Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:07, 10 May 2012

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

I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.

To leave me a message, click here.

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)

Guianan savanna

Hello,

I think that La Gran Sabana and Guyanan savanna are not the same thing. Second , "the savanna - they should say Guianan savanna, I think - encompasses the treeless and tree patch mosaic of the Gran Sabana". And, although the term Guianan savanna is never mentioned on that page, if you go to the page of WildWorld, and search for NT0707 (the code of "South America: Northern Brazil, Guyana, and Venezuela - Neotropic"), it will be indicated Guianan savanna. Clicking it, it will appear a box. Click in Story & Photos, and More Details, and it again refers to Guianan savanna.

Sorry for my bad English.

Thanks, Tiberti (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Tiberti

This was quite a mess-- it was originally at Guyanan savanna, and there was no such thing as Guyanan savanna in the cited source. In fact, they don't name it at all. I did find Guianan savanna by searching their website (globally), but nowhere do we find a Guyanan savanna as far as I can tell. The site is so poorly organized that I can't decipher what they're up to ... do you have any other source that uses this terminology so we can compare, or is something they invented? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is really a mess. Well, I find:

• Savanas da Guiana, or Savannas of Guyana, with 43,358 square km ;
• Savana da Guiana ;
• South America: Northern Brazil, Guyana, and Venezuela - Neotropic (NT0707) and Guaianan savanna (on the maps), both with 40,300 square miles (=100,000 square km);
• Guianan Freshwater, with 510,000 sq. km and and .

Now, I'm very confused... Tiberti (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiberti, I'm pretty busy today, can't get to it yet, but we'll get these sorted. Do you speak Spanish? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm Brazilian, I can understand a bit : ) Tiberti (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Medical sources handout/paragraph

Sandy, if/when you create the sentences or handout or whatever it's going to be on sourcing, could you ping me? The students on the course I am working with (Misplaced Pages:United States Education Program/Courses/Psychology of Language (Kyle Chambers)) are having some trouble with correctly identifying secondary sources, according to a more experienced editor I'm talking to. I think your notes would be helpful. On the plus side, they seem to have been instructed to post notes to the article talk page offering to fix problems -- I've seen this note on several talk pages, almost identically phrased: "If anyone has any comments on the material that I have added or any more material that they believe should be added please comment on the talk page and I will be more than glad to take into account any comments". Let's hope they are as good as their word. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverts to edits on Autism article

Hi SandyGeorgia, I am confused as to why you reverted my edits. PubMed is a scientific journal, which according to Wiki's sourcing policies, is reliable and most of the article uses a scientific journal. CDC is not a scientific journal and I do not understand why the source needs to be used in the article. ATC 21:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, the sentence that says "The number of people diagnosed with autism has increased dramatically since the 1980s" is inaccurate. All the sources in the article say autism was rare in the 1980s but increased in the late 1990s and early 2000s. ATC 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Finally, the sources for the vaccines in the lead should not be tagged after the sentence about prevalence but after where it discusses the vaccines and the PubMed source is no longer linked and is all messy now when you click the citation tag. ATC 21:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

FAC outside reviews

Hey Sandy,

I had a few thoughts on the Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates#Subject matter experts and reviews discussion that I thought too specific to put over there, for fear of taking things onto tangents.

• You mention WP:PSTS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc. with outside experts. Something that I have thought about often is that I think WP's definition of PSTS is not balanced across fields. Under WP definition, a scientific primary source is a research article; this is fundamentally different from a historical primary source (e.g., a letter from 1531). Indeed, it seems like under these criteria, a historian's data are the primary sources and their papers are therefore secondary... so for symmetry, a scientific data set should be primary and a scientific research paper should be secondary (under our definitions). This makes sense to me because the experts should interpret their data. Of course, review articles written by those not directly involved in all of the research that they are summarizing are better for WP, but depending on field, these are written more or less frequently. Basically, I think that the scientific peer-reviewed literature is downgraded compared to the humanistic peer-reviewed literature under our policies, which seems strange to me as a scientist, and I think should at least be discussed before getting outside expert opinions (because I expect others to be as befuddled as I).
• Opinions: I don't think that academics in general work to advance positions in arguments for personal reasons, but sometimes they do, and when they do, they often do so loudly and obnoxiously... maybe they were ignored as children or something. (Oops! Was that just some WP:SYNTH?) It seems that WP attracts the end-members: the altruistic who want to help advance human knowledge, and the self-centered who want a megaphone. How will we sort these in the expert reviews? And how will we have an ability to argue against biased "expert" reviews? In this, I agree completely with what you say in your point #3: their review should be weighed exactly as we would weigh any other review.
• Implementation: I put some suggestions on the WP page, but if you want to chat / brainstorm here, I'd love to and we'd avoid cluttering that main talk page until we came up with a pretty good idea. As I said over there, I think that if we make the process easy and attractive - including inside editors and perhaps even inspire the outside reviewers to feel good about volunteering their time the fantastic WP cause - we'll have succeeded. But I haven't thought enough about how to deal with non-altruistic outside reviewers. I like to think that people are out to do good things and do less to plan for the alternative...

Awickert (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Butting in uninvited, I like your analogy of the raw data being the primary source and the published paper the secondary source. Makes sense to me. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Me, too. Pesky (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad that seems sensible to both of you: I've been in very circular debates on this: peer review is the gold standard → but your peer-reviewed articles are primary sources → . In fact, this issue appeared recently: Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#Clarifying definitions. It seems like the solution in this case was common sense, but didn't involve any rewording of the (confusing) policy, and therefore is not a permanent solution.

So I think the way I would see it is (using the two above examples):

• Historian: → →
• Scientist: → →

And say that the scientist writing the research paper is as susceptible to bias as the historian writing their research paper: I disagree with statements that doing the experiments makes the author personally involved in a way to define the scientific paper as a "primary source" any more than the historian's research would make them personally involved in the topic.

Maybe I should bring this up at Misplaced Pages: No original research... <sigh>, when I have a block of time... Awickert (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I should also note for those unfamiliar: scientific research papers always reference prior work and integrate the new findings into the body of preexisting knowledge, which also argues for their liberation from the "primary source" bucket. Awickert (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with u Awickert. On a wider scope, I think that en.wikipedia has a problem with science & technology. On the other side, I think that en.[REDACTED] is ok on humanistic, sports & entertainment. Science & technology needs higher level education, vandalism doesn't need it; maybe that's why de.wikipedia has flagged revisions. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education

You may want to read and comment on User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education. It proposes amongst other things creating a body that is parallel but does not compete with ArbCom. --LauraHale (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Russell Burnham FAR

Hi Sandy - The Frederick Russell Burnham FAR is still ongoing and hasn't had any comments in the FARC section. Would you have a chance to drop by and give your thoughts? If so, it would be much appreciated. If not, no biggie; I know you have a lot going on in other areas. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to let you down, Dana, but I have limited time, will be traveling soon, and I have no interest in helping improve a Rlevse article. He was granted an unblock without me objecting, yet he's quickly gone back to some unproductive ways and associations, and I don't see the benefit in helping improve his old work when there is so much other work to be done in here. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Psychology articles

Everywhere I look it's a desert! Do we have any decent psychology articles? I mentioned to you a few days ago when you asked about the usefulness of a Highbeam account that I was considering a new misattribution hypothesis article, but it seemed to make sense before that to look at the attribution article; when I did, I wished I hadn't. If that's typical then we're in serious shit, I'd be embarrassed to see that in a pop psychology mag.

Anyway, I made a few changes and started to put a bit of background and a more systematic approach into the article. If those changes stick I'll do more, but my experience of Misplaced Pages is that more likely the world will come crashing down on my head. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The only decent psych articles are actually articles brought to GA or FA status by med editors. It's all nuts out there, and the WMF via the Education Programs is making it even nuttier. IF we bring in these alleged "SMEs" (as psych profs), it becomes hopeless. Well ... it pretty much already is thanks to the WMF and the Education programs. The problem with most of the psych articles is they attract nutcases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me to one or two psychology articles you think are pretty much OK? I'm yet to find one. Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of a single psych article that is OK ... the only decent articles I'm aware of are medical or neuropsych tagged by the Psych project because they are also treated by psychologists ... articles like autism and Asperger syndrome (which have both been hit pretty hard lately, so I'm starting to wonder about their integrity, too). I started a major update to Tourette syndrome back when the FAC wrecking crew was targeting page views and the like and was never able to finish the planned update due to one thing or another-- mostly the Education Projects and other random silliness like this Capriles business and the GimmeStuff. If you veer off into topics like psychopathy, or personality disorders, be forewarned. I'm unsure if any of the basic treatment articles are any good ... doubt it, though. There is no WP Psych to speak of, and when there was one, it was nuttier than a fruitcake. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've got absolutely no intention of veering off into topics like psychopathy or personality disorders, I intend to stick to the more "scientific" topics. And so far as treatment is concerned, the only treatment I've ever advocated is "For Christ's sake, pull yourself together!" I might step into the parapsychology pit though. Carefully. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh my ... have fun with that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I echo the concerns about psych articles! The only times I've read one, I've tended to come away from them feeling slightly besmirched. Those "Oh, my God!" moments, where you just don't know where to start, and don't even want to try. Malleus, though, "For Christ's sake, pull yourself together!" seriously doesn't work half as well as the meds I'm on ;P They don't "cure", but they control. Or make manageable. Take off just enough of the edge that I have choices rather than compulsions. Pesky (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Any treatment that involves drugs is of course psychiatric rather than psychological, as only psychiatrists can prescribe drugs. I've never really thought that psychology should be about treatment anyway; just look at the CBT nonsense for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 12:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

LDR

Very well, I await your explanation in the talk section I'd already started on why impenetrable is better. Rd232 14:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I hate them-- when you're in edit mode, you have to bounce around elsewhere to find the sourcing information, which makes it harder to verify text. And new editors don't understand LDR, so it creates a barrier to entry. Of course we've got multitudes of style warriors who follow my talk and will be glad to make an issue over there about citation style-- just ask them! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's slightly harder to edit the refs, but verifying is no harder - there are a number of tools that make the ref popup when you hover over the footnote. Actually, isn't there a tool for putting refs in a separate edit box? I'm sure I remember something like that. Rd232 15:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a ref tool, and I use it (see Dr pda's ref tool in my monobook), but it puts the refs in an entirely separate window, where you can't even see the text associated with the ref (I use that tool for citation cleanup when I don't need to know what text is being verified). I believe there is also another tool that allows one to see text separately, don't know where to find that. But, when I'm verifying text and editing/rewriting, I go in to edit mode to see which source is attached to which text, and then right there in edit, I can edit paste the source URL into another window for verification. If I have to also pop down elsewhere to find the URL, that is three different places at once. A bigger concern to me in this particular suite of articles is that we very often have new and inexperienced users editing and LDRs are counterintuitive and hard to figure out. On articles that tend to attract only established editors, I too avoid citation templates because they clutter the text, but on articles where we have so much diverse input, it is my opinion that we're better off to stick with something standard and transportable across all of the Venezuela articles. (For example with medical articles, there is one standard citation style that almost all medical editors use, and we can easily transport citations to other articles.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I see what you mean about the Dr pda script. It's like half of what I had in mind for a tool I thought I remembered (I asked at the Help Desk), and the half is WikEd's collapsing of references and templates in the script. I'm sure I remember a tool that did all that whilst leaving the main wikitext editable (like WikEd)... I vaguely recall now those issues with LDRs, and this tool being the perfect answer, but I can't remember what/where... Rd232 12:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Daily example: someone added text to Leopoldo Lopez that he is Thor Halvorssen Mendoza's cousin. Something everyone knows but we didn't have a source. Pops on my watchlist, and I go looking for a source, find something recently published, add it to Lopez, and then when I want to transport it to Halvorssen, find we have two different citation styles. Consistency across a suite of articles is helpful (as we have in medicine articles) for transporting citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Helpful how? Really, I don't understand how the hell it makes any difference in content terms whether citations use the same style or not; it's up there with worrying about what font the article is in (if we allowed different fonts). Incidentally, I've just noticed a quote from iridescent on your user page, which includes the remark an obsession with strict compliance over common sense... hear, hear. Rd232 15:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

See my discussion below on JoelWhy's sandbox. For starters, when evaluating sources for reliability, it is really helpful if italics are used correctly and citations are full and complete including publisher and author so one knows if one is looking at a website, a journal, a book, whatever and if sources are used appropriately. That's how I approach reviewing an article. I don't start looking at prose until I know sourcing is good and the article is clean. Second, as I've learned from experience, you never know when On This Day or In the News is going to pop one of "your" articles on the mainpage, and I want them to be clean in the event that happens. Third, new editors who encounter mixed style don't know what to do, so the mess gets worse. That's my approach. I also believe that clean articles lead to better editing. People who see messy articles tend to add to the mess, while people who see clean articles are more likely to respect that and follow suit.

As to Iri's point, when I'm drug into a nasty drahmafest with some editors who want to change yyyy-mm-dd dates in citations throughout an article that is consistent to Month day, year, I fully agree. Lame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with that (except for the yyyy-mm-dd observation of course), and in fact that approach has almost become a bedrock of software maintenance; if nobody seems to care about the state of a program then why should I care? It's called refactoring in software engineering. I've also seen the same idea described as "social hygiene" in sociological terms; if nobody else cares about the state of the neighbourhood then why should I? Malleus Fatuorum 15:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Precisely! And the same concept applies to strong sourcing. Once we get medical articles down to reviews, it's less likely people will plop in the latest laypress version of a medical article that they read on the BBC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations being acceptably complete is a given. Formatting, not so much. Content, not style. As to confusing newbies: I don't think anything is more offputting to newbies than cite templates. It's like making people browse the web using a Command-line interface, as opposed to a browser when you need to type in a URL. Sure, it works; it may even be more efficient for an expert. But most people will take one look and walk away, rather than decide to learn how to use it. Wikitext is bad enough. Infoboxes and navboxes and tables are bad enough. But heavy use of cite templates within the body of an article makes editing an article like editing a badly designed template (I say that having plenty of experience with template coding). Rd232 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing like editing a template, whether badly designed or not. And SandyG's point, with which I agree, is that it's less confusing to have a single format throughout an article rather a random hotch-potch of them. Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

'tis a bit like that to me - if the density of cite template footnotes is high enough... And sorry, but I just don't see how different formats are confusing. Rd232 16:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You can very easily use WikiED to suppress the citations if you want, so that argument doesn't apply. As to why it's confusing, well, to an intelligent newbie it may seem that there's some logic behind the choice of what is in reality a random hotch-potch of citation styles. Admittedly though there does seem to be a dearth of intelligent editors here, so that concern may be moot as well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WikEd is too clunky. A request at the Help Desk has turned up the script I remembered: User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js. That's the stuff! (Try it and see. It's basically per-user on-request LDR.) Rd232 17:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I only use the Dr pda edit references script, don't know what any of these others are. I just read the doc page on PleaseStand, and it's Greek to me. Could you tell me in Dummy 101 language what it does? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Easiest to understand it is to install it and click the "segregate refs" button (in Edit mode)... but what will happen is all the refs will be collapsed into named refs (named automatically if they're not named) and the content of the refs displayed in a separate edit box. You can then edit body text and refs separately, and when you Save, everything's reintegrated as it was (including any changes to refs in the ref edit box). It is basically LDR-on-the-fly. It's exactly what I want and I think everyone should use it!! (Well, some improvements are imaginable, notably making it easy to jump from ref mention in the body to ref definition in the ref edit box, rather than having to scroll or use the browser's Find function.) Rd232 17:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Easiest to understand to install, bwaaahahaha, not when your computer is randomly restarting itself four times an hour, losing everything, because there is apparently some connection problem with the battery ... time for a new machine, I think. OK, this is what I wasn't clear on: "when you Save, everything's reintegrated as it was". I won't be permanently changing any refs. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I made some documentation at User talk:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js. Yes, the script converts the article to list-defined references automatically just while you're editing it (and converts it back the way it was when you press save, whilst retaining any changes to the content of the references). Rd232 17:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, hurray, that is officially the Best Thing Since Sliced Bread. But, I use IE, and it doesn't work in IE, so I had to switch over to Firefox. And I don't routinely use Firefox only because I've never been able to figure out how to set up bookmarks/favorites on there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Sucks to use IE... :) You can easily import your IE favorites into Firefox - just needs a little bit of setting up and getting used to. But really just a little. Rd232 17:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll attempt the Firefox switchover after I figure out if this machine is dead or dying :/ :/ In the meantime, I can go over to Firefox only if I have to do a whole lotta citation work, which I don't foresee having time for in the next few days ... someone has to finish expanding Platforms on the election article, and my computer is misbehaving too much to make work enjoyable. Enjoyable work on Wiki-- did I really say that ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Sandy. I noticed your request for a ping here. I don't know if it's what you're looking for, but perhaps this is what you had in mind. Cheers and best — Ched :  ?  17:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Ched, and I appreciate that. But I had come across that RFC, and unless I'm misunderstanding, it is dealing with a slightly different variation of the issue raised on the Combs article. I read that as dealing with a different inconsistency, that is, within a given citation, as opposed to between dates in the text and dates in citations. Am I reading it wrong? This is so typical of how indecipherable those MOS discussions become ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest - much of it is over my head. I tend to find "April" easier - or at least quicker, to understand than a 2012-04-15 thing, but apparently there are technical things with respect to citations. I do try to follow a lot of the MOS stuff, but if someone fixes anything I do - then I just tend to say "thank you". So much of the discussions(?) with regard to dates, hyphens, dashes, CAPS, etc. are lost on me. I read much more than I actually type - so I appreciate anything that makes the reading more fluent. Anyway - if I see anything else that might be what you were asking for I'll drop you a note. cheers. — Ched :  ?  17:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've noticed a predominance of editors in those discussions who may not edit non-English topics as much as I do, and quite a few other language editors decidedly prefer ISO since it's more universal. Other than that, yes, some of it is over my head as well, but I'm pretty sure the RFC you linked is aimed at making dates consistent "within" a citation, rather than eliminating ISO. I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Chavez update and apology

I have mentioned you here; with all due respect, if I had a nickel for every person who said they were ready to deal with neutralzing these articles, and then disappeared expecting me to do all the work, I'd be a much richer woman. These aticles highlight everything that is broken on Misplaced Pages (BLP, RS, V, NPOV, DR, OR, UNDUE, you name it); there are SPAs who do nothing but maintain the status quo across the entire suite of Venezuela articles; important issues are routinely excised from the articles with double standards applied depending on POV; editors ranging from "Chavez is a hero" to "Chavez is a dictator" use the talk page for soapboxing but don't get to work on sourcing and writing; editors entertain Grundle socks there so that innocent bystanders are shot in the crossfire (which serves to maintain the status quo)-- but NO ONE rolls up their sleeves and does any work. Because they know the mess is ripe for arbitration, and they know which way the arbs have been swinging lately. When you come to my talk page to say you're prepared to do the work, the likely consequence is that other editors fear being banned ala Will Beback and disengage. Result: BLP issues go entirely unanswered at the BLPN noticeboard. BLP demands that we get it right, but no one will touch it. These articles will not be fixed with a casual commitment: there are editors who work full time on them, and if you aren't prepared to do same, please don't expect me to. I end up being the one to get shot at every time someone comes to my talk to ask me to re-engage where I've long unwatched, and then leaves me holding the ball. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, wow, I think you've badly misunderstood me. I was ready to drop other things and plunge in full force with you this week. When you told me that you won't be available until June, I said I'll wait until then to really go all out. I'm very sorry if I was unclear in any way and it seemed that I was asking you to do something and then not backing you up. Really, it's the opposite - I'm asking you to help back me up, as I totally agree with most of what you say (except about ArbCom banning people if I'm involved, I think you've got the cause and effect backwards there!) and understand that dealing with a big mess like this alone is really not fun or possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No my response was not because I misunderstood (on the timing issue, which was my fault); it was an expression of frustration that folks are so afraid to even touch those articles now, as they fear we're headed to arbcom. And most editors I'm in contact with are none too happy with the direction the arbs have been taking lately, where the take-home message is you can get banned even for following policy (COI), and especially if you talk to Jimbo. So folks are afraid to get involved where things are messy. These articles are very messy, the issues are enormous and widespread, and cleaning them up will take full-time attention (which few of us have, but those protecting the POV in the articles do). We have a BLP issue that has been like the plague at WP:BLPN, looking like no one wants to go anywhere near it. We have a persistent sock disrupting talk:Chavez. In both situations, with stagnation, the status quo of POV is preserved. I don't have the time now, as I mentioned, but simply trying to keep two articles clean, well sourced, and free of BLP vios (Henrique Capriles Radonski and Venezuelan presidential election, 2012) has taken time this week that I didn't have. Just frustrated. And I wanted to make sure you realized that cleaning up those articles will be a full-time job, and there's a long history of folks asking me to help and then leaving me doing all the work and with arrows flying my direction. Taking on Chavez first, when non-reliable sources and BLP issues abound in the sub- and daughter articles everywhere, might not be the best starting place. Especially since, if we believe sources and first-hand accounts, he might not survive through elections anyway-- the entire suite has to be cleaned up, and the Chavez bio is but one small part of the POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on one thing at least: the Chavez article is the absolute worst place to start if you're getting a serious drive to improve Venezuela articles. Specific topics are much easier (the more specific, the better). Basic problem is too few people involved - and too often those that are don't speak Spanish (or even if they do they largely avoid Venezuelan sources, which means missing 95%+ of available info). Rd232 00:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that, since I forgot-- another huge problem is that many people who want to help do not have good command of English. And others can't read Spanish sources, so the language barrier is an issue. Throw in the soapboxing rants on talk from all sides (hero to dictator), the socking, and the daunting task of trying to take on such a huge mess that leads to sheer exhaustion ... status quo prevails. But what makes me angriest is that I unwatch over and over, give up, and then people come here and ask me to engage, and then they aren't up to the task and I'm left holding the ball and getting shot at. Starting somewhere manageable makes sense. By bringing in an outside editor with no knowledge of Venezuela, but who was one of the two most respected film editors at FAC (Steve (talk · contribs), known for his prose, neutrality and sourcing, we got something accomplished (a Featured Article!!) at The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film). One small piece. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts. First, can you email me so we can have a more in-depth conversation about your perceptions of ArbCom trends? I'd like to understand that better, and I think a private conversation will be easier (you can be fully candid in that context). Second, I appreciate what you're saying. You're a good editor, and I remembered that you've done good work on the Chavez mess in the past, but if you're exhausted with it, maybe the right thing to do is try to bring in more outside editors with no knowledge (or more to the point, no strong feelings) of Venezuela. Do you have any recommendations of who I could ask?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I can be fully candid here ... I don't want to become the next WillBeback, banned because of correspondence via private email, and even before that banning I wasn't much of a fan of private email :) I was fully candid online before the arb decision made everyone afraid to even address COI issues, either online or offline. I have this strange notion that other editors will trust you more if they know exactly what you have to say on a topic, and I still have the scars of the backchannel shenanigans that went on when an admin cabal went after me, so I risk my sanctions for speaking my mind publicly.

Similar to what we're seeing now in BLP enforcement-- people are afraid to go near anything lest it ends up at ArbCom where they can be banned for enforcing what they believed to be policy. I tried to get clarification from the arbs about what led them to the TimidGuy findings, but the whole thing is so shrouded in secrecy that the answers are unsatisfactory. The general feeling editors have is that 1) WillBeback was banned not on the merits of the case but "because he had it coming" for other behaviors, and 2) paid editing is now accepted. Editors I hear from are still gobsmacked about what went on with respect to the COI findings, acceptance of editing with a paid COI, an editor banned for apparently having communicated with you about a COI, confusion about what one can say privately or publicly about COI, medical editors who understand MEDRS sourcing being challenged as having a COI because they understand science and respect sourcing, and the arbs leading us to a position where paid editing is endorsed-- all of this had led to a climate of fear and uncertainty, which I believe we saw played out in this BLP incident, where folks were afraid to weigh in. Curiously, many who did weigh in did not seem to acknowledge the wording or spirit of BLP and there was contradictory input, so do we have a strong BLP policy or not-- very similar to did we have a position on COI or not, where enforcing what one believed to be serious COI led to banning and the logical consequence of the acceptance of paid editing. If someone can edit as part of their job to advocate a position and promote text that does not respect quality sourcing, why should any of us do this for free ??? Medical editors are demotivated and discouraged, and editors across the board are afraid to address COI, BLP, whatever -- apparently these days even a good faith interpretation of policy or guideline can get one into real trouble. In this particular BLP situation, the text became so garbled in the Rd/SG back-and-forth editing to try to preserve what Rd saw as NPOV and I saw as a BLP issue that throwing out the whole thing is probably the best conclusion, but one wonders about the wisdom of even engaging on controversial topics considering the varied and strange reactions. With the additional problem of peanut gallery unhelpful input, such as the first editor who responded to the BPLN post-- we just don't have experienced helpful knowledgeable editors weighing in on dispute resolution forums anymore, because we don't have as many experienced knowledgeable editors weighing in anywhere anymore.

No, I really can't think of anyone who could or would take on the Venezuela editing, which is part of why I become so frustrated when I'm asked to go back and help (there's few who can or will, so each time a new editor appears and aske me to help, I give it a try), and then nothing happens. To edit there effectively, one has to have seemingly unlimited free time to deal with SPAs who only edit Chavez topics, proficiency in Spanish, knowledge of the history (so you know what's missing or what sources to search for), and knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies, since reliable text is challenged for any number of non-policy-compliant reasons. Besides that, now one has to know how to recognize Grundle socks and avoid letting him derail talk.

Having said all of that, the only editor I know who would meet all of the specs is Yomangani (talk · contribs) (speaks Spanish, knowledgeable of Wiki, strong writer and good sourcing, FAs under his belt, no perceived POV or prior involvement), and I'm sure he wouldn't go near that article if you paid him (pun intended !) Steve (talk · contribs) was very effective on crafting the neutral film article which became FA, but I don't believe he has the Spanish to keep up with all the work needed, and I'm certain he doesn't have the time (he's no longer as active). In short, I do not know who or how we can entice editors to engage on those topics, and part of the problem now is that editors are concerned about what looks more and more like willy-nilly findings when controversial topics end up before ArbCom. Appeals to WikiProjects as Rd suggests will not be helpful-- the editors just aren't out there anymore in general, and even less for controversial or difficult topics. JoelWhy has struggled to help, but as he says, everything one writes or attempts is removed or deleted, so all one can do is tag the article. What we have overall now is a situation pointing one direction: the environment is conducive now to editing by paid advocates, and we know who has the money to maintain the Chavez suite of articles as a hagiography.

I had two important medical articles I wanted to update this month: Venezuela/Chavez always becomes a time sink, and all one has to show for the work at the end of a long frustraing day is an entire suite of POV articles. I suggested long ago we needed to instate a 1RR rule to force editors to discuss on talk and collaborate to improve text: that, as every suggestion and thread at ANI, was ignored. Also, the Chavez article is now approaching 13,000 words of prose, a good deal of it poorly written, not using summary style and sourced to partisan sources to the exclusion of mainstream sources, while neglecting entirely important areas in spite of the length. I don't see how to build a neutral article without cutting it back to bare bones and starting over. And that would take a team. And one wonders if Chavez will outlive the work needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Partly it needs a critical mass of editors to avoid blockage by individuals and get research and editing done. Appealing to wikiprojects individually wouldn't make much difference, probably; but appealing to all of them at once (each to come and work on articles within Venezuela topic that overlap with their project, like Films to work on Venezuelan cinema), plus chucking in a site notice, for a temporary go at making a lot of difference to a whole topic, might get some movement. A Misplaced Pages-wide Topic of the Month might actually gain some traction - maybe (can't hurt to try). If it works, there's plenty of countries that would benefit from the same thing, before we even think about other topics that it could work for. Rd232 15:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Steve was effective on The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film), I'll ping him in here to see if he has any thoughts, but there's a big intangible now, Rd-- Chavez's health. In an environment of seriously declining editorship, why would editors want to work on that article when it is increasingly looking like his cancer is serious. There was a time when I wondered if it was a PR stunt, but with the recent reversal of his religious stance and an apparent "Come to Jesus" moment, I'm more inclined to believe he is dying. If that happens, who knows what happens to our mess across the suite of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a recommendation: don't canvas individuals. Try different wikiprojects (lots of other projects partially overlap with a geographical topic like this; see also {{CotM}}) or else invent some new mechanism to try and get a lot of people involved in something (like a sitenotice for a Topic of the Month: can we fix it? yes we can!, say. We used to have Misplaced Pages:Collaboration of the week but it's dead, possibly due to a lack of advertising.). Rd232 10:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I remain willing to help w/ the Chavez article, but I got tired of spending my time drafting, looking up sources, etc to only have the work flushed down the drain by a few highly partisan editors. I have been adamant about maintaining the NPOV tag, as it at least clues in readers that the article is not to be relied upon. But, that's obviously not a long-term solution. (For the record, I can read Spanish, but trying to conduct research in Spanish would be tough for me.)JoelWhy (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, doing the research in another language is part of what makes it so exhausting when even reliably sourced text is summarily flushed away. Like Joel, I can read Spanish proficiently, but sometimes I don't know what keywords to search on in sources so it's very time consuming. I do try to replace Spanish language sources with an equivalent English language source when one is available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"I don't want to become the next WillBeback"

I'm struggling with how we can be more candid on this one without violating anyone's privacy. It's not that easy to get banned by Arbcom for administrator misconduct, actually. Will's banning was a confluence of factors that I really did not expect to see come to pass. But, here's my list of advice on how not to become the next Will Beback:

• 1) Don't investigate Wikipedians' real life identities and if you happen to run across something that makes you suspect an identity not heretofore disclosed on-wiki, just let it drop. The committee deals regularly with attempts to identify ourselves, other functionaries, and editors in controversial areas for purposes of off-wiki harassment. My dim view of such is informed by the things that are almost never discussed publicly by the committee.
• 2) If you do ignore #1 Only communicate such real life identity information to functionaries identified to the foundation who are chartered with handling private information. Do not instead communicate with other administrators involved as editors in the topic area: even if it may not meet the letter of OUTING, it's still CANVASSing.
• 3) If you do ignore the previous 2, and decide that since all other dispute resolution processes have failed to get you the outcome you were looking for, you should email Jimbo to Right a Great Wrong, don't mislead Jimbo by, for example, recounting the complete history of someone else's misdeeds... except downplaying the previous year's ArbCom case such that it is barely mentioned, even though most of the evidence you are using as justification was already presented to ArbCom in that case. Or, likewise, by failing to note a previous AE topic ban and its subsequent lifting until well into the fine print of your voluminous message. Or by conflating things (a la WP:SYN) to come to conclusions that someone is a paid PR professional and putting that prominently in the message lead. To be clear: It is my belief that Will's email to Jimbo was intentionally tailored to achieve the result it did, by selective portrayal of TimidGuy as a paid advocate, while omitting or downplaying any exculpatory information.
• 4) If you're going to do all of the above, don't have a previous admonishment by ArbCom, regardless of its age. As much as it didn't make a difference to me, the fact that Will had been previously admonished by ArbCom in an ancient case that none of us remembered did appear to sway a committee member or two--and that is what appeared to nudge the case from a desysop to a ban, based on my observation of how the voting went.

These last two are a lot more fuzzy than the above four, and I considered omitting them, since they don't factor in formal findings anywhere, nor in any arbitrator's on-Wiki statements, but I believe their inclusion will help reassure you that you're not likely to face an outcome remotely like Will's.

• 5) Do not rely on someone else's misconduct to justify your own. If you're going to be a crusader against off-wiki collusion... don't collude yourself. Unclean hands is not a formal policy anywhere, but do not imagine that it does not play into outcomes. ArbCom is not a court system that is intentionally blind to questions of conduct outside those posed to it, which is part of the reason we don't have binding precedents. This normally would have worked in Will's favor, given his history of contributions... but those were outweighed by what appeared to me to be attempts to exert improper influence over other contributors.
• 6) Finally, don't email other editors and threaten to expose their identities when you're currently involved in a case based on your... wait for it... exposing other editors' identities. Even if they're disgraced former functionaries editing without benefit of a legitimate clean start, they can still email your message to us. This one you can't really deduce from the findings, because it happened so late in the case and didn't factor publicly into anyone's decision-making, but if I were a betting man, I would bet that the message did nothing positive to garner sympathy to Will's side from the last few committee members who sealed the ban.

This is not a complete list of what Will did that I would encourage others to avoid, but if he had altered even one or two of these items, it is my opinion that he would not now be banned. I am, of course, speaking only for myself and not for anyone else on the committee. Does that provide a more comprehensive answer of how to not end up like Will? Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Volunteers to help with COI issue?

I am almost done drafting an article where I have a conflict of interest (article is about my boss). I have not been paid to draft this article (in fact, it was my idea, I volunteered to do the article, and my job duties have ZERO to do with promoting her or her business.) I have done my best to keep it NPOV, however it definitely paints my boss in a positive light (i.e. she's a real American success story and she's a philanthropist, so I think that's inevitable.) So, I was hoping to have another editor (or editors) take a look and give their input. Sandy, care to volunteer? Or, since I know there are a ton of editors who frequent this page, any other volunteers? I really am trying to be objective in the article, but I definitely need a second set of eyes who has no feelings for the subject one way or the other. Thanks! JoelWhy (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Joel, I would be happy to review that article for you, but I am going to be traveling soon so my time is limited. How much I could do depends on how long the article is and how difficult the sources and subject matter. Are you able to publicly say what article, or does that put you into a spot wrt your identity? If you can post it here, someone in that topic area might engage, and if I have the time, I will. I'm way behind on lots of things I promised after the foray this week into the election article ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked your sandbox ... do you want me to edit there, add inline comments, or add comments on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks! I'm still filling in citations, but that shouldn't impact what you would be doing. (I may delete some minor points, if I am unable to find decent cites, but nothing too substantive.)JoelWhy (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I added comments there on talk, which reminded me of my differences with Rd over substance vs. style. Before I dig in to text, I first make sure sources are reliable then citations are consistent, then I look at prose. Rd thinks that is bassackwards, but I like to work on clean articles. So, my first pass on citations is on talk. I do see some prose and content issues, but we'll get to that next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll go through and fix the cites and let you know when that's done. Some of the sources I have are from magazine clippings that are kept by the firm. Many of the articles are copied and reprinted on the firm's website, but I can't find the original articles online anywhere outside of that. (I'm assuming that such a link would NOT be considered a reliable source!) Anyhow, I'll keep looking and fix up what I have...JoelWhy (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's OK to use clippings, and they don't have to be available online, but just give enough info (publisher, location, author etc) that if someone went to a library that had archives of that magazine, they could find it. Another thing you can do in cases of text that might be challenged is to add a quote from the source to the citation (use the quote parameter if you're using citation templates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)