator. Thanks. Arrivisto (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Finally, you're adding bare URLs as sources, in violation of WP:CITE." I've learned how to do it now. Thanks for the tip! Arrivisto (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes

You seem to have taken on a massive rewrite of Jonathan King. I too have become slightly obsessed and have read both his biographies and watched his two films on his life. Do you really mean Dorset or Dover street? Did he have two apartments? Why change one source from Telegraph to Independent and give it the wrong writer (Chalmers not Moore)? Why miss out all mentions for Who let the dogs out and Tubthumping and Orson - surely these were more significant than price of homes or exam results? And surely the fact that the man who started the investigation initially did not mention (by his own admission) King to Max Clifford should be included? Since you're correcting it constantly I thought to mention such things here rather than change there and be reverted. Ballymorey (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Dorset is fixed; don't know what you mean by Chalmers/Moore; Dogs and Tubthumping are now there (can't find a good source for Orson). And I can't see what difference it makes what was first said by that man. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I see on my talk page that you and another editor feel I should not change the article so I'll keep my suggestions on the talk page there. Ballymorey (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you have completed the King article - here are my thoughts on it after having finished reading both books and watched both films (enough already).

should not the introduction and box include writer and film maker?

I prefer the more recent photo

I personally prefer the Charterhouse picture - it was more appropriate

Wasn’t Denning just a plugger for Bell? King writes that Dick Leahy was responsible.

Shouldn’t we mention he was given awards as top producer in 1971 and 1972?

In 1997 wasn’t the MITS called something like Man of the Year before PC?

Wouldn’t Moody Blues be better known than Hanson?

I still think we should simply mention he was asked to judge Pop Stars but then, after Cowell also declined, Lithgoe took the role, rather than accepting either side of the denied story.

“Further trials” rather than “third”, as sources say.

Nowhere does it say Denning was named in that investigation which was probably why he wasn’t arrested.

I still think Max Clifford and the “others only” passage is of interest (as explained in his film).

Not sure the Cowell bail connection is fair. It implies something.

Vile Pervert ought to have its own link. I read it has just passed 2 million views - a lot for a full length movie though it is free. But so are all videos.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1958447/Jonathan-King-makes-Vile-Pervert-The-Musical.html

All small details but I think would polish it! I'd do them myself but was told not to. Ballymorey (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ballymorey, thanks, I'll take a look, but it's better to post this on the talk page where others can join in. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about lack of response but lost interest. Easily done! Ballymorey (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A Jstor blip?

Hi, Sarah. I'm sorry that I only seem to talk to you these days when I have an anxiety about my Jstor access. Today I find I can log in to my account, but I can't get beyond the previews. Is it the same for you? Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we're in the "renewal is pending" phase again - you're not the only one with that problem. See User talk:Nikkimaria##JSTOR... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Brian, sadly, yes, it seems we're locked out temporarily. See Nikki's page. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. I assume there's nothing we can do but wait in hope... Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, as a Cambridge alumnus, you can get JSTOR access via http://www.cantab.net/ for life - if anybody here is in urgent need of an article, I'd be happy to forward a copy if I can find it, on the assumption that you'll be entitled to it anyway when the renewal is sorted out. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to your emails

Sorry I wasn't around when you tried to contact me. I was away for a few days. I am sure that what you did was the best thing to do, under the circumstances. You raised the question of salting. I have gone ahead and done that. It is perhaps borderline for WP:BLPDEL, but I think in a borderline case we should err on the side of protecting privacy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, thank you very much for doing that. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

AFC

Thank you for closing that thread, Sarah. I agree that it would not have become so personalised if I had pursued a resolution via the AFC WikiProject. I'm very sorry that LaMona seems to want to leave Wikipedia, and I wish she'd reconsider. As I remarked on the first occasion I posted on her talk page, she's done so much good work and it would be a shame to lose it. Having seen the thread above, it's worth noting that I didn't know her gender until I was composing the ANI report and didn't want to keep using she/he as the pronoun, so I checked her user page to see if she had stated her gender. The version at the time had an "Identifiers for me" section which gave her ORCID identifier, linking directly to personal information. It might be worth rev-deleting those versions of the user page and somehow warning others that they risk outing themselves if they post those sort of links, which may be a particular concern for our female editors. All the best, --RexxS (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

LaMona and RexxS, you both do good work here, so it's a real shame that this has blown up. LaMona, if you've enjoyed your work on Wikipedia, I hope you'll come back to it. Perhaps you could both find a quiet spot and discuss whether to recalibrate AfC expectations.

LaMona, I've removed the section you started above because it involved someone else who, because mentioned, had the right to defend himself, and it seems pointless to let things escalate again.

When an editor has operated openly under a real name, then changed their minds about doing that, other editors are (generally speaking) asked to respect that decision. But when the material is available in multiple places, and the editor has only recently thought better of their own decision to make it available, to call any reference to it "outing" stretches the meaning of that term somewhat. Having said that, as a matter of courtesy, people should avoid using it or pointing to it once you've made your preference clear. If you would like identifying material to be removed from the history of any page on Wikipedia, please let me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I never openly operated under my real name. I briefly had my name on my user page, but that was years ago. But the main point is that i never revealed my Wikipedia name in real life. I never made that connection. So having someone post about my Wikipedia work on Twitter is still outing. It's one thing for it to be in the history of a page, it's another to have someone else make the decision to out you on a social medium you use for important aspects of your profession. This is unacceptable. There is much about me that can be found online, including my home address. How should I feel now? LaMona (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify the last point, I can't promise to do anything because it depends on when and where, but I can look at it, and of course you can email me rather than draw attention to it here. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So you think it is ok for a user to be taking this to my Twitter feed?! I can't believe that. That feed has been my main connection to my colleagues, many of who are survivors of sexual attacks. This is unbelievable, and just more proof that Wikipedia is totally unsafe for women. I have done nothing wrong on AFC; I was one of the more diligent, helpful reviewers. But now you say that because people were able to figure out who I am, it's ok for them to continue to harass me. This is just unbelievable. I have absolutely no recourse for this harassment, and you think I should rethink and stay around? I have been accused of things I never did, attacked for not responding, attacked for responding, and now attacked for trying to defend my tweeps. And your statement that "if the materials is available in various places" is exactly contrary to the recent discussions on ANI and elsewhere. I couldn't be more disapointed. LaMona (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

LaMona, I'm going to refer this to the oversight people to ask for their views. No one is entitled to harass you, and I've asked the other editor (for the sake of clarity, I'm not referring to RexxS) not to write about you again on Wikipedia. I can't control what that editor does off-wiki, although posting about you elsewhere is certainly what the policy calls an "aggravating factor" (see WP:OWH). The problem in this case is that you did clearly link your user name and real name on Wikipedia, until recently. That complicates the issue. But it's certainly true, now that you have stated your preference, that no one should make the link. Do you want material revdeleted (or oversighted) from your page? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

LaMona, I've gone ahead and revdeleted your user-page edits, except for the most recent. I earlier did the same to the posts on this page from you and the other editor. If you want me to restore the edits to your user page, let me know. I'll refer this to the oversight people in case suppression is more appropriate. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Came across this by reading over the unfortunate discussion on ANI. But just FTR, I asked Oversight about outing people's wiki-identities off-site (Twitter, but moreso Wordpress) some years ago, and their response was basically "That sucks, and we sympathize, but we can't do anyhing beyond banning the user responsible from editing Wikipedia" (something that in my case had already been done some months earlier). I don't know the details of his case, but if whoever did whatever on Twitter is not identifiable with a specific Wikipedia editor who is not already site-banned, the result will probably be he same. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

What isn't addressed here is that the entire AFC was an act of harassment. The accusations were at a level of near hysteria; every stated accusation was disproved in the comments by actual analysis; and I was called things like "crazy", "unstable". It seems that is ok, but my use of the word "sexist" (which I still firmly believe of the initial poster) overrode any mud they could sling at me. This is not parity of viewpoints. I am deeply disappointed that this is allowed on Wikipedia, with no "adults" available to stop this behavior before it does great damage. Note that some of the perpetrators of and participants in that ANI are continuing it in other venues. This is deeply damaging, and quite honestly looks like "Lord of the Flies" behavior. I was once proud to be a Wikipedian, but that is gone because a few bullies (some of which have little history with Wikipedia) are allowed to harass a long-time editor off the platform. I do not trust Wikipedia as a place to engage for this reason. And I'm quite sure that is not crazy on my part. LaMona (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not prepared to see that personal attack stand. I have not harassed LaMona. My initial post was a polite request to reconsider her rejection of A. T. M. Wilson, who is unarguably notable and stood no chance whatsoever of being deleted at AfD. My subsequent report to ANI was a factual statement of my concern that she was damaging the encyclopedia and biting new editors by setting her standards far higher than that needed to give drafts a good chance of surviving AfD. The proximate article in question was Anthony Charles Robinson: here's what happened when it was taken to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Charles Robinson. That's 7 straight keeps and the nominator withdrew. I cannot believe that LaMona can believe that "every stated accusation was disproved in the comments by actual analysis" which I have demonstrated to be utterly untrue. I was the "perpetrator" of that ANI and I have not pursued it anywhere else, despite a complete lack of recognition on LaMona's part that I had a legitimate concern. I object to being called a bully when I have never been anything other than polite to LaMona. I have over eight year's experience on Wikipedia and I have worked in just about every corner of the encyclopedia: I have written featured content, article and list, created templates and modules, and have worked tirelessly to support the cause of accessibility on Wikipedia. Moreover, I am recognised as the lead trainer for new editors for Wikimedia UK, and have led many events on behalf of Girl Geeks, Ada Lovelace day, and the Athena SWAN project. My credentials in supporting women's issues and issues of equality are impeccable, and I deeply resent being called "sexist" by LaMona, who neither knows me, nor has produced any evidence whatsoever of anything I've done to her to deserve such an epithet. Up to this point, I was wiling to let it go, but this is beyond the Pale. If she's not prepared to retract those comments, I'm reluctantly going to be looking for administrative action to see her permanently banned from Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

1) you can always move an article to mainspace and I won't object 2) resubmit, that's fine with me. I don't see how a review of one article would be taken to ANI. One. And I didn't take it to AfD. Honestly, I see absolutely nothing ANI worthy here. I didn't even disagree with you. Your reaction to this exchange is ... I haven't the words. Why would such an exchange of opinion over whether an article is ready for main space be something that you would take to ANI, and how could you conclude, from one article, that I am damaging Wikipedia? Where did that leap come from? Wherever it came from, it had no basis in reality. In fact, the statement about OBE was determined to be NOT automatic notability during the discussion. Now, if someone had done a study of all 3,800 articles that I have reviewed (and the 20K edits that those entailed, as I often did extensive editing of poorly written articles) and found systematic bias, there might be a case to be made. And note that, as I was concerned, the article did get AfD'd. I'm glad that it made it through, but to attack me for what was really a correct gut assessment that the article might be taken to AfD? - and of course I cannot determine that whether it would survive - I'm not a seer of the future. And to say my review of one article is damaging Wikipedia? That's what I see as the histrionics of that ANI. And others piled on with their own one-article complaints, then started making all kinds of bogus claims. I'm sorry if the "sexism" remark was offensive, but it's interesting that I can be called "batshit crazy" and "unstable", but if I use the "s" word, it's a fatal attack and I should be banned. Why can you say that I am "damaging Wikipedia" (based on one, remember that one article), and I can't reply that I don't think you and the other attackers would have said that if I were a man? Why is my opinion forbidden, and yours is protected? It would be hard to check and see, but I doubt if a man has ever been accused of destroying Wikipedia for one AfC decision. But let's skip that point. Let's say that it was just a concern about an AfC decision by a random editor. If everyone who works at AfC was taken to ANI every time there was a difference of opinion, we'd crash the foundation's computers. At this point, I might enjoy a permanent ban. Interestingly, as I move to the @it wikipedia to do my work, there is very little of this contentiousness. By all reports, it's only on English Wikipedia that people jump on each other over minor disagreements. LaMona (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

As a woman who has dealt with girls and women most of my life in teaching situations and who is acutely aware of protecting those students from anything that even has a whiff of sexism, I can say that there was never any indications that Rexx's actions were based on a gender bias, never. The charges LaMona made accusing editors of sexism were surprising even shocking to me. LaMona I would ask you to please re look at the discussion, reassess the situation, and then think about readdressing Rexx's concerns. I believe you have confused debate and a lack of support for some of your actions as harassment. While it can be disconcerting and upsetting to have work scrutinized and even criticized, that is the nature of a collaborative project. You don't have to agree with the assessment of some of your work but sidestepping the criticism to accuse someone falsely is not a good response to the situation. You've done a lot of work for Wikipedia, it can't all be above criticism, no one has that kind of record.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC))

Yet I was accused falsely, and that seems to be ok with everyone. An entire section was started saying that my behavior was an issue. There was no basis for that. How could one article be used to conclude that I was biting newbies? Did anyone in that discussion know anything about my activity at AfC? This discussion was personal - it was about me, and by people who didn't know me, with whom I have had almost no interaction. Yet at no time was it shown that I had done anything wrong. I don't consider baseless accusations to be debate. I was accused (slightly sideways) of being biased in how I treat articles by men. In other words, I was accused of sexism. Is it less so because the "s" word wasn't used? This was based on a sum total of looking at two articles, and most respondents agreed with me on both. It was shown that for every cherry-picked set that showed bias, you could cherry pick a set to show the opposite. To know if I have a bias, rather than just assuming I do, some real facts would be needed. What shocked me was that people could make baseless accusations and others could pile on, and there is no one who would stop such behavior. I could go onto ANI and state any falsehoods I like. How is that ok? And the claims that I did not respond - if someone posts a message on my talk page that says: "I did this for this and this reason" and I am fine with that, what am I supposed to say? Usually I write back a quick "Ok, thanks" - but I don't see how failing to have done so became a crime against the spirit of Wikipedia. I have no desire to argue about what articles go in and which ones don't. We contradict each other a lot at AfC, and it's no big deal. How it became a big deal in this case is just beyond me. About that article - I'm fine with it going in. I had nothing to argue about. I did not side-step the criticism because there was no basis in the criticism, and fortunately others showed that. It is possible that I should not have brought up bias, but I felt bias, strong bias, and bias was used against me - perhaps not by Rexx, heck, I don't know - it was all overwhelming and I just saw criticism after criticism of me personally, and I felt horribly attacked. And that's why I'm not going to edit here any more. LaMona (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

LaMona may need to review Psychological projection and see how it applies. No "the entire AFC" was NOT "an act of harassment." She was not following the guidelines laid out for articles and was called on it. Her response was over the top. She is attacking respected wikipedia editors and known allies on women's issues. Frankly, her behavior is filled with red herrings and is deflecting attention from her own actions by making false accusations against other editors and crying wolf. This violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If she's looking for something to blog about so that she can get SEO backlinks, she needs to find a different place to look. Her claims of harassment are an insult to those who actually have faced real harassment on wikipedia. Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything (Sarah's tp is on my wl) and let sleeping dogs lie - I had already drafted a comment yesterday and then buttoned my lip. However, I now feel compelled to give Montana and RexxS my full support because the so-called retirement of LaMona is a ploy for more crocodile tears, and she is now going round the site dropping ad hominem attacks and false accusations of harassment in the middle of other discussions to disrupt them. I was appalled at her unprovoked introduction of genderism into the ANI which unbeknown to her (but which is quite legitimate), caused quite a flutter by email among experienced editors and admins. She needs to recognise that Sarah's ANI close was a very gentle resolution, but if LaMona doesn't stop her disingenuous whinging soon and/or properly retire, she may find herself being forcibly retired. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@LaMona, RexxS, Montanabw, Littleolive oil, Hijiri88, Kudpung, and Eloquence: the question is what can be done to stop threads like that from being so aggressive. No matter the substance of the original complaint, there's no doubt that the thread became abusive; someone made a sexual remark, someone called her crazy or batshit crazy. Those things stop women from becoming involved with Wikipedia, and not only women. How can we encourage bystander intervention so that people will step in quickly when threads deterioriate? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Needless to say, anyone calling someone batshit should be warned and blocked if necessary, but perhaps there are also things that can be done to reduce the likelihood of that happening. Brainstorming, a couple of ideas (these may already be in place, I'm not very active on ANI):

Should threads be moved to a subpage if their very placement on WP:ANI is disputed? That way, you might get a narrower set of participants, which could reduce the risk of escalation and crowding out.

Should threads be tagged when a conversation is becoming heated and unproductive, and participants are encouraged to take a break, move their attention elsewhere, or consider whether a more productive venue can be found?

In general, perhaps there are useful practices one level below closing a thread -- since closing is often seen as prematurely shutting down a conversation, and so people are understandably careful to do it too early.--Eloquence*

Eloquence, tagging is a good idea. Blocking and warning can make things worse, because then there's another reason to keep the thread going or open a new thread. I wanted to stop the discussion about LaMona, and I knew that even warning some of the participants would have kept it going. But I like the idea of tagging. A "possible abuse" tag, which alerts admins to the thread? People might misuse it, but perhaps not so much as to make it useless. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

How about a tag that simply labels a discussion's placement on ANI as in dispute, and encourages people to slow down until that question is resolved? Here's an example text:

"An uninvolved editor has disputed whether this conflict requires administrator intervention. This may indicate that participation by more people in this thread is not necessarily helpful. Please be mindful that discussions on this page can become heated and unproductive, and contribute to a resolution in a more appropriate venue if it can be accomplished."

Or, if this feels too likely to be slapped onto too many threads, perhaps it could be "An uninvolved administrator". (Again, my apologies if something like this already exists.)---Eloquence*

But that's a solution to a non-problem. The thread didn't escalate because of a dispute about whether it should or should not have been on ANI. The thread escalated after a user posted what to other users' perceptions was a wholly erroneous and grossly insulting argument. If that's the case, the question becomes how to control an ANI thread once someone has lobbed a gallon of fuel on it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Eloquence, that's good. Uninvolved editor is better; an uninvolved admin would be likely just to close the thread, rather than tag it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"I wanted to stop the discussion about LaMona" And you did. She's now claiming that as vindication of her actions at AfC. I'm still waiting for your response to my question about related issues, on Tagsihsimon's talk page, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Participation by more people in any ANI thread is never necessarily helpful. Like every other maintenance area, it's a magnet to newbies and wannabe admins and that's why fewer and fewer admins bother to go there. It needs to be understood that ANI cases are not a vote like AfD, but that it's a place that requires the judgment and discretion we elected our admins for. Perhaps a 3000 edit/180day requirement to participate may maintain a level of responsible discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I have seen that hatting unproductive discussions is often helpful. Anyone can do it, a label such as "unproductive discussion" or something similarly neutral is a shot across the bow of all parties to dial it back. But Eloquence's idea is a possibility too. Or maybe a move of the debate to a dedicated ANI subpage for answering the question of whether it is within the scope of ANI and referral to the appropriate alternative DR or whatever dramaboard it actually belongs. That might be a good idea -- ANISCOPE. Montanabw^(talk) 18:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I have to admit I have not read the discussion leading to this thread, but if the idea is how do we reduce the heat which develops in some threads, I have a suggestion. The thread could be temporarily closed for e.g. 24-48 hrs. This will allow heads to cool and possibly editors to review their positions. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • @Tagishsimon, Kudpung, Montanabw, and DrChrissy: abusive threads should be closed, but the danger is that people will start fighting over the close if they see it as premature, and that makes things even more protracted for the person at the centre of it. That's why I like Erik's suggestion of a tag. Perhaps we could also write an essay about what to do when threads go bad. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Sarah, did you mean user:Eloquence? You might know them as Erik perhaps? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
          • DrC, yes, I meant Eloquence. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the clarification. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Then, as in this case, you'd allow the editor whose questionable behaviour has been reported at ANI to close down that discussion by initiating an unproductive exchange by making false accusations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what can be done about this situation. We depend in the Wikipedia collaborative environment on editors being as honest with themselves and others as they can be. There were many comments on that thread that were well meant even kind and Rexx's opening statement on this thread was honest, and, in my mind, even generous, so actually I don't see the AN/I thread as abusive. However, yes, there were comments that crossed the lines of civility. I want to repeat that there was never any indication implied or explicit that Rexx's concerns were based in a sexist position. None. Ever. As a community we cannot allow that mischaracterization to stand and in this case be perpetuated around the site. As a woman, I refuse to invest in the sexist narrative that generalizes behavior which is what is happening in the discussion surrounding this situation rather than looking at this very specific situation and the behavior of the editors whether male or female in light of our own policies. Unfortunately, LaMona did leap into an allegation of sexism with out a single diff of proof. We depend on our kindnesses to each other in an environment that despite our "Wikipedia is not punitive" position is punitive. We depend on those kindnesses to make the environment tolerable. False accusations are neither kind nor fair nor is spreading misinformation around this site... and further. We all know better than to call someone names and we all know its not acceptable. A false accusation that is given a life of its own is worse, more insidious in its ability to damage, and that accusation should be our focus here. I feel we are sidestepping and reframing the issue perhaps with out meaning to. Its not OK to allow a mischaracterization to spread. We all make mistakes in editing and have to be able to handle that criticism. Labelling an editor in term of their personal treatment of women is a serious accusation in terms of personal identity. We shouldn't be taking any discussion that way and with out proof is unconscionable. When Wikipedia itself becomes truly a non-punitive site perhaps AN/I will change but until that overarching situation adjusts we have to behave. I find this frustrating because I see male editors being treated as if their reputations are disposable. We don't make this environment friendlier to women or to anyone by treating any editor in a less than fair manner.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC))

One problem is that ANI is virtually useless for resolving disputes unless the conduct of one person is (a) egregious (b) they are a new or otherwise vulnerable person - for instance if they are an IP or if they have been sanctioned in the past. See a small experiment I did at Wikipediocracy here. In cases where the conditions listed above aren't satisfied, ANI goes on aimlessly, serving the drama god. The unstructured discussion at ANI virtually invites threads to become aggressive and sprawling. I don't know how this can be solved, but RfC/U was discontinued for some reason; perhaps it ought to be revived? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Good lord, no—I take it you never had any dealings with WP:RFC/U during its unhappy existence? It didn't resemble so much a dispute resolution mechanism, as a Maoist self-criticism session or a Scientology audit. Whatever problems ANI has the RFC/U model, in which everyone who's ever had a negative interaction with someone is invited to turn up and expound on how much they dislike them, is definitely not the way to go. (Do feel free to go through the archive and find a single instance of the process actually working; we're talking a social process that was so dysfunctional that arbcom was seen as a less stressful alternative.) ‑ Iridescent 16:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: No, I have never had any dealings with RfC/U; I have heard similar horror stories to the one you describe, so I'll take your word for it. However, your sentence is ambiguous: are you saying "RfC/U was worse than ANI" or that "it was worse than ArbCom"? I think ArbCom, for all its faults, is better than ANI in the cases I described - simply because it is more structured. In principle, one does not need RfC/U to be better than ArbCom, one only needs it to be better than ANI. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Both. Arbcom is probably necessary (although plenty of other Wikipedias have jettisoned the idea without the sky falling in), but don't even try to claim that in its current form it's not a severely dysfunctional body which can't decide whether it's a mediation process, the Wikipedia Supreme Court, or a regency council ruling on behalf of King Jimmy, and thus ends up combining the worst elements of all three. If you think the Committee is better than ANI, I respectfully suggest you haven't had many dealings with it. ANI is a burst of short-term unpleasantness which is archived away in a couple of days and quickly forgotten, to which every reasonably active Wikipedia editor can expect to be subjected fairly regularly; arbitration is an utterly soul-destroying process for all concerned, which regularly results in at least those involved leaving Wikipedia in disgust whatever the result is, as well as creating a permanent stain on the record of everyone who participates. (Plus, don't neglect the corrosive effect it has on the arbitrators and clerks; there's a reason the burnout rate is so high. The burnout rate itself causes its own bias in turn, as the people who remain tend to be those who see the job as a bully pulpit rather than as a dispute resolution mechanism, so over each annual arbcom cycle the judgements become steadily more peverse.) ‑ Iridescent 17:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian and Iridescent: they're all terrible. Imagine other volunteer groups—say, Oxfam—regularly putting its volunteers on public "trial," where anyone in the world is allowed to turn up and insult them.

The challenge is to find a way to build empathy into a dispute-resolution model that values transparency. One way is to strengthen bystander intervention and zero tolerance of abuse—and being able to recognize the difference between abuse and criticism, which isn't easy; and the person at the centre of it is unlikely to notice any difference. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Indeed, ArbCom is horrible (you can check my contributions there to see my opinion). However, your straight comparison between ANI and ArbCom is misleading because it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. I am talking about disputes for which ANI is completely useless: either they escalate so that they end up at ArbCom, or the participants just get exhausted and drop it - which either results in (a) disgust and leaving or (b) perpetuating the conflict, or (c) realizing it was much ado about nothing. ArbCom also declines plenty of cases saying that "the dispute resolution process hasn't played itself out" - so by definition it takes the most intractable cases. Now, in my opinion, ArbCom takes plenty of cases which it should decline (in other words, it was case (c)). But a fair comparison would be to determine whether a particular intractable dispute would be better handled at ArbCom or at ANI. Would anything to do with (say) Gamergate or Israel-Palestine, have been better handled at ANI? Plenty of the most contentious cases are now handled at WP:AE instead of ANI, because ANI is so dysfunctional.

@SlimVirgin: There isn't any alternative to that issue, except paid employees. But that's not going to happen, is it? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

One fundamental difference between ArbCom and AN/I is that any allegations at the former must have evidence (diffs). Because AN/I do not require this, anybody can just wade in and start muck-spreading. I fail to see why there are such double standards when the consequences for an accused editor may be exactly the same. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Jane Austen

I have no problem doing the reading (well, except for time constraints), but the writing does make me gulp. Your prose, like Wadewitz's, is much more elegant than mine, so I'm wondering whether you are willing to tackle this endeavor with me? I've posted an "Offer" to the talk. Victoria (tk) 19:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, I'm definitely willing to help, so long as I'm not taking the lead and there isn't a deadline. I'd need time to read, savour, think—and be able to do other things too! If those constraints are acceptable, I'm certainly willing to pitch in. (Your prose is great, by the way; you don't need my help with that.) SarahSV ^(talk) 20:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I'd want to do it too. Not only would I want to work slowly, I'd have to, in order to familiarize myself with the period, the sources and the scholars. Victoria (tk) 20:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI - I'm basically on wiki-break until early September, though I might peek in here and there, depending on how my time goes. Let's see how things spin out; I'm happy taking the lead and I'm a firm believer in no deadlines. Right now it doesn't feel like it's a healthy situation and frankly neither you nor I have to be involved, so let's see where things are at when I return. We can revisit then. Victoria (tk) 20:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, good idea. I agree about not healthy. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to dump it on you and feel that you have to hold the fort while I'm gone. I've rolled it back to where I'd start - it would have gotten to that place anyway and even if reverted, that's where I would have started (I suspect I won't be alllowed near it now). I don't know what to say or do at this point. It's beyond disappointing and hurtful, but please don't feel you have to stay in. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there something going around about WP:CITEVAR that I'm missing?

See Letters close where I'm being told using a short form citation/long form reference is inconsistent. News to me - since I used that same form in almost 50 FAs and over 100 GAs... Help? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Dunno Ealdgyth. Wish I did. I'm afraid to even mention any of my articles and the shame of having naked references. Victoria (tk) 21:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I left a note there. In that article in particular, I can't see the point of adding templates just so we can click and jump a couple of centimetres. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ... seems resolved. I'm wondering if it's a full moon... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually I think it is. Tomorrow, I think. That explains everything. Victoria (tk) 22:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC mentoring scheme

You may have noticed discussions on the WP:FAC talkpage relating to various FAC issues, including the question of mentoring for first-time FAC nominators. At present only a very small percentage of the first-time noms get promoted; this can be very discouraging, and might well be turning editors away from FAC. In discussion with the FAC coordinators, Mike Christie and I have devised a simple, voluntary mentoring scheme for first-time nominators, the details of which can be found here (it hasn't gone live yet).

We hope that, as they become aware of the scheme, first-time nominators will take advantage of it. A link to the mentoring page will be included in the FAC instructions once we go live. But of course, we need mentors. We would like the scheme to kick off with a dozen or so names listed, hoping that many more will sign up eventually. Would you be prepared to act as a mentor? You incur no obligation by adding your name to the list; the extent to which you participate in the scheme is entirely a matter for you, and can vary from regular involvement to just once in a while. The objective of the scheme is to help first-time nominators who seek assistance. So please add your name here if you feel you can, or if you have queries or reservations about the scheme, please drop me a line. Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Jane Austen

Sorry Sarah, I didn't realise you were editing at the same time - I hope I didn't edit-conflict you. I was just trying to track down the last few cites like <Collins 86> that don't tell us which edition was used, and I'm trying to verify the source text at the same time. I'll leave you to it and hope to clean up the last few tomorrow. The only thing left for cite clean-up (I hope) is the question of whether we should be making a separate long citation for each author cited when they are in a collection, as MLA requires, or just sticking with a single citation for the collection, which then fails to attribute the author fully. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re NewspaperArchive signup

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

HazelAB (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Citroën 2CV re: RfPP

I just filed an WP:AN3 regarding this. Figured I'd give you a heads up since the user I reported is an admin who has been reverted by multiple non admin users. TimothyJosephWood 22:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested in ..

Heather Bresch and User talk:CorporateM

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Would love your opinion on a BLP issue

An editor reduced a BLP down to a stub after an AfD resulted in "no consensus," deleting what he or she considered "coatrack" and trivial details, and it is clear from the resulting discussion on the talk page that different editors have very different ideas of what kind of details should or should not be included in a BLP. Would you be willing to take a look at the discussion (which isn't as yet overly long) and give your opinion on what sort of details WikiProject Biography prefers included and/or excluded from BLPs? The article in question is Lisa Tenner and the discussion is on her talk page. Thanks for your consideration! I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I'm sorry, I don't have time to look at this closely, but the long version does seem too long. Even the short version includes material that isn't about her, e.g. " In 2006, 16 female poker players, with Jennifer Tilly as team captain in 2006 and Mimi Rogers in 2007, competed at the World Series of Poker, with participants agreeing to donate a portion of their winnings to the American Heart Association". [1] But this is just based on a glance. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Rfc closure

Hi, Sarah. Wearing your admin hat, would you consider looking at Talk:Gustav Holst#RfC on removal of hidden comment, with a view to closure? Apart from the odd late !vote there has been no discussion for two weeks. There is clearly no consensus for change, so the thread has become unnecessary clutter on the talkpage. The thread immediately below, an infobox discussion, is likewise moribund and consensusless. I recently had my knuckles rapped (justifiably I suppose) for trying to close both of these discussions, but I can't see any purpose in keeping them alive. Please consider closing them. Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Brian, it's great that you are looking for a closer for this RFC, but it would have been better to post a neutrally-worded message rather than suggesting to Sarah as to how you expect her to assess the consensus. — Diannaa (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought in making the request for closure I ought state my reasons – sorry if I overdid it. My concerns are as expressed above, plus the fact that while the threads remain open they are a forum for continued snarking. I want the talkpage back as a forum for discussion of Holst the composer, not a battleground. That is all. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Brian, I commented in support of invisible comments on RexxS's thread at the MoS, so it would be better if I didn't close this, especially because consensus isn't clear at a glance. You could ask for someone uninvolved at WP:AN/RFC. I'm sorry I can't help. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'd overlooked your comment in the Rfc. I'll leave it a couple of days before trying elsewhere. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've posted a neutral request, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Requests for Comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to McCann in my user talk page

Hello again. I'm writing to you here because I am not certain that the @ has worked properly and you have been 'alerted' by this command that I have mentioned you in my talk page. Please, feel free to archive this section if you wish. Sam10rc (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)