Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:38, 6 December 2011

v t e 2011 Arbitration Committee Elections Voter log Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Give your feedback Candidates Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Voter guides These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion. Heimstern Master&Expert Monty845 Elonka Ealdgyth SandyGeorgia NuclearWarfare Joe Gazz84 HJ Mitchell Sven Manguard Wizardman William M. Connolley RegentsPark Kiefer.Wolfowitz Rschen7754 Badger Drink Guerillero Carcharoth

Archives

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link (and have a look at User:Steve/Oppose rationale for some helpful info).
If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, see WP:FAC/ar.
Otherwise, Leave me a message.

The Fat Man

At the moment, he's blocked but not banned, so he could actually log in and use his account to edit his talkpage. Editing my talkpage is technically socking, but I'm not given to making a fuss about people socking just to tell me something. I was never involved in the discussions about blocking/banning the Fat Man. Do you want to explain to me why he's not disruptive/whatever it was he's been blocked for, or point me to a good summary of why. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Er... Elen, no he can't. See the "cannot edit own talkpage" in his block log? – iridescent 12:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. There's that many on-again off-again entries in the block log I lost track of it. I do feel I'm missing something here - I never followed the guy's career, so I am interested in why Sandy values him so highly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think because Sandy values those who write stuff, as opposed to those who police stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I too tend to be more tolerant in people who "write stuff"; it was surprising to me, then, to discover that TFM's last 200 article contributions go all the way back to November 2008. The skew toward articles related to the Howard Stern Show may well be a hint as to his current priorities. Or not. But it's been a long time since TFM has really been in the "content contributor" category in any meaningful way. Perhaps this helps to explain the dissonance between those who have not known him for years and thus do not share the "content" memories with Sandy. Risker (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right. Even the best of us can become jaded, no matter how much we believe in the idea of wikipedia rather than its current implementation. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

EotR, it will take me some time to write the reply this deserves, so I'll get to it after I find the time to pr/ar FAC ... hopefully by today! Glad you asked ... what has happened here is wrong, wrong, wrong, and a disturbing Sign of the Times about the direction Wiki is heading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I've been a bit curious about this as well, so thanks for taking the time to explain. Hope you're well, by the way, and surviving the holiday. Best, Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever get the time to put together some info about TFM? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, but I think about it every day (and feel guilty and negligent :) (If the conversation on Jimbo's talk jogged your memory, yes, I'm talking about The Fat Man in some of my references. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Saw your comment on YF-23 review and I recalled your "association" with TFM: write it! We miss his wit! Farawayman (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if I ever start writing it, I will become so disgusted at seeing it in print that it will turn in to my "good-bye to Misplaced Pages" screed: better editors than myself left Misplaced Pages over what was done to TFM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hallmark

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

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

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

FARs

Hi Sandy - I am hoping that you will have the time and interest to return to a couple of FARs that you commented on in the recent future, which are still open:

• WP:Featured article review/Law/archive2 - Mainly just hoping for a final comment from you - little work has been done on the article.
• WP:Featured article review/Caffeine/archive1 - The nominator has completed some work on the article based on other comments, but asks for further clarification on your thoughts.

Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Two highway FACs

I need some advice, Sandy, from one editor to another concerning my two FACs: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/M-185 (Michigan highway)/archive1 and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1. The long and the short of it is that two editors (Pigsonthewing, Tagishsimon) have been pushing at multiple forums to include coordinate data in roadway articles, and it appears these two FACs are just the latest place for that debate to rage. On the other hand, you have a fairly consistent response from editors from the road projects that this data isn't needed in the article, and several dozen Featured Articles that don't include it. This discussion has been to at least three forums already: WT:RJL, WT:WIAFA , and WP:DSN without any resolution.

I have moved the conversation over to the talk pages for each nomination because I feel that FAC is not the forum to resolve this debate. The larger issues will probably take a site-wide RfC to resolve, but unless that results in a change someplace, there is no requirement to include the data that applies here that I can see. I'm afraid that these two editors will continue the debate in the FACs unless I cave in, and that if the debate is on the FAC nomination pages, not the talk pages, it will just drive potential reviewers away. There are several other criteria to consider about the articles related to whether or not the prose is good, the media has acceptable copyright status and licenses with proper captioning, etc., but allowing these two to continue arguing over a pedantic point will just disrupt the nomination. I'm afraid we'll have to restart the nomination at some point. If the nominations are archived, they'll be back two weeks later, still without coordinate data added, and the process will repeat as long as needed for each article to get proper reviews. Imzadi 1979 → 03:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Election guide

Is there any chance that you might be willing to write an ArbCom election guide this year? NW (Talk) 01:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would read it reverently. :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be short: vote for these, don't for these (those who either don't know content or don't think abusive admins are a problem), but it doesn't much matter anyway, because the arbs can't fix what ails the Misplaced Pages (that's coming from the top down). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, two years ago I was almost completely new to this project. I clicked on the arb vote page and was lost; hadn't a clue who was who or what to do. But there at the bottom I found the handy voter's guides. I remember reading yours then and it was helpful. I probably had a few thousand edits, if that many, at the time. So for new editors, I think what you do is important. You know what to look for and you have a good sense of the direction we need to take. That's why. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please make sure it is written "responsibly, seriously and in good faith" though as apparently the bar for voter guides is at least equal to that for FA. Yomangani 00:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.

There aren't seven good candidates, so how can I write anything other than humor, and why does it matter anyway-- what effect will a good ArbCom have anyway, considering everything the WMF does to undermine what Misplaced Pages pretended to represent (and never made it, but that's another story ... )? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think only so many battles can be fought at once, and we'll have an arbcom regardless so might as well choose the best we can from the lot. You've got good instincts, know who's who, and it's helpful to others. That's why. No pressure, but think about it. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What am I supposed to tell you? Vote for these four or five because they're the best of the bunch, and oppose the rest because they're <fill in PA of choice>? It was bad last year; it's worse this year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not me so much as people who haven't been around very long and don't know who is who. I can see what's there and am not happy about it. But people will be voting and guides are useful for newer editors. But if your heart's not in it, and I can perfectly understand that, then let it go. Just wanted to say that I've read your guides for the past two years. That's all. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've always followed one simple rule where voting is concerned, at least at the national level, which is what ArbCom effectively is; never vote for an incumbent. Just a shame it's not possible to register a vote against someone. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, I believe you can vote "Oppose". If a candidate doesn't get 50% support then seat remains vacant, so if you're focusing on just keeping bad people off the committee, "Neutral" works too. "Oppose" will just put them lower on the totem pole. But yeah, Sandy's right, there is nothing even close to 7 people who even marginally deserve to get elected. I can come up with ... 2 or 3 and that's very much scraping the bottom of my good will and understanding bucket. In a situation like this, it's even hard to write something funny, never mind serious. Volunteer Marek  08:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, all I'm trying to decide is whether to "oppose" some people I dislike but not passionately so, and hope that there won't be 7 with +50% so seats will remain vacant or "support" these non-passionate dislikes just to keep the total nutzoids from the candidate list off the committee. Volunteer Marek  08:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yep, and it's a decidedly unfunny predicament-- on the other hand, if we had a 60% support ratio for candidates to be elected instead of the 50% championed by Tony1, we might have a prayer of not ending up with the most dreadful ArbCom ever. There aren't seven, and electing candidates with 50% support doesn't give me warm fuzzies. And since there aren't seven, why should I stick my neck out to say who all I'll be opposing? Let's see, we've got one candidate who enabled a disruptive editor, one who endorses admin abuse, one who endorses content contributor abuse, one who enables DYK abuse, ... sheesh, it goes on. Oppose most of 'em, do it quietly, and hope that the 50% isn't met. We all know who the few good ones are, and I don't need to repeat those names. On the othr hand, thank heavens we got the committee reduced from 18 to 15, or we'd be electing ten from that list, with a 50% support threshold !!! Yikes, what were the proponents of 50% and a larger committee thinking? Well, may they live with the consequences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

...and BLP abuse, etc. It's like watching Valens being appointed emperor. 'Tis the twilight of the encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek  08:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I didn't intend to forget that one, which is a biggie-- we seem to have the full range of Wiki at its finest this year. The twilight started a year ago in my mind, but it's picked up serious steam with recent events, and the WMF hasn't a clue how to "fix" it, while the bottom dwellers are happy to attack the few who get it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In lieu of a guide, one can jot random notes and observations at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Discussion I guess...these pages are often pretty quiet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To what end, Cas? Another one (who was marginally elected by the way because the support percentages to be elected are too low) just resigned, so does that mean we now have to choose eight from a list that doesn't even have seven? And with 50% support to be elected, what hope is there that we'll have a competent committee? And with the WMF doing everything they can to shoot content in the foot, and nothing noticeable to support and encourage better editors and better articles, why does ArbCom even matter anymore? What can they do to stem the inevitable tide that is overtaking this place? We are certainly seeing the twilight of Misplaced Pages, trolls dominating, The Signpost editorializing, student editors recruited via USEP without enough supervision cut-and-pasting, one person holding down the copyvio fort at DYK, and can someone anyone please point me towards any WMF employee who has ever written one serious piece of content, since I'm not aware of any? I exempt Moonriddengirl from that, since she did what she did the best (copyvio), but why do we have a group of folks running this place who know nothing of building articles? Has a single one of them ever written anything of substance (never mind FA/GA-- just something decent)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose votes are very important. ArbCommers who were barely elected with more opposes and neutrals than supports can be reminded of their lack of support when they misbehave.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well... they hired Ironholds. He's written some stuff. You're right though, I don't hold out much hope for Misplaced Pages, not anymore. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

ah, ha, right-- thanks, and my apologies to Ironholds for overlooking that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite finished yet, but gave it a start:

• User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2011

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh. My. What decisions to make. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This year, I eschew the jokes and keep it simple: voter guide. Volunteer Marek  09:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Complying with WMF's directive to provide a supportive nurturing community in which women feel validated, I adapted a title by G.B.S. Shaw and wrote The Intelligent Woman's Guide to the ArbCom Candidates. It which agrees mostly with Ealdgyth, SandyGeorgia, Elonka, and a token male or two.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we're required to add the template (someone added it to me last year). Smart man, Kiefer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia,

You can the Perry White and Lois Lane to my Jimmy Olson anytime! :)

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. What happens if no candidate gets at least a 50% support vote? Malleus Fatuorum 13:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

See here; also the closing statement of the RFC, "A 50% support is required. Shortfall in successful candidates is acceptable." (I'm still dismayed at the 50%, so hope the unworthy get clobbered with opposes so there will be no chance of their appointment-- ArbCom can do just fine with less than 15 arbs, and in fact, will probably function more efficiently). Also note that, at the time of the RFC, six empty seats were envisioned-- now we're up to eight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

My "Election Guide" is more popular than my articles! :(

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

AV-8B ACR

Hi Sandy, I've nominated AV-8B for MILHIST ACR at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, and because you commented on the article during the FAC, please comment on the ACR this time. I promise I'll keep my head cool.

On a different note, I felt that there's been a bit of Middle Eastern hostilities going on between you and I, so, if you don't mind, I'll set aside all the past comments made by myself and yourself, and embark on a new start. Would you like this to be mutual? --Sp33dyphil © • © 10:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't help you on your feelings-- I'm not responsible for those, and my "job" as delegate at FAC doesn't involve my "feelings", rather the article that is in front of me on the page. In the case of your work, I've had to engage several times because content wasn't vetted by independent reviewers and prose wasn't up to standard. Of course, it has been said that FAC delegates don't make sure that content is reviewed, curiously by the same person who commended your contributions and mentioned that your FA work has been a bit "rough". I hope you'll find the attention the article needs at MilHist Review, but the long-standing problem with aircraft articles has been the lack of independent review, and lately, Piotr has been pushing a citation density hobby horse at MilHist A-Class (which in three separate discussions did not gain consensus, yet he edit warred citation requests into an already cited ship article), so I hope you can avoid that. And yes, "grenade" is the correct term-- the appropriate place for TCO to have raised his (incorrect) issues with Ucucha's article work is on article talk, where TCO's mistakes would have been pointed out before he publicly launched them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Medical articles - Dysmorphic feature

Hi, I heard you like mmedical articles. There have been repeated requests for help on the Dysmorphic feature article, which might be a content fork or a confusion or something else. Maybe you or one of your talk page watchers could direct them appropriately? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous free full-text articles available on PubMed that discuss dsymorphic features in various conditions, and although I've never encountered the term, from reading what is freely available, it looks to me like our stub is accurate and the stand-alone article would meet notability. Where are these repeated requests for help? They're not on the talk page there, and I don't recall having seen this posted at WT:MED (but I can't always keep up there). If you can better clarify the nature of the concern (since I'm not seeing anything inaccurate there), I'll post over to WT:MED if you'd like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've explained better. An editor (identity unknown) came into the help channel describing how he wanted to alter Misplaced Pages's coverage of some syndrome because he (as a non-professional) had anecdotal experience of cases of it, and he wanted parents to be able to diagnose it themselves (via Misplaced Pages) based on his expertise; doctors were not the right people to make these decisions, he said. The whole WP:OR and "medical professionals are in the wrong" tone of it made my skin crawl, though I imagine it's not especially unusual in this topic area. Chzz gave him a lecture about how altering articles to emphasise one particular syndrome as being the explanation of symptoms that are far more often caused by other things, was dangerously misleading, but it seemed to go straight over his head. It never became clear whether the guy was talking about material he had already added or material he was going to add, but if you could watchlist you'll probably pick up spurious additions a lot faster than I would. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

ah, I see ... yes that sort of input is absolutely the norm for articles in the neuropsychiatric realm, making maintenance of them a never-ending chore. Just yesterday, I suggested at Talk:Asperger syndrome that we need to put up an FAQ so we don't have to keep beating the same dead horses, which are always just as you describe. OK, I've watchlisted dysmorphic features-- other than that, what is there seems accurate, and after exhausting my quota of working on articles this month that will never ever never ever amount to any "quality"-by-TCO-page-view-standards-but-I-had-to-do-the-cleanup-because-it-was-on-my-watchlist-and-students-edited-it (klazomania), I'm disinclined to do any further research to add to obscure articles by the new TCO standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

PS, while you're here, your name came up in this DYK canvassing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder why that talk page isn't on my watchlist? Oh, because the editor's activities have been obfuscated by posting as multiple different vanished accounts and IP addresses and god knows what else. Splendid.

Thanks for pointing this out. At least he's canvassing openly, not by email as some of the POV-pushers in the Israel/Palestine arena do for DYK. With all this going on, it's wonder that DYK produces such good quality output :-) But it's disappointing that after all the fuss made year after year, the message still isn't getting through - just because something is "available at the University of Michigan for free" does not make it acceptable to plagiarise it.

The canvassing was also misleading by picking out the least problematic of the paraphrasings as an example; in fact the multiple examples of close paraphrasing found by The Interior and Nikkimaria were much more serious than that example. The unseemly haste to push this sub-standard material onto the Main Page does not bode well (there wasn't only canvassing to obtain a "stamp of approval" review, but also earlier spamming of talk pages because the review wasn't happening fast enough after "Professor Gordon Campbell gave the thumbs up" - ). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Were that writing articles came so easily to Demiurge1000 as obsessing over me! Of course, if Demiurge100 were serious in his allegation about "substandard material", then he would present a criticism to pull if off the main page. Demiurge1000 will need better luck influencing C. A. Patrides than he had influencing the articles on the American left, which no longer embarass WP with NPOV/COI/RS/BLP violations, despite his enabling bad edits.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If this is a cagematch, wake me when it's over. Oh, and peace be with you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes :) Let's see, there's TCO, TCO (renamed), two different RetiredUsers, and a series of IPs I've yet to list. Have fun with that :) Why is it that what was not good for Rlevse is good for TCO? Was reminded of this today, while thinking of an arbvote guide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't even get how anyone can RTV more than once, never mind the rest of it. Bleh.

I was planning to have my little satirical essay and its talk page deleted, but I forgot... perhaps the next two hours wouldn't be the best time. January, then. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"Gender gap", uneven admin actions, et al

OK, nap-time is over! Well, not quite. It seems that TCO felt moved to explain his behaviour, so the "mercurial" part of it is no longer a mystery. I guess you knew that already, but no-one ever tells me anything :P

Slightly more constructively, I suggested at WT:DYK that the approach used by you, me and others was too gentle, and that we should wear bigger boots when dealing with questionable submissions. Make of that what you will. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I do that already, with close-paraphrasing stuff - check out some of my additions to Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Removed. If you feel it's an important enough issue, then you can do that, but be prepared for people to disagree with you. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what motivates or leads TCO to the kinds of behaviors he displays on Misplaced Pages, but I do see he is still calling other good faith editors "mother fuckers" and "crufty rule mongers" in an edit war (the kind of behaviors that led to his block log). On the other hand, he may have been aiming at my reference to waiting for another editor to be sober, which was a response to her "why am I still sober" after a rather incredulous exchange. But, as answered on that ANI, we judge by the edits, rather than speculation (on that basis, TCO has room for improvement, whether drunk or not).

On DYK, I've not read the page for days, hoping that some of the current efforts to improve the situation will bear fruit, but I've never understood why the DYK nomination subpage isn't included in the prep area or queue area so that admins who pass the queue to the mainpage are tasked with reading the review to make sure everything is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

How come TCO gets away with "motherfucker", but I get canned for "ignorant arse"? Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus, you yourself asked the appropriate question, long ago: "Is it because I is black?"  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would've expected "Whole place has pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack" to get at least a little attention from the gendergap police, but maybe allowances were made on account of that particular edit being the point in his ranting where he was most obviously a little bit "tired and emotional". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You boys are just silly. We can imagine that TCO can say things like that, and Malleus can't, because Malleus doesn't have the "support" of the right "clique" (according to TCO et al, in this case, the right "cliques" being The Signpost, the civility police, and the "gender gap" fans). But I suspect the right answer is more to be found in TCO's urging those who watchlist his page to post to his page- no one (except The Signpost) reads TCO's page or cares about his misogynist attacks. Works for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WMF

Where does this WMF "have decided to take aim at FAs as the indication of the problem of "quality" vs "quantity"" meme come from? Certainly not SG's presentation in London. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Only partly-- the other part being the drive to get more editors for more (never-to-be-read stubby) articles via educational projects, at a cost in time to other editors who have to clean them up, causing a tradeoff in more articles more editors relative to better articles better editors. Why do you think Sue Gardner's statements don't feed more of same? The video is mostly indecipherable, but here's what I heard. Someone in the audience brings up the more stringent reviews (sometimes) now occurring at DYK (but mostly only when Nikkimaria gets to them) because of the long history of it being a breeding ground for cut-and-paste editing (or course, not mentioned by the person bringing it up), Sue Gardner (sorry, on this page SG is moi) completely glosses over the DYK problem (which she likely isn't even aware of, WMF being what it is with respect to content creation and how articles are actually built) and jumps to some "so what" statement about "she's heard" (groan) some articles are not eligible for FAC because of the nature of the sources (and? her point is?), and then progresses from there to the drive for quality being related to overreactions to the Seigenthaler and Essjay incidents-- as if that was a bad thing. That's what I heard. Add that to the ill-conceived educational projects, and The Signpost editorializing in favor of a "quality" problem, and it doesn't look good for anyone who aspires to build a serious reference work. It is further ironic that TCO takes aim at FAs, suggesting we need to provide more incentives to work on articles that get high page views, while at the same time we have to work on ridiculously unimportant articles like klazomania because of the push for students to edit obscure neuropsych stubs. That article is in the suite of articles I edit and watchlist (related to TS), and every minute I spent on it was absurd because a) it is unlikely any of the students learned anything or will remain as long-term Misplaced Pages editors, and b) it will never get more than five page views per day. What is the measure of quality we want, in editors and in articles? TCO and WMF are singing two different tunes, but the constant in both messages is "shoot the FA writers". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Even on that rather misleading account its a long way from WMF "have decided to take aim at FAs as the indication of the problem of "quality" vs "quantity"" or "shoot the FA writers". Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me why you think it's misleading? (One thing I learned in corporate speaking classes was to not wave your hands around when talking to a group or making a presentation. Now, I still do a lot of gesticulating when in a group of hispanics, but I admit I may have missed some of what she said because of her most irritating flailing of arms and "I've been tolds". Please correct me on what you think I missed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy -- I don't keep your talk page on my watchlist (way too busy) but I happened to see this. I agree with Johnbod that I don't see the WMF as taking aim at FAs. I agree with you that Gardner would probably revise her views if she were a more active contributor, but her comments seemed to me aimed at how difficult it is to bring new editors on board. I haven't rewatched it before posting this, so perhaps I misheard, but that's how I recollect that part of the conversation. Please don't make me go and transcribe it! Regarding the USEP, I understand that it's had the effect you describe, at least for the articles you're working with, but it's definitely not the case that the WMF is pushing the USEP with a mindset of "more quantity at any cost to quality". In fact the validation metrics they used for the PPI initiative were specifically about quality -- they measured quantity too, but didn't regard it as validating the program. The goal is to bring in more content editors, with a side benefit in the case of the USEP of engaging subject matter experts in the form of the instructors. That's why I've been arguing at WT:USEP that engagement with the best instructors is the right way forward there, and I don't see the WMF opposing that point of view, though they've not made any decisions on how to proceed next semester so I suppose they might. This all seems to me like reasonable efforts to improve both quantity and quality -- mistakes have certainly been made, but you seem to be criticizing their intentions, more than their results, and I can't see that myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make me go and transcribe it! OK, well that's what I heard, so unless Johnbod corrects me, I'll have to go and re-listen myself (not a prospect I look forward to). Add that to everything else, and I'm not seeing anything that's helpful to what should be a reflection of what are supposed to be the pillars of the project (vis-a-vis quality in sourcing, for example). On the other hand, your perspective is always valued; on related matters, I mentioned you at WT:FAC (do a search on your name). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I did see it, but though I would very much like to have a role in conveying to the WMF the needs of the content creators here, I'm not quite sure how it could work -- were you thinking of the role as that of an emissary? Surely having the WMF engage on-wiki would make more sense, and avoid any possibility that an emissary might incompletely represent the point of view of the content creation community? I haven't commented there because I felt it would be immodest to do so; perhaps nobody will pick up that thread. So I was just going to wait and see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I threw out the idea just to see if others would brainstorm it into something useful-- I don't know how it could work or what form it could optimally take, but something is needed, and I doubt that anyone who follows FAC (or anything) would suspect you capable of "incompletely represent the point of view of the content creation community". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to raise this, but is there a transcript of the London talk. My google fu is failing. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC) adequately summarised above. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Best. Edit. Summary. Ever.

I just laughed so hard the person in the next office wanted to see what I was looking at... Risker (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, gee ... how long do you think it will take a certain indeff'd user to indulge her obsession with me at and report my ditziness at WR? I'm glad you and your colleagues enjoyed it ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice. That helps to counteract stuff like this, at least. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't decipher that gibberish. Well, whatdya expect from a woman, anyway-- we're all irrational and emotional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Snarky! Fantastic word. Let's see how polite I can be in my reply, though (note to self: try actually replying to things on own talkpage in less than a week). "Mr Demiurge" indeed - maybe I should have my own version of Dr. Connolley's irritated guide. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreement

It is nice to post here again: it has been a while. I found it heartening that I was not the only erstwhile alleged "defender" of Malleus who found Kaldari's post on MONGO's page somewhat, erm... lacking in clue? Perhaps there will be a side-benefit, and MONGO will see that we both contribute with integrity, and that this is how all editors should contribute to the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 23:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hope so ... coming in with warnings in an emotionally charged environment isn't likely to be helpful. It's always so good to see you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent developments have been fascinating. I couldn't have staged it better myself. No, I take that back, I could probably have improved on the timing, but only with more advanced warning. Geometry guy 23:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If only we had more than one Gguy, and a lot fewer idiots. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. Maybe someone is trying to make a point here: we shall see. Geometry guy 00:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. As in, let's see if Sandy (or anyone) also defends Mongo the same as Malleus sort of thing? I bit. Well, there's something to be said for a clean conscience, doing the right thing regardless if I was baited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Time has passed and I'm no longer convinced there was baiting involved, but even if there was, you are quite right that responding with a clean conscience and trying to do the right thing effectively provides you with global immunity. I aim to contribute to WP on a similar basis. Geometry guy 03:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy, like any rational person, MONGO must have read and been instantly swayed by my affirmation of your being a man of above average moral fiber. Relax!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

funny how those "men of above average moral fiber" never seem to toot their own horns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed Gg's answer to MF's question?

What did George Carlin say about how he envied his dog's ability to toot his own horn?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please please please

Please have a listen to Sue's talk at http://bambuser.com/channel/pigsonthewing/broadcast/2140682 - I share her views exactly, and that's why I'm trying to make DYK more friendly and open. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

BTDT, well discussed on this page and other places already-- a most disappointing talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested on your views re:Eternal September - do you agree that we're experiencing something like that? The Cavalry (Message me) 19:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, we passed that stage long ago-- we're more at the stage where Linda someone-whose-last-name-and-various-nyms-I-can't-remember had trolled UseNet so badly and so thoroughly that it. was. clearly. done. Stick a fork in it. Folks moved on to other places, and many very good Usenet groups just gave up. Misplaced Pages is at that stage, except that FAC is the last thing that still works, hence, folks taking pot shots at it instead of looking at the broader systemic problems. If something comes along that replaces Misplaced Pages, it will crumble-- and the folks taking pot shots at FAC (and resisting efforts to bring DYK into better repute) will share responsibility with those pushing silly efforts to recruit more women and students, while ignoring the broader failures (things like POV). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In its desperation to recruit new editors Misplaced Pages (WMF) is in grave danger of losing the core volunteers that have glued this project together for so many years. I have read or listened to the bollocks currently being debated here and here. FAC is an easy target for criticism of how Misplaced Pages works (which it does and does very well) because of its high profile. Ironically it is last thing that still works. And at this crucial time, we need to respect our content creators who either write articles from scratch or, after hours of hard work and creativity, drag copyvio-ridden DYKs and stubs to GA and FA. To be blunt, I am losing faith in the project; Misplaced Pages seems more concerned in quantity (hits) than quality. No wonder gifted writers and editors like User:Tim Vickers and Moni have all but moved on. Will treasures such as Brian and Malleus be next in line? Retention is more important than recruitment. Graham Colm (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Which was exactly what Sue Gardner was saying. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I just didn't see what you saw in Sue's pronouncements at all, I saw what Graham and SandyG saw. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Johnbod, was this in response to the question to her about increasing 100,000 editors to 200,000 editors? If so, I recall she used the word "fuzzy" and was not exact at all. She talked about "absorption" by which I think she means training the newbies in our policies. At what point in the 1:22:34 video does she say that retention is more important than recruitment? Graham Colm (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

1.16 and following on retaining new editors, where she discourages large recruitment drives (obviously that tanker will take some time to turn round), and earlier re retaining established editors. The 200k target is for 2015 (from the 5 year plan) & she was very clear that retention of new and old editors needs to be got right first. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard it's worth remembering this is an encyclopedia as well as a social club. The content creation and review processes are critical. Think of the best quality material as a portfolio that is developing. Seriously. The main message I got that I am concerned with in Sue's video was the drop off coinciding with automated messaging - but whenever these salient points arise, other editors who have been in disputes obfuscate the picture by pointing the finger at past disputes (so discussion on civility to new editors gets derailed by established editors who've been an arguments with other established editors they perceive as rude etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a recent proposal here on the English Misplaced Pages that would have minimised the need for new editors to be discouraged by receiving an automated message telling them that their brand new article is about to be deleted because it doesn't meet the notability criteria or whatever. Which was that new editors ought not to be allowed to create articles at all until they've reached some minimum threshold of edits, maybe as few as 10 or 20. But the WMF foolishly stamped on the idea. They will get the Misplaced Pages they deserve. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I had never heard Sue talk before (right?). My God, she really does unleash words like a GAU-8 (right?). It's tiring to listen to someone go on like that (right?). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

GA also still works, and seems to be delivering on its promise to be a scalable process for driving content improvement, even if (and partly because) it does not always get it right the first time. It benefited enormously in the early days from receiving critical scorn, then having critical friends (like Sandy), so that it could adapt and improve while staying true to its basic concept. Geometry guy 23:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a great waypoint for articles to get to before having a rest in preparation for climbing the FA pinnacle :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree: it is fantastic that GA and PR are used in this way. Having even a single independent view on an article can work wonders for content improvement. However, GA has always aimed to offer more than this: not only a staging post, but also an end in itself, in which articles are improved up to an acceptable standard where they become a useful, if not always perfect, resource for readers. Geometry guy 00:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No disagreement from me there. Group hugs all round :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Content review on Misplaced Pages is better now than it ever has been. So if it gets blamed for the many structural problems Misplaced Pages needs to address, what are we to infer? Geometry guy 01:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very interesting question, and one to which the answers will be equally revealing. For me it's a clear case of "Look, you need to make it easier for complete incompetents to write articles. And FA/GA/PR get in the way of recruiting more incompetents, as it demotivates them". Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to all: in my haste this afternoon, I mistyped and have struck. I agree with Gguy that content review is better now than it has ever been, and that includes FAC/FAR, GAN/GAR, and also PR (and maybe we can even turn DYK around)-- in all of those areas we have (too few) exemplary volunteers holding down the fort and doing excellent work day in and day out, driving quality up. Sue Gardner's comments against the drive for "quality" were so demoralizing and off the mark that I hope she's prepared to groom her thousands of recruited students to replace the experienced core writers and reviewers, who don't have enough time to deal with all of the copyvios from these recruitees. I think the bottom line on the response to the TCO pseudo-presentation is that it would have gotten no traction whatsoever if so many people weren't already upset about Sue Gardner's irresponsible presentation and words. Yes, content review across the board is better than it's ever been, and if Sue Gardner thinks the drive for "quality" is a problem, her standards are too low or something is amiss there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice, neutral title (in case Johnbod still thinks we got it wrong). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What, you think the "enemy within" is FAC?? As for death spirals, you do a fine line in those yourself. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Many have noted, as I did here, that it is Misplaced Pages's open invitation, for anyone to contribute and freely license any knowledge they have, that lies behind its extraordinary success. Geometry guy 02:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I was really disappointed with the parts of Sue's presentation that dealt with article reviewers. But I imagine she's gotten an earful by now, and I expect she'll take the criticisms on board. I guess we'll find out the next time she gives a talk to a chapter. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Watching it again, now it looks to me more like an "if the shoe fits" comment than a scattershot attack. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would you expect her to take criticism from the free labor pool on board? Just curious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My sense from watching was that, by the end of the talk, she knew that it hadn't gone over well. She gives a lot of talks, so we shouldn't have long to wait to find out if her position is evolving. If it's not, then maybe we could start some kind of dialog with her in the Signpost and see if we can figure out how we got to be the bad guys. - Dank (push to talk) 04:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Dank, surely you jest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, bear in mind I almost never read stuff by or about Foundation people (I'd love to, but I'm too busy with articles), so I don't know. I guess I'm just going by my general impression that there are few truly unmendable rifts on Misplaced Pages. - Dank (push to talk) 04:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality increases by itself! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You sure about that? User:Resident Mario/sandbox (draft for The Signpost). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I implicitly trust Canadian ex-journalists paid by cliques of functionaries (Gardner 2011-11-19 in London, 1:20s–1:30s). "" I notice that the website can't get basic whitespacing correct   . Fifelfoo (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't ever get an FA? 20:00 op cit. "Because the nature of the topic doesn't lend itself to the nature of the citations required. … But I think it is part and parcel of the same thing … the projects were changing and not all the changes are good" Well fuck me with a pitchfork for demanding some fucker actually cites a work so we can locate it. She also has a view that Wikimedia and that neck waiting for a guillotine Jimbo actually influence us. (24:00). Fifelfoo (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Our community…is really really change averse and because we operate mostly under consensus decision making it is really easy to revert to the status quo…we cannot continue to move at the speed of community acceptance … or folks are going to have to help us achieve acceptance…which means…" (44:00) This is the most awesome sauce example of Professional-managerial class Leninism I've ever seen. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI on this, we're planning a Special report on Sue Gardner's address linked above in next week's issue, and have been offered an interview with said Executive Director, so any questions you'd like to put to her on the "drive to quality" and the editing community death spiral, or any other objective input on the issues, answers on a postcard. Skomorokh 04:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Groan ... speaking of spirals, I can see the discussion over that one spiraling down. Thanks for the heads up ... I guess I'd rather find a discussion page than send email, can anyone recommend a page where her talk is being discussed? - Dank (push to talk) 04:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, presenting the issues in a detached, non-divisive, non-incendiary way is the crux of the problem. It's another topic that lends itself easily to finger-pointing and personal feuding. Skomorokh 04:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The (extensive) list of questions submitted for the Sue Gardner interview are here. Only two of them really relate to the concerns expressed relating to FAC etc. ("Are there areas in which standards need to be relaxed in order to promote accessibility and new editor engagement?" and "What would you like to say to editors whose focus has been on quality and who may have taken the Foundation's recent pronouncements and initiatives as an indication that their contributions aren't valued or that they are part of the problem?"). Further suggestions welcome, time is short. Skomorokh 22:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sk-- I've fallen behind here, but those two questions seem to cover the territory very effectively. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is probably going to get lost on the DYK talk page

But may I draw your attention here for opinion? Panyd 02:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow-- very nice stuff! I see you're not intimidated by Wiki markup :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you're a girl Panyd? I'm not sure a girl could have done that, but anyway, I want the submit box to be yellow. Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I ought to add though that that's pretty much the kind of thing that's needed all over Misplaced Pages. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• checks her women's outreach presentations* Yup! The insinuation that women specifically are put off by markup is still sexist. And no, I am not putting in a big yellow box. :P Panyd 02:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You have my wiki-love :) Panyd 03:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sandy, I don't want to flood Moonriddengirl's talk page, and you're right, the DYK page is getting a bit busy for discussion. Seems to me that I'm just going to have to barrel on with this and then present it to people. What do you think of my suggestions here? I think we should have a short essay as well but I feel the more we can automate the 'tools of the trade' the more we can weed out newbies or the easily distracted. Panyd 17:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to be convinced still, but I'm not yet entirely sure you're on the right track. I find automated tools to be of little use in detecting problems (I use the same method Nikkimaria uses-- read the article, read the sources), and worse, editors can learn to work around the duplication detector while still copying structure (we see that in sports bios). Someone who is a determined reward seeker and gets hold of the idea that only automated tools are used to review can simply alter a few more phrases, so ... not sure that's the way to go. Also, I'm concerned that the fundamental problem at DYK is one of volume combined with obligatory (quid pro quo) reviewing. As long as you have QPQ reviewing, we'll have faulty DYKs, and any automated tool that makes submitting a DYK even easier may drive volume higher, rather than quality higher. It's a cultural difference, perhaps, but I've never been clear why some folks think that Every New Or Expanded Article Deserves Its Time On The Mainpage No Matter The Quality. So, I'm worried about any increased automation, both in submission and in reviewing. Not to discourage you, because I'm most pleased to see you putting your considerable talent, good faith, and experience to work on these problems-- just food for thought. To me, the best way to find copyvio issues is by reading the article and reading the sources-- duplication detector will not pick up copied structure, or cut-and-paste done by an editor who changes enough words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I hear the developers like straw polls and a link to consensus before they help with anything so I've made one and explained my views on why I think this would be appropriate here. What I'm trying to do is set out a basic level of criteria for submission, which we technically have at the moment but which many people (especially new editors) seem to overlook. I can see why as well seeing as we don't have many barriers to submission other than Can you work out markup? What I hope this will achieve is simultaneously reducing the number of submissions by putting up more sensible barriers to the process, which I feel would raise the bar for more so that reviewers may spend more time on the technical/fine side of things (e.g. copied structure etc.), but also allowing ease of access so that people aren't put off the process entirely. It's a fine line to walk but I honestly feel that the addition of these simple tools (assuming we can get consensus) would really help to achieve both of those aims.

P.s. I don't like a reward culture but I think that DYK is an excellent platform for new articles to get more attention and they're fun factoids for our readership (at least that's the theory). Panyd 22:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

P.p.s. Thank you for the kind words. And thank you very much for your attempts to reach out to the DYK community over the past 24 hours. I really feel like we can move ahead now. Panyd 23:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am warming to "wizard" type boxes - I have been using the upload wizard at commons alot since it appeared there and it has mad uploading alot easier. Good work Panyd in looking into solutions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Casliber! :) Sandy, I'm trying to get input on this from people who aren't in the "DYK crowd" but would be interested in the process. Do you know anyone relevant? The village pump just came back and said it was actually feasible and I want to move forward as quickly as possible. (I have also left messages for the top 10 editors to Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know as well as the village pump proposals. I don't want to fall afoul of WP:CANVASS but I do want a good consensus) Panyd 18:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add any classes editing medical content here

We are going to need to keep tract of these students. I have written both the WMF and the prof in question. Would rather write GAs than clean up after students.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you or one of your TPS can answer/elaborate on the questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine#Homework guidelines?. Is there a more central place where our concerns can be raised that a user or project talk page? Colin° 20:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of research

Have you read through the presentation Sue Gardner gave about declining contributors and quality? It's wmf:File:UK_BOARD_MEETING.pdf, and you might be interested in looking at the underlying research: meta:Research:First edit session and meta:Research:Communication to New Editors 2004-2011 for starters. I have my own critiques of how the data are being used here but I would be interested in what you or your talk page stalkers spot. Skomorokh 05:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could figure out how to pronounce your name so I could learn how to spell it-- sorry for just calling you Skor on Ceoil's talk-- your name wasn't in front of me and I couldn't remember the spelling, so shortened to there. I do have to finish Christmas preparations and begin travel prep, this latest "business" with TCO has taken time I didn't have, but I didn't feel I should stay silent with so many good editors so upset ... I will do my best to look at it as soon as I can (hope it's not too terribly long). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sk, I've taken a very quick look, because if I don't get to it now, I won't get to it until after Christmas. Before looking at the data, I employed my own N=1 analysis:

I looked at my own first edits, to see if the notion that things have gotten worse over time passes the duck test for my experience. My first edits were clearly clueless on Misplaced Pages markup, but knowledgeable and helpful (four edits in one session). I didn't receive a welcome for over two months, and the first two instances of feedback on my talk were faulty warnings. So, no change there from what happens today.

On another issue, I know of many editors who have simply given up on Misplaced Pages, and only edit as IPs occassionally to maintain their articles or revert vandalism. It is always illuminating to see how they are ignored on article talk, receive faulty warnings on user talk, are reverted even when correct, etc-- so disrespect of knowledgeable editors and edits, and mistreatment of IPs, is an issue, most typically in my observation coming from the Huggle/Twinkle crowd, who most often know less of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines than some of the IPs. I'm not sure if the same occurs when redlinked accounts edit, due to an assumption of socking.

My gut, personal experience, and N=1 tells me the conclusions are wrong. I was reverted over and over when new by a POV pusher adding non-reliable anecdote (when I knew the research through and through, even if not how to defend it on Misplaced Pages), which led me to register an account specifically so I could engage in dispute resolution. Maybe I'm not the average bear :)

Now, turning to that data:

I can't figure out how to access the first PDF (??) I could access your second two links. They seemed to use good sample sizes for the overall analysis, but not sure that the 155 is enough of a subset for a real look at real edits (and did these researchers honestly dig out all the sources and study every article in their sample to ascertain accurate, good faith edits?), but what most stands out to me (and fits with common sense) is the increase in vandalism and unhelpful edits over time as Misplaced Pages has become more popular. Of course there are more warnings now. My own experience tells me no different than how I was treated when new six years ago, and my own observations of IPs tells me it's a problem. I haven't looked at any of the statistical analysis, because a) I don't have time, and b) I'm too rusty to deduce anything from a quick flyover, when I can't even access the first PDF. I wish I could see Sue Gardner's PDF, because my intuition is that, along with more vandalism, POV pushers, trolls, socks etc, we're also attracting more and more immature editors who don't really know sourcing, good research, have a mature approach to editing, and they are more likely to huggle, twinkle and warn rather than engage, but I'm unclear if the data shows that or looking only at 155 edits is sufficient to draw conclusions about how may first edits are good faith. I hope some of the statistician TPS here will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My talk-page voter guide

Sandy, I raised it at the coordinators' talk page, but they must all be asleep in their time zones. You may wish to raise the matter at the actual election talk page. Tony (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If you've asked, I won't trouble them further ... just doesn't seem like a good precedent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	To SandyGeorgia, for maintaining the accuracy and reliability of Misplaced Pages's articles. Axl ¤ 14:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to see your frustration with some new contributors' good-faith attempts to edit Misplaced Pages. I appreciate the effort that you take to ensure Misplaced Pages's standards. Best wishes. Axl ¤ 14:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Klazomania(Round 2)

Dear SandyGeorgia,

I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you, I've been very busy with midterms and the holidays. I hope you had a wonderful thanksgiving. I would love to hear your ideas on how we can put the finishing touches on the article and make it better. Please let me know and again I apologize for the delay. Thank you! (Adondaki (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC))

When I didn't hear from you, I went ahead and did what I could, because I'm not likely to be around when your term finishes (going skiing). The only thing I couldn't do is I don't have the Howard source. Since it's a 1987 case report, I'm not sure if anything more can be gleaned from it, but you might want to go through it. Please do commend for me your work to your professor, and let me know soon if you have any further questions. Have a happy holiday! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will do my best to get the Howard source quickly and see if I can add anything from that to the article. Thank you again for all your help and I will try to let you know in the next day or two if there are any final questions. Have a good ski trip and happy holidays! (Adondaki (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC))

Fools rush in

I wrote a reply to Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Newsroom/Opinion desk/Vital articles debate. Tongue in cheek: Despite having read your 20 twenty 20 point evisceration of the current text, I added it anyway. Rather than list my myriad faults fell free to edit. Gerardw (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's 20, FYI :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You forgot the hyphen! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

20-point? Gerardw (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You passed, you must be a star collector. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Strictly Dabbler class. (Ya think Print butter is on their "vital" list?) Gerardw (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ya learn something new every day! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks. I don't really have time for this and am cramming in too much. Anyway, I'm done for now. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought the unintended combination of Grand Central Station and Central Park made a most effective point :) Take care there, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a great shame that TCO's personalised bollocks came out at just about the same time as Sue Gardner's bollocks, as the two have become intermingled. The more important, I think, is Sue's "Wow, I've been told that some articles can never be FAs," which I notice wasn't challenged by the Wikimedia UK board members at her presentation, and the subtle transfer of the blame for all of Misplaced Pages's increasing distress onto the quality processes. As the Italians say, fish rot from the head. Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As I recall it was challenged (by moi, not a board member but present). FAs were hardly mentioned in the presentation, and the "transfer of the blame for all of Misplaced Pages's increasing distress onto the quality processes" was far too subtle for me or anyone else there to notice. There were a lot more problems than solutions set out, and I suppose people can seize on whatever single thing they fancy out of all those that cropped up as having been designated the cause of all evil. Personally I choose big citation templates, which received more time and far clearer blame. Enjoy your skiing. PS I broadly agree about the TCO thing in the Signpost, which should not be covered as is proposed, though the fuss it has generated makes some coverage inevitable. It's very unfortunate the TCO effort has come out at the same time as people are becoming aware of the Sue Gardner talk, and the two formed an unholy alliance in some people's minds. I see them as very different. Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not really clear what Malleus and Sandy heard that was so negative in Sue Gardner's comments. Malleus, I did hear her say something to the effect that she was surprised to find not every article can be an FA, but that was a huge topic of conversation on WT:FAC a year or two ago, and you could certainly find some of our best writers arguing that FA wasn't always possible for some articles. It does show that she's not familiar with WT:FAC archives but I don't see why you find it so annoying -- can you clarify? Sandy, I just don't see what she said that sounds to you like an attack on FAC -- can you quote for me, or at least point me to the place in the video where I can listen again? I guess I will transcribe it if you like, so we can look at the results -- I'm very curious to know what was so irritating. And like Johnbod says, enjoy your skiing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike, I don't recall using the words "attack on FAC" to describe Sue G's presentation (have I?); if it was an "attack" at all, it was more on quality in general. The bigger concern about Sue G (and the like) is that we have people who have never built content, have no idea of the issues in engaging the Project at the content level, waving their hands and making vague "I heard" statements, or multiple published articles ("research") that don't account for the fact that most articles below the GA/FA level on Wikiedia are incorrectly assessed. It would boggle the mind, except that one remembers that this is Misplaced Pages, and the parts of it that try to be serious are the parts under fire for "quality". It's the internet, for gosh sakes-- there was a time when all of the publications were about how Misplaced Pages needed to improve quality to be taken seriously. It's still not, but FAs hold up well to external review (as far as I know). If WMF wants to shoot themselves in the foot, no skin off my back, but a shame how they (they being the combo now of The Signpost, Sue G, TCO, etc) are alienating the very folks who can build quality articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The flow of the discussion was, to compress and paraphrase, "Wow! I've been told that some articles can never get to FA ... Jimbo's pronouncements on the need to focus on quality in the wake of the Seigenthaler incident have been widely misinterpreted ... the processes put in place to deliver higher quality are discouraging to new editors and are therefore 'bad'". Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, no. Obviously FAC is not new from that period, and is hardly a worry for new editors. This really isn't what was said; the focus was very much on the first few hundred edits or so of a new editor. I suppose we'll have to ask her office for a transcript, with the slides, then we can get down to it like New Testament scholars. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, Malleus, it's before that ... the original question was about DYK (completely missing the drive to clean up the substantial copyvio issues there, which most certainly should concern Sue G more than dissing quality), and Sue G glossed right over that (DYK) and went straight on to FA (as mentioned by Malleus). In other words, even rampant copyvio at DYK was glossed over in the rush to the discussion of the "quality" issue at FAC. Agenda was already there (right?) ResMar and The Signpost have fed it, and TCO was purely incidental. (Thanks for the skiing well wishes, but since there's no snow, may have to cancel-- still undecided.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There's snow up here! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, make me feel bad-- got a free timeshare? And I neglected to visit you last year when I was at Whistler/Blackcomb-- how STUPID of me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've pinged Sue Gardner (talk · contribs). There are two things I'd like to know in this mess of confusion between her statements and TCO's pseudoanalysis/attack page. 1) Why are quality articles "at the top" a barrier to "new entry" editing (presumably or at least not always at the "top")? Related to why aren't we doing more to educate editors about copyvio, which is pervasive at DYK, which is an entry point for many. 2) Why does anyone think FAC (or any entity) is in a position to drive editors to certain "important" topics? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks to their other ventures, I've now cleaned up the writing of everything that can be written on klazomania, so gee, let's make it an FA because it uses all the sources available (and then we can tie that in a nice bow with TCO's five page views per day). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been what, a week or so now? But I still feel as if I've been shat on. I can't begin to imagine how you must feel. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no different than usual ... has always gone with the territory, but I've always tried to defend the writers and reviewers when they are unfairly attacked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's good that you're aware of this. I am, officially at least, the opinion desk coordinator. I've tried to kill this from running multiple times, because I think the study is immensely flawed, however it's been overruled from above. I also wanted to ask you to do the rebuttal, but I've been overruled there as well. Thankfully the one thing that I have been able to do is ensure that it dosen't run without a rebuttal. Don't blame me for this nonsense, there's literally nothing more I can do. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You're the opinion desk coordinator and you aren't in charge of opeds? How very strange. Well, now that is interesting. IRC must he hot !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

O Really? If the volunteers may know, who overruled? And who is/are writing a rebuttal? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some pieces: (HaeB is former editor of The Signpost, whom I've criticized in the past). I've never been a fan of IRC, et al, so don't know the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is only one position that can overrule the rest of the staff at the Singpost, and that position is currently shared by two people. I almost resigned over the TCO piece running. (in fact I did resign, but it lasted only for about 12 hours). As for who is writing the rebuttal, no one has come up with a (1000 word or so) rebuttal to the piece. The piece isn't running this week, and shouldn't run without one. If you're thinking of not writing anything in order to not have it run at all, don't think that. The report will eventually break somewhere, and it's better for people who oppose it to have it break on the Signpost, with a rebuttal. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, a lot of stuff is done over the IRC, because talking in real time is much easier, especially with scheduling, (and also because sometimes frank statements need to be made). Just because a lot of planning happens on the IRC dosen't mean it's all nefarious though. #wikisignpost is a public channel too, if you're interested. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you would also have trouble for a writer for a 1000 word rebuttal to Do you still beat your wife? As long as the question is cast in such POV terms, there's not that much to say. Gerardw (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sven, perhaps you take The Signpost too seriously? For example, why is it that both you and Tony1 have (temporarily) resigned over issues, but we're still subjected to ResMar? And what is behind the drive for Drahmaz (other than, that's what feeds journalists)? Since its turn towards more editorializing and less reporting (which started long ago with ArbCom bashing), The Signpost barely gets any views, and with writers that need this much correction, that's no wonder. The Signpost spin on the TCO story is more interesting than the TCO story ever was, and why worry about who might pick up a story that TCO already spread all over the place-- I think we trust thinking people to think. Really, let's review some FACs-- when you're at "the top", potshots go with the territory. Perhaps Sk will turn The Signpost around (Ragesoss was a good editor); it's still early to pass judgment, but the evidence so far isn't in his favor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, and a bit late too, but where is this "20 point evisceration of the current text"? - I wants to see it, this thing's been bugging me ever since it came out. Volunteer Marek  09:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Gerardw (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Marek, it's not even close to a "20-point evisceration of the current text"; it's mostly a copyedit of what was on the top of The Signpost page at the time I looked at it. I haven't even begun to "eviscerate" TCO's actual PDF, because it's not worth it, and will lend the shoddy work more credibility than it deserves. Anyone with two fingers in front of their face can see all the problems, agenda, and personalization in that piece-- the thing that needs to be addressed is The Signpost coverage of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? And here I was going to start devoting all my energies to ensuring that True Blood and Justin Bieber (which google tells me are the most viewed Misplaced Pages articles are and hence most "vital") make it to FA in order to correct this great injustice. I think the premise just looses sight of what an encyclopedia is.  Volunteer Marek  19:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, that meme was first promoted at FAC by Mattisse (who spends most of her time in exile talking to-- and answering-- herself over at WR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I was interested to see the German coverage of her visit there. A slight difference of approach. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I seem to remember someone on this page saying something about taking The Signpost too seriously, but what would I know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey folks. I am here because SandyGeorgia pinged me on my talkpage. I've read the discussion here, and the other one that references me, above. I am not sure if there have been other conversations about my talk in other places -- if so, I haven't seen them.

So I am getting the impression that some people here have been interpreting my talk as an "attack on quality" -- am I understanding that right? That's not a correct interpretation. The purpose of my talk was pretty simple: to go through some of the editor decline data, as well as some of the projects the Wikimedia Foundation has underway that are aimed at increasing editor retention. I did argue that over time Misplaced Pages has become more closed to new contributors, partly as a result of normal Eternal September effect, and exacerbated by response to the Seigenthaler incident. I don't think that's really controversial though: I think reasonable people could disagree about the details, but the general shape of what's happened (reduced openness) is pretty clear.

I'm assuming maybe people thought I was attacking quality because I was arguing in favour of participation? But, as I said in the talk, I don't believe that quality and participation are inherently oppositional. I actually believe the opposite: participation increases quality. I think that's proved by .. Misplaced Pages's very existence :-)

I am not sure if anybody here wanted to talk directly to me, but I'll watchlist this page and check back, in case you do :-) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and for watchlisting. The issue of what you said or meant in the video is being confounded by The Signpost planned (draft phase) reporting of the issue. Perhaps you could take a look at a draft of an opinion piece planned to run along with an interview of you in next week's Signpost, to see how your work is being used and interpreted with respect to featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I can't help myself and I don't want to be the one to start the talk page for that draft, so here:

And yet, despite our success, trouble is brooding on the horizon - stupid trouble, always brooding about stuff. Brooding about essence. Brooding about existence. Brooding about the daily gas prices. Brooding about lunch. Brooding about wall paper. About daisies. And clouds. And lost keys and unwashed socks. And about the Manicheans. And always doing this brooding on the stupid horizon! Stupid, stupid, trouble.

Misplaced Pages's system, though highly successful, created an intrinsic problem of openness, exposing to the crowds that built it to where it is, versus quality - who's the sicko that's been exposing versus quality to the crowds? Isn't that kind of thing illegal?

that slippery phantom that asks the question, "So it's big, but is it right?" - wth? My slippery phantom always asks the question "what's for lunch?". And I still haven't figured out why it's so fucking slippery. Something's up with that. Fer sure.

Insomuch as making Misplaced Pages more accessible, you risk poor information, poor writing - the truth.

Let us take this statement as an axiom...There are several reasons for this conclusion - sorry, axioms go in this green bin over here, conclusions go in that blue bin over there. We don't mix'em, lest we rip the fabric of the universe apart.

In younger times - in permuted milieus, this might just slightly qualify as legitimate, though hella awkward metaphor.

According to this perfectly accurate graph - Hold on, someone's trying to pull a fast one on me here. I demand to see the perfectly inaccurate graph, the imperfectly accurate graph, and the imperfectly inaccurate graph as well. Just to get the full picture(s).

But this doesn't make any sense! - the truth. Again!

Not. one. What? - is this like a Call and response thing? Also weird shift from apparent seriousness to apparent sarcasm... except I can't tell where the first one ends and the second one begins (it's like building a sand pile out of sand grains)

I like to think of Misplaced Pages as a tree, and editing as a ladder. - I like to think of a Misplaced Pages as a plugged in toaster, and editing as sticking a fork in that toaster. At other times I like to think of Misplaced Pages as a hitch-hiking hippie and editing as his greasy thumb. And yet at other times I think of Misplaced Pages as a Law and Order rerun and editing as huffing glue from a paper bag... where was I?

I'm not even gonna get started on the argument of that text. Volunteer Marek  04:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd barnstar you, but Moni3's got the only one in the universe and I'd have to rip it out of her clenched fists-- it would be rude to that to her before she's sober. (And this is the writing that The Signpost wanted to put forward in The Dispatches, that led to it being cratered when Tony1 supported. It makes me feel good about my own stinky prose, "irregardless".) I guess we've gotten off of that "BrilliantProse" kick, huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. (Outdenting for readability.)

I read that editorial quickly, and I clicked through to the Special Report the Signpost is putting together. Thanks for pointing me there. Both are just drafts right now, and, for that and other reasons, I don't particularly want to offer any comment on them. But I would like to be clear up-front about what I said in my talk, and why. Essentially my talk took the path I laid out above. I spoke first about all the research and data that suggests Misplaced Pages is getting less receptive to new editors .. and then I talked through some of the Wikimedia Foundation's activities designed to help improve the new editor survival rate. Then I posed a challenge to the Wikimedia UK Board: asking them to take up this issue as their own, and work to help solve the problem. That was the gist of my talk. And I have to say, I am a little confused by the reaction to it. I have no quarrel with the FA team: why on earth would I? I like to read good articles, like everybody, and I also, like lots of people, use "number of FAs and GAs" as one of my informal yardsticks for editor value. (I don't mean to imply it's a perfect yardstick or the only yardstick: of course it's not. All I mean is that if somebody has lots of FAs and GAs, I know they're contributing significant value.) So, I am wondering if there is some broken telephone going on here, or if anybody wants to ask me a direct question about anything I said?

And, I have a quick question about Marek's parody/commentary above. Someone pinged me saying Marek was making fun of my talk, but I don't think that's what he's doing -- am I right? At first I thought maybe he was, but the actual quotes and narrative line he's parodying don't bear any resemblance to what I said. So I'm assuming/checking, that he's parodying something else. Thanks. Sue Gardner (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe he was responding to ], not your talk. Gerardw (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoa I made somebody ping somebody. Volunteer Marek  00:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Katarighe (or Mohamed Aden Ighe)

Sandy, I'm unclear why you added a link to this user's other contributions at the articles he has supported for FA. They don't look like vandalism, and this user's deleted edits all consist of adding speedy deletion tags to articles which were, in fact, subsequently speedied. Unless I've missed something, this looks like highlighting the user's inexperience, which is a bit bitey. There is no minimum edit requirement to comment at FAC, and I would assume that a support without detailed review by an inexperienced editor would be given appropriate weight by a delegate; the rest of us don't need to know. Apologies if I've missed something obvious Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant this diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It did seem rather blunt. But, on the other hand, if you accept the assertions made in this comment in an editor review, then the editor's contributions might fit a stereotype of behaviour that Sandy finds concerning. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think what Sandy is reffering to is the user's lack of real judgement. Katarighe seems to go and "drive by" AfDs with "I agree" or "it's good" or "bad article" kind of comments. HurricaneFan25 14:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I said they were vandalism (????), or that I meant to highlight inexperience (haven't noticed that, wasn't aware of Demiurge's links or Hurricanfan's AFD feedback), but there is a question in my mind of how he reviewed those two articles in that amount of time. When I see two back-to-back, rapid-fire Supports on subsequent FACs, with no analysis, I check the contribs, and leave myself a reminder of the contribs. That doesn't negate the support, or say anything about the Supporter, but it is something to factor in the event other reviewers later come in and find significant issues. I don't typically close (quickly) a FAC with supports, unless others demonstrate that support was unfounded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I just didn't "get" the reason for the tagging, I suppose taking it as read that he hadn't done a thorough analysis Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't know that for sure (we don't know what he did in his off time, but a country article typically takes a *lot* of time to review); it's just a reminder for me, to consider along with other factors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

An awful lot of time. As I said at the review, I think they're among the most difficult to write. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Weather

Yeah it's nice here right now, but not nice for skiing. Yesterday it was in the 60's this morning it was 27 but no sign of snow. Bummer.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Dang it. That's what I thought-- will have to cancel. Thanks, Mike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, sorry, it would have been great to see you. Maybe next time? By the way, I have 2 pieces I'm considering putting up at FAC: one, Charles B. Gatewood, just got GA this morning, it was a stub and I expanded it a few months ago; the other, John C. Colt, I wrote from the start, has been sitting over there for months. I don't think there's much more I can do on Colt, but I might be able to expand Gatewood a little. What do you think?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if they'll be a next time (this year anyway)-- I was offered a timeshare (free), which was bringing me there, and later in the year I'm more likely to ski elsewhere ... really a bummer. I've got to get someone to the airport this afternoon, so I'll look at those tonight or tomorrow. Please ping me if I forget-- there's a lot going on right now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Mike ... got caught up elsewhere and then got plum tuckered out. I just looked at Gatewood. What I usually look for in GAs is who passed them-- I'm not familiar with that editor, so I can't say what the GA means. My suggestion is that you next take it to MilHist's A-class review; they can be helpful in polishing it up to FA standards and highlighting any deficiencies. (Decided to go elsewhere to ski in January-- still a bummer, but Mother Nature isn't cooperating.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jivesh Here

Hi Sandy. Hope you are enjoying good health. Sandy, i need your help. Can you please direct me to a very good copy-editor? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dianna is the lead coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors, so I'm sure she could be of assistance. Regards, The Utahraptor/_Contribs 04:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, i cannot count how many times i have asked her for help but she is always busy and i understand. Can you please suggest someone to me? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Lfstevens, User:Aircorn, User:Chaosdruid, User:Jezhotwells are very good copyeditors (User:Wehwalt, User:Brianboulton among others are busy, but you can try asking them).--♫GoP♫_TN 10:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you thought of asking Malleus Fatuorum? In spite of his "admin-inspired" rap, he is often willing to help out-- just about anyone who asks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I know Chaosdruid has been taking care of RL concerns lately, so he probably wouldn't have the time either. I don't know how active the other three are. Malleus is one of Misplaced Pages's finest copy editors, so he's probably your best bet. The Utahraptor/_Contribs 15:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I never thought so many people here would help me put. My heartfelt thanks to everyone, particularly to Sandy. Happy editing. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jivesh, it's always possible that it's only me and my terrible eyesight, but your former sig literally made me nauseous with all those contrasting colors, and if that affects anyone else as it did me, a subtle sig may help you get more attention to your FAC :) I was physically unable to read that page-- my eyesight may be finally getting the best of me. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Aww thanks a lot Sandy. Take care. Happy editing. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why

] Because the wikimedia software is kind of crappy with regards to references. Gerardw (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it irritating as all hell to have to separately and differently format citations on talk pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

halp!

In the 53 million WP: pages on Wiki I don't know where to ask the following question, so I might as well ask here (Malleus's page is watched by many but I suspect he gets sick of that orange bar sometimes). Why have half the blue icons above my edit window, containing the "hidden comment" button and similar, vanished? Parrot of Doom 16:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following the question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See your edit window? B, I, AB, etc? The little blue buttons? Most of mine have vanished :( On two PCs, too, one running Ubuntu. Parrot of Doom 16:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the junk directly above the edit window, I dn't know what you mean by AB ... I have B I then a monitor image, then a scribbly pencil thingie. If that's what you mean, they're still here (and they still suck, since I don't even know what they are and have never used them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah all that stuff. I used a few of those buttons, and now they're gone. I don't suppose you know where to ask the technical people? Parrot of Doom 17:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:VP/T. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta. Parrot of Doom 20:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez

About Talk:Hugo Chavez, what is the early point that you want to revert to?

And if Midnightblueowl/etc reverts I will tell the noticeboard to revert any changes restoring the POV, to prevent anybody from "enforcing" it.

Nothing has happened to the article in the past few months. It needs to be reverted to an earlier version. Then we can "add back" disputed sections in child articles (like how Barack Obama has child articles)

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh ... I'll have to go way back to find it now. The article was not necessarily any good then, but at least it was before Midnight chunked it up with biased sources and poor prose and excess length. It only provides a starting place for consensual discussion of planned new text-- what makes you think that will ever happen at Chavez? There are three or four editors there who will revert on sight anything that is not pro-Chavez? I'll go spend the half hour to find the diff only if you can convince me I won't be wasting my time :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, you will not regret it once you find the earlier version :)

The noticeboard is there to prevent a group of POV-pushing editors from taking over an article - it means more people will be involved

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What noticeboard? I'll go find the diff, but I don't have time to engage the issue otherwise-- for gosh sakes, why does Misplaced Pages always have to heat up during the holidays? Is that because students are off? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Read here; it's just before Midnight chunked in a bunch of biased sources (and still, no one has added alternate POVs). The discussion of the biased sources, and the diff, are all in that section. The diff is just before Midnight doubled the size of the article by adding partisan sources. Two things wrong: most of the text belonged in daughter articles, and unbalanced sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Hugo_Chavez WhisperToMe (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Just after I made the post... Jimbo Wales appeared. Let me read his comments WhisperToMe (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my, there must be a cabal !!! He's asking Midnight if he'd take a voluntary break (doubt it, besides, the problem is how the other talk page watchers enable him and let him do the POVing so they can't be sanctioned), and Jimbo brings up the food issue in Venezuela as one of many mentioned by reliable sources but excluded from our hagiography. Jimbo's right. By the way, it's not only food and not only the poor -- the serious shortages also affect small business people. If you're a dentist, you need paper towels and toilet paper to run your business, but you can't get 'em. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"the problem is how the other talk page watchers enable him and let him do the POVing so they can't be sanctioned" - One could say "they are meatpuppets, treat them all as if they are one person - And apply 3RR to them as if they are one person" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

One could, and there are previous arb precedents, but how do you prove it? They've all so cleverly avoided doing any actual editing, resulting in a situation where if there were to be an arbcase or ANI, they could let the newbies take the fall. They did it to others before Midnight appeared. They just take turns supporting any newcomer who will POV the article-- that started as soon as they realized I was gathering the data for an arb case. And since no one wants to edit war-- knowing it's likely to go before the arbs-- no one reverts the POV they facilitate.

It gets better. You're unlikely to get any takers on your NPOV noticeboard post, because the article has been ripe for arbitration for so long, that admins ignore it, not wanting to get involved. The only admin I've ever seen to say anything at any dispute resolution forum was NuclearWarfare, and he too was resoundingly ignored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"They've all so cleverly avoided doing any actual editing" - AFAIK you can still treat it as a meatpuppet. Meatpuppetry can come in discussion too.

Can't I just keep re-posting it until I get a response? Or if that doesn't work, keep forcing it to the bottommost part as a way of telling the noticeboard people that there is no choice but to get involved?

"And since no one wants to edit war" - An edit war doesn't have to happen - One can pull an RFC, or go further and take it to Mediation, etc

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what to advise you-- people don't touch it because they're afraid of it. You've got some very effective POV warriers in there. Mediation-- non-binding, doesn't work for anything, is nothing more than a stop on the road paved to ArbCom. RFC, same-- the pro-Chavez folks will dominate the RFC, others will stay away, afraid to get involved. Unlikely to be solved short of ArbCom, and not even clear it will be solved there, since ArbCom doesn't do content disputes, and most of the editors there have cleverly avoided any behavioral issues, while letting sporadic newbies POV the article. Not fair for the newbies to be sanctioned for abusing sourcing policies when they are egged on by experienced editors, which included an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the big turning point is Jimbo Wales. Wales has just made his stance clear. I don't think any of the "POV warriors" will be able to argue against what he says.

If necessary I will say point blank on the noticeboard page to say "STOP BEING AFRAID"

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In this situation, Jimbo is just another editor (albeit one that is harder to ignore). He got involved at Che Guevara years ago, and I don't recall that his input made a big difference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the Che one quickly, it's now a "good article" and I don't see a POV tag on it. While in theory he is one editor, and has as much rights as any other editor, in practice he is well respected, and his actions could motivate other people to get involved. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to Talk:Che_Guevara/Archive_12#NPOV_dispute ? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have another strategy...

1. Which sub-articles should be created?

2. Which sub-articles exist that can take the excessive content that is in the Chavez article?

I could create the sub-articles and make them for the purpose of absorbing excess content

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody posted a reply to the noticeboard WhisperToMe (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Catching up belatedly, several thoughts:

• I don't know that Che is really GA-level, or who did the review, but based on the work that was there the last time I looked, I doubt it. Perhaps Malleus or Geometry guy will have a look and opine?
• As far as I know, all the sub-articles needed for Chavez are in place and there is a template at the bottom of Chavez, but one of the sub-articles is an FA, so please don't let it be destroyed by chunking over poorly written text from the current main article to them-- it will end up de-featured if that happens.
• Again, Jimbo is only another regular editor wrt Chavez. I'm sure he (as we all should be) is likely embarassed by the poor state that Chavez has been in for five or six years, as that evidences a failure of core Wikpedia pillars and dispute resolution, but that doesn't mean he in particular can help fix that.
• The NPOV noticeboard is unlikely to be of any help: the only feedback you got there (Fifelfoo) likely came from him watching this page (he may like to clarify).
• There is NO good version to revert to-- the article has been POV as long as I've been on Misplaced Pages. The suggestion of the previous version I gave a year ago was to eliminate the poor writing and excess length and overreliance on one source that had crept in, but that version is not any less POV than the current version.

Other than that, I don't have time for a hopeless article. It's a sad commentary on Misplaced Pages that the BLP of a world leader has been in such poor shape for so many years, but until/unless enough editors care to fix it, that's the status quo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I watch this page, and became interested in the noticeboard as a result of this discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

TFAR

(Gosh, a message from Sandy on my talk page, and a compliment as well – I'm twice blessed!) Yes, I guessed that there was something setting off that thread related to the recent discussions, but didn't know where in particular it had been sparked off. Am I missing something, or is Misplaced Pages still "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit but nobody is forced to do anything"? If we the community want 998 FA-standard vital articles, we need more than TFAR points incentives: we'd probably need full-time paid authors. Not for me, thanks. I suspect I'm not the only one who is quite happy dabbling in my spare time with uncomplicated topics that interest me; I'd much rather get some of articles on historic Anglesey churches written and up to a decent standard than, say, try to get the core topic articles of Fiction and Health up to GA or FA standards. Life is too short and no incentive is enough, be it pseudonymous fame or TFAR points, to deal with the hassle that that would involve. So I guess that makes be guilty of using Misplaced Pages as a "vanity publisher"... Bencherlite 17:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you telling me this is the first time I've "talked" with you? If that's the case, well, I guess that proves you just do too much good work that doesn't require feedback or engender drahmaz, because I feel like I've always known you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Aw, shucks! (Checks his talk page history back to the very start in Feb 2007, discovering in passing that I've been an admin for one more year than I thought...) No, that was indeed the first message from you on my talk page; I tend to visit you here, not vice versa, or we interact in passing elsewhere. Bencherlite 18:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

hmmmm ... well, I'm going to wander over and see if I supported your RFA ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Bencherlite. No. Few people did... Bencherlite 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I was too ashamed to admit it ... must you shame me so publicly? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Dermatillomania

I am still slowly working to get Dermatillomania up to GA and then FA status. If you have any thoughts on how the article is coming along, let me know because I am a glutton for constructive criticism. Remember (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The last time I looked (which was not today, I'm trying to catch up here, working from the bottom of my talk), the writing was still quite choppy. I don't have access to the full text of the sources, so can't be of much help in making it more comprehensive, but I'm not sure it's there yet on comprehensiveness. Can you get hold of the other sources listed in "Further reading", particularly Singer, who is a research leader in that area, IMO ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sure its still very choppy (but I am slowly working it out). As for Singer, I don't have that source. I only have the sources that were emailed to me. The rest are locked up behind paywalls. I will work on getting them after I incorporate all the information I currently have. Thanks for the comments. Remember (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If it can't be good, it better be funny

Presumably that comment refers to The Big Book of Charts and Fables and not to my erudite and entertaining discourses. I shall have to report you to an administrator for your breach of WP:CIVET: it is customary to inform somebody when you are extracting coffee beans from their dung. Hold on, it's not that one. WP:CIVIC? Yomangani 03:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Still trying to catch up-- I pooped out early last night! I've dunged you again over at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, how come some of the other "hidden treasures of Misplaced Pages" didn't protest when I dunged them?

• "Or people will turn you into the mother of the whole process and nag you to distraction."
• Words to remember: This site persistently hosts a small number of people with frank personality disorders.

Huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately qp10qp is more than hidden. Yomangani 00:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please help my poor language skills

I'm looking at ... what does "time is not a luxury" generally mean? Gerardw (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I know what it usually means, but I'm having a hard time parsing the usage there-- can't decipher the intent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I would read it as "there's no hurry" -- I think the following comment about quality indicates that he wants to see improvements in quality and is willing to spend as much time as necessary to achieve that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI and requesting blocks

I don't want to modify a closed discussion, so I'm coming here. Have you looked at WP:BLOCKME?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks so much, Bbb, that answers the question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance of the Misplaced Pages Review

This will no doubt make many at Misplaced Pages extremely happy. When does the dancing in the streets begin? Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Any idea why it's gone down? Nev1 (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Because too many indeff'd editors were talking to themselves on the Annex, obsessing about me? Just a shot in the dark :) :) Because Eagles247 launched an attack so The Fat Man would be silenced? Nah ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so Sandy. Apart from the obsessive Mattisse you were hardly mentioned, as the review tended to go after administrators, not peasants like us. Obviously I don't know why it's been taken down, but I suspect it may have something to do with a challenge that was being mounted to the charitable status of the WikiMedia UK chapter. Of course I could be completely wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is always that possibility! Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just being silly, Malleus-- a reflection on how some officious intermeddlers make the internet suck more because of the need to show power via the block button, and for a while, we could at least enjoy Obesity over on the Review. He was as insightful there as here (which is a far sight more interesting than watching someone obsess on my every word. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame. I've long been a proponent of WR as a vehicle to review Misplaced Pages in a harsh light, as we're crap at doing it ourselves. Yep, for sure there were some real nutters on the site (La Rouche activists, self publicising wierdos and right wing theists etc.) but on the whole it wasn't that bad a place. Not that I ever signed up for an account despite the freak show assuming I did of course. Unpaid bills maybe? Pedro :  Chat  22:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes well that was always the challenge...sifting through all the amusing and not so amusing invective to read useful bits, bit like going to garage sales or junk stores looking for a bargain. Can be sorta fun when one is in the right mood.Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It was an online car boot sale. Mostly filled with crap but the odd really handy thing could be found. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It may not be gone for good of course. Often these things are triggered by flooding the ISP with complaints it eventually gets fed up dealing with, whether or not they have any merit. If you're not paying much for the server space ISP's tend not to be very forgiving. I speak from bitter experience. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Could it be something as mundane as forgetting to renew the domain registration? Much as I was dismayed by the two-facedness of some individuals who contributed both there and here, WR clearly served a useful purpose. I would go so far as to say that WR's existence was on the whole beneficial to Misplaced Pages. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but your registrar does send reminders. Regularly :) . More likely as mundane as not having the money, or not caring, rather than forgetting. Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The domain name doesn't need to be renewed until 16 January next year anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It may not be gone for good of course. Often these things are triggered by flooding the ISP with complaints it eventually gets fed up dealing with, whether or not they have any merit. If you're not paying much for the server space ISP's tend not to be very forgiving. I speak from bitter experience. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

True, but I for one use a robust provider that lets individual sites sit at over 100Mb disk space with unlimited download (and I have some heavy sites that pull many GB's a day). 30 quid a year - and the contract specifies no removal over usage, unless extreme (and extreme is very extrene). Isn't it some bloke going by the username of Sommey that runs it? Surely Peter Damian and Greg Kohs (?) can afford a few dollars to keep it going? That Greg bloke keeps on offering up that his online work won't feed his family but earns him some decentish money. A little silly to let his major mouthpiece go for the sake of a few bucks I'd say..... It's hardly likely to have been pulled for any other reason than cash TBH. Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone knows who runs it, bit of a mystery. That deal with your ISP sounds good, better than mine anyway. Who is it? (Email if you prefer.) Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

streamline.net - you need a bulk user account (10 domains) to make it worthwhile - there are faults, but on balance they're pretty darn good - particularly for not moaning about bandwidth (in comparison to the shysters at 123-reg!). Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting; I use Streamline myself, but I'm paying more than that. I don't have a bulk user account though. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I did have an argument with them a few months ago. They'd had loads of issues with their POP3. Finally they shifted it to another provider (outsourcing ones email as a rackspace company....gee) to make it more robust and then upped the bulk user accounts something like 30-40% (I forget) in cost. I have several bulk users however and managed to renegotiate the rate back to near where it was. I can dig out the details but they are good value if you want a number of domains registered in one hit with individual ftp --> hosting --> mail. Pedro :  Chat  23:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Webmaster please contact support" is usually a sign of an unpaid bill, but wasn't someone trying to get a takedown for something or other.... (I mean seriously trying to get a takedown, not just whinging about it)? I only ever look at it if someone sent me a link, so this would probably have been weeks ago. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In any event, it seems to have recovered now. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona FAC

Sandy, I'd be grateful if you could take a look at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/USS Arizona (BB-39)/archive1 as I believe that that all comments have been dealt with and it has the necessary supports. Nikkimaria seems to have hidden the image review as the first entry in her usual source review. I'd like to put this up for TFA on 7 December so I'd appreciate a note about whatever still needs to be lacking, if anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sturm, I didn't check images, just noticed that that caption appeared to be unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you're working with a deadline, I'll get it to today (unless Ucucha already has) ... haven't looked yet, but pls try to ping in Jappalang or someone to look at images ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, sorry, I'd misunderstood what your comment was about. It is sourced if you drill down a bit further into the Navy's website at . All images are US Navy or US Military so it should be just be a quick check to confirm that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sturm, I've reviewed the article and will add comments to the FAC soon ... stand by! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment

SandyGeorgia, again, I really must ask you to stop making negative comments about me on various pages around the project. The attempted recall request on me occurred years ago, and has since been clearly identified as a frivolous request brought only for political purposes. It is not helping the project in any way for you to continue to complain about it, so please, stop. --Elonka 03:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As "Bob" gave us the words from his wholly pipe, "Pull the wool over your own eyes and relax in the safety of your own delusions!" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, I believe I supported that recall request although it's possible I neglected to actually weigh-in on the recall petition (and I don't feel like searching around for the original thread). Nevertheless, my support for the recall was not for "political purposes." You did make a mockery of the recall mechanism. Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The successful recall attempt against you was brought years ago for whatever reasons, but your refusal to accept it was one of the major contributors to the failure of "recall" as a process, and the reason why borderline RFA candidates must be opposed. If you were to resign the tools and re-run for RFA, that might help the project, and would certainly help restore legitimacy to "recall" - badgering people who note that the failure of recall is substantially your fault, however, does not. Should I gather the six editors in good standing to ask you to stand down again? Hipocrite (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't active in Misplaced Pages at the time, so have no preconceived notions of the incident. I reviewed the RfA and both recall attempts. As an aside, my view is that we need a better recall mechanism for admins; the voluntary recall approach is well-intentioned, but very flawed, and I'm happy it did not come up in my RfA. That said, if candidates agree to a recall provision, they should honor it. If one ends up having to step down due tot he technical requirements of the provisions, even though the community remains broadly supportive, a reconfirmation RfA will remedy the situation. SGs negative comments were primarily directed at the "Recall notion". There's a statement that "Elonka evade" it, which I believe is supported by the evidence. I don't feel it is appropriate to be complaining about SG's feelings, or the cause of those feelings.--SPhilbrickT 14:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Proof. --Elonka 18:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

All you've provided proof for there is that User:Jehochman isn't fit to be an administrator. But I doubt that would be altogether a surprise to some. Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The failures of one person are nice and all, but you said "My standards will be pretty straightforward. If six editors in good standing post to my talkpage and ask me to step down, I will immediately resign my adminship." Here's a historical talk page . Here are the editors who endorsed your recall: Friday, Verbal, Bishonen, Arthur Rubin, Alun, PhilKnight, Ramdrake, Bedford, RMHED, Nishidani, DreamGuy, Mathsci, Fyslee, ChronieGall, Sarah777, Durova and Huldra. Of those, Friday, Bishonen, Arthur Rubin, and PhilKnight are currently admins. Certainly they were in good standing then. None of the others qualified as in good standing? I mean, at this point, it's academic, I guess, but don't pretend you didn't abdicate your recall pledge. Unless, of course, you're still amenable to 6 users in good standing requesting your tools? Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, when I was a consultant, I was trying to persuade a company that I could do some consulting for them relating to a particular type of business. The potential client was concerned that the information learned from the assignment could be used to help their competitors. To sweeten the deal, I promised that our firm would do no work in that area for some number of years. I was awarded the contract, but lived to regret it, as my partners were understandably miffed that I restricted their ability to do work in this area. I made a promise that, in retrospect, I should not have made. However, my response was not to refuse to honor it, on the assumption that I didn't really understand the ramifications at the time. Which is true, I did not, but I made my bed, so I had to lie in it. The decision cost me tens of thousands, but it was my error, and I never considered arguing that the spirit of the promise meant it should apply to me, not to my partners. The decision to promise to stand down based upon the request of six editors, was in retrospect, not a good decision, but it should be honored. It is late, but it isn't too late. --SPhilbrickT 18:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My recall standards (unchanged since September 2008) are here. --Elonka 18:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Why should anyone believe you would stick to them now, when you didn't then? Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference would be whether or not the request was made in good faith or bad faith. As I said at my RfA, the recall had to be related to misuse of tools, but there was no such misuse at the time of the recall, it was just a lynch mob instigated for personal reasons. Further, the community discussion showed a consensus that I should ignore the recall request and keep my administrator access. Please look at the names and rationales opposing the recall, not just those supporting it. --Elonka 19:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, Elonka - you made that "clarification" when the voting was everything but over (150/46, final result was 176/61, so after your "clarification" you ran only 63% - which would fail RFA). You said back then if six people asked you to hand in the tools, you would - as a result, you irreparably damaged recall by failing to do so. That you now are mad that people point at you for your past deeds? Get over it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, given that your current standards are so lax as to be a joke, why would anyone go about the trouble of all that rigmarole when it's easier and more effective to just go to Arbcom. You passed RFA on your pledge to be open to recall with specific standards. Those standards were met. You failed to stand down. That forever damaged the whole concept of recall. Now you don't want people to mention that you are the proximate cause of the lack of trust in recall? You want people to look at your brand new, completely unreachable standards and say "oh, well that's ok, it's a lot like the old standard?" Naah, pull the other one. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would I have any interest in your current recall standards? The issue is the standards you ran on, which you failed to follow. I have a growing concern based upon repeated references to later postings, that you have convinced yourself that you ran on rules which referred to tool misuse. If so, that is even more troubling than "simply" refusing to honor your promises.--SPhilbrickT 19:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A cautionary proverb from Yoda: "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And suffering leads to fear. I sometimes share these wise words with my math class. Geometry guy 19:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, GG that makes a circle :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Or a polygon. MastCell  20:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A quadrilateral even. Unfortunately, for some students, it proves to be a downward spiral (or should that be a "helix"?) Geometry guy 20:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, I think our point has been clearly made, but to hammer it home, please review what I said in my vote in support of your RfA. Cla68 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive4

No, I don't. I know of another FAC which has been going on longer and people are still finding issues with it. And I had just got someone to c/e S&M. Now I can't nominate until mid January because I won't be here. Calvin • 12:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been running for longer than an FAC with multiple actionable opposes would normally be. There's nothing wrong with a few months of waiting; you can use that time to improve the article. Ucucha (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is also another which has been going for a month and hadn't been touched for 9days. Why should that one get to stay? Calvin • 13:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have a question about why any specific FAC is still open, it would help if you posted a link to that FAC. The overriding question is whether it is likely that the article can be improved to standards while on the FAC page, or if work will better proceed off-FAC. How much work needs to be done, is there an indication that it's more than FAC reviewers should have to do, would it be better served at peer review, has the nominator been given enough information to know what needs to be done, have delegates been given enough information to determine if the FAC should be closed-- are all some questions you could ask yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel like I should say which ones so openly here. Calvin • 21:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a problem-- FAC operates transparently, and I'm happy to answer whatever concern you have-- it may help you understand FAC better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I know the nominators of the FACs personally on here. 22:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism versus civility

Badger Drink growled upon finding plagiarism, and so it has come to pass that he has been indefinitely blocked.

At least one "Barnstar of the defender of Misplaced Pages" has been awarded to the complainant, who must be very proud.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Psych class

The prof in question is very interested in making this work and interested in feedback. Have send you some documents from him. Could you point us in the direction of any automated tools that exist for plagiarism detection? This appears to be an unexpected issue and we are looking at people to address it in full.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The basic tool is http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ - disadvantages include the fact you have to know which document you believe content was plagiarised from (so in other words, not especially automated). It's also worth running a few tests with it to see the sort of false positives that can be thrown up.

At the risk of unnecessarily belabouring a point I've hinted at elsewhere, it's extremely surprising that this issue was in any way unexpected. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the docs, Jmh-- I've only had a chance to scan them, but in fact, they concern me quite bit. The emphasis on "research" is problematic: have they reviewed WP:MEDRS and do they understand that we primarily report what secondary reviews say? Do they understand WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS? The focus seems to me to be quite off relative to an encyclopedia. "harnessing the power of students to disseminate research findings ... " do they understand that we don't rely on or report recent findings in primary studies? I'm afraid there'e a lot of reverting and rewriting in store for all of us if 1,500 students start chunking in the latest junk finding they see in the newspaper. If the politics of this place don't convince me to finally give up, it will be that in the midst of the craziness I see everywhere I go, I'm also seeing articles killed by student editing (the latest is the plagiarism and text that doesn't even belong at Pervasive developmental disorder-- at one point it may have been little more than start class, but at least it was accurate and free of copyvio-- how much time do I have to dedicate to keeping them at least that way, and when do I give up and just unwatch?) Statements like "... keeping experts or other highly motivated “information seekers” abreast about research" is not what encyclopedic articles do-- we are NOTNEWS and we don't report the latest junk science until it is vetted by secondary reviews. I am most discouraged by that document, as it shows we've made no progress on the India and US education program problems, and there aren't enough editors here to keep the junk out.

I can see why research professors would lap this up ... why should they care if Misplaced Pages articles are newsy, inaccurate, and mislead the public when they can use us to supervise their students, detect copyvio, and at the same time further their own research findings before they are replicated, validated, subjected to secondary review, etc-- win, win for them; lose-lose for readers and editors. Is this document available publicly or can we post some excerpts to WT:MED so that others can see the extent of work that is ahead of us to keep the encyclopedia encyclopedic if this project isn't curtailed and better directed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding without knowing all the back story, but seeing the word "prof" and "plagiarism" I have to note that while we have some tools, many schools have access to tools, some of which we do not have (or do not have free access). For example: http://www.dustball.com/cs/plagiarism.checker/ It may be as simple as reminding the prof to check within their school for such tools.--SPhilbrickT 18:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To save you a little trouble ...

I went through your notes today on Arizona and have been thinking about several things that I need to do a better job checking. I should be able to re-check all the FACs I've covered by noon tomorrow, maybe by midnight tonight. (Mainly ... I need to remember to go back and re-check FACs that I covered when I was sick or stressed, I always find things I missed).

I want to bring up one thing that you just commented on at RAF Uxbridge, because we often disagree on this ... and feel free to disagree again, of course. You've heard the joke that you can tell from a distance when Germans are speaking, because they spend most of their time staring in blank incomprehension, waiting for the verb at the end of the sentence? (I'm a Germanophile, so I can tell that joke :). When someone reads "The Sick Quarters, the Officers' Mess, the gymnasium, the carpenters' block in the grounds of Hillingdon House and a building near the Battle of Britain Bunker are not listed", they have to read 29 words before they have any idea what the sentence is trying to tell them. I believe that this is more digestible because you're given the point of the sentence right from the start: "While not listed, several other buildings on the site were identified within the plans for possible retention: the Sick Quarters, the Officers' Mess, the gymnasium, the carpenters' block in the grounds of Hillingdon House and a building near the Battle of Britain Bunker." - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Got it-- but it was convoluted, and your new rephrasing is better. I had a hard time-- the prose was tough. My concern is that MilHist folks don't realize to what extent non-military folks have to struggle to get through the text (we have to watch for same on medical articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, if you put "needs non-Milhist input" on every one of our FACs, I'd send you flowers :) We could really use it. I just despair of getting it. In my weekly FAC update at WT:MHC, I suggested people offer co-nomships when they need help with meeting FAC standards ... I'll go add that they should consider non-Milhist conoms as well. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, they *all* need independent review-- not just MilHist ... the difference is that MilHist FACs get support, and then sit there for days to weeks waiting for someone else to look at them. And then, when I look at them myself, someone is likely to claim "COI" ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)