User talk:SandyGeorgia

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.
I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.
Template:FixBunching Template:FixBunching

Featured article removal candidates
PowerBook 100	Review now
1981 Irish hunger strike	Review now
Battle of Red Cliffs	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now

About meTalk to meTo do listTools and other
useful thingsSome of
my workNice
thingsYukky
thingsArchives

RfA

Hey Sandy, I just saw your !vote over on Peter's RfA, and it reminded me of how much I value your input over there. When I see your support, I know that the candidate has won the respect of a person I highly respect. I know that you have absolutely zero interest in becoming an admin, but I was wondering if you knew of any qualified people who might be interested in becoming an admin? I don't think nominating people for RfA's are your thing so if you have any ideas, let me know and I'll vet them.Balloonman (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I always have a ton of ideas, but the folks I usually think of usually aren't interested (for all the right reasons :-) ... while the folks who are engaged in aggressive admin coaching and engaging the GAN and FAC processes on their climb towards RfA always seem to appear there a bit too soon. I'll give you a list later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks.Balloonman (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I will surely forget someone, but that's the risk you take. I previously suggested a long list (months ago) to TimVickers, but most of them declined: Colin, Qp10qp, Dr pda, Ling.nut, Outriggr, lots of others, so I won't suggest them again. I believe Epbr123 should be an admin, but he was mauled in his last RfA, so it's probably too soon and I wouldn't blame him if he never went anywhere near the place again. Others include Elcobbola, Laser brain, GrahamColm (should be a co-nom with TimVickers), Karanacs, Kablammo, Mike Searson, RelHistBuff, Ealdgyth, Maralia, BuddingJournalist, and Jbmurray. I would co-nom any of these people, but most of them are likely to decline. Any one of them would be superior candidates to the rush of admin-coached and prepped RfAs that have been cropping up lately, and which frankly give me great pause for the future viability of this Project. Forgot Happyme22, Tvoz and Wasted Time R, will think of more. BrianBoulton (not sure how long he's been on board though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC) <red-faced again> ... forgot Moni3 !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As an admin coach, I agree with your comment about many coachees being rushed... I hope you don't feel that way about mine... most of them take at least 2-3 months of coaching before I'll nominate them! I want to get them exposure to several areas of the project.Balloonman (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, it would be interesting to get your input on WT:RFA... a lot of people who frequent the RfA process are clamoring for more candidates.Balloonman (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

ah, if I knew you were an admin coach, I'd have held my tongue :-) But now that I have your audience ... I'm not sure which are yours, since I didn't know you were a coach, but I absolutely cringe at what is going on at RfA, as do most of the editors I most respect. No point in opposing, since they mostly come with enough fan support to pass anyway (often the same buddies passing each other's GAs). And why exactly are they clamoring for more candidates? The more unprepared candidates they rush through, the more problems Wiki has to deal with, the more new admins we need to deal with the problems created by abusive, power-hungry, immature and unknowledgeable admins. Vicious cycle. Wouldn't more problems be solved by having a higher proportion of mature editors who don't crave adminship and actually <gasp> contribute content rather than playing social power games on a website? There's one up now who's been on Wiki for four months, and it will go through. I've been on Wiki for more than two years, and I'm astonished daily at how much I don't know; I'd really like to know how someone who's been here for four months can use the tools wisely. Interestingly, I see the same crowd supporting most of these candidates, and it doesn't bode well for Wiki's future, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

On that point at least we are agreed Sandy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what they are looking for is a different type of candidate, Sandy. Perhaps the RfA regulars are starting to notice the same thing that others of us have spotted. The RfA trend changes from time to time; perhaps the pendulum is swinging back? Risker (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope it's swinging back, I hope this entire notion of admin coaching will STOP (you either have the qualities or you don't, and being told to accumulate a bunch of GAs, DYKs, push through a FAC, dabble a bit here and there in vandal fighting and XfD, doesn't confer admin character) and I hope we aren't going to be dealing with the problems from the recent crops of admins for a very long time. <Red-faced> Add Risker to my list; darn, I knew I'd forget some! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, someone went through last month who blatantly dissed and attacked Yomangani once on my talk page, and since I couldn't find the post, I didn't oppose. <shudder> I am certain that person doesn't have the right character even if he has a gazillion GAs, DYKs and an FA. Now, when someone disses a respected editor, I'm saving the diff to my hard drive, unless they apologize, so I can find it when I need it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooohhh, who was that? I must add them to my enemies list. Yomangani^talk 01:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I told 'ya I'd have to kill 'ya :-)) It was during your absence. Let me put it this way: not worth losing a minute of sleep over :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Sandy, and thank you very much for the compliment! :-) I have to say, I look at the "qualifications" some people set up and just shudder. What ever happened to good old common sense? Risker (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Risker, if you are interested, I would be happy to take a look at your contributions. A recommendation from Sandy carries a lot of weight in my book.Balloonman (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded Risker; I would very much like to see you take the plunge...we need more content people getting the tools, and using them for the purposes of content (rather than the professional cops seen all too often at RfA). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• blushes* Aww, thanks guys! I've responded to Balloonman on his talk page. Your willingness to consider me for candidacy is incredibly appreciated. Risker (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy; for your watchlist: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Risker. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

See below for an example of one of our fine new crop of admins leaving a personal attack on a talk page over a GA review (within months of gaining the tools). Honestly, something needs to be done about what is going on over at RfA; more eyes are certainly needed on that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow... I can only say that was before I became active in the RfA process (January/February are my busy seasons at work, and I was uninvolved then.) I do, however, think your input into the process would be interesting, because the talk on WT:RFA is that the process has become too difficult. I'm of the opinion, that the bar has been lowered and those who should be admin's aren't running because they don't participate in "the right areas." I want to see more candidates like Risker/Peter/CapitalR. People who have gained the trust of the communities where they work, regardless of how many XfD's/CSD's they have. Balloonman (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm with you here. Admin coaching stinks of mandarin careerism. And it's function smells more like social networking of the patron-client variety than anything else. I would prefer if the good "coaches" hunted down and nominated highly experienced users who have built their experience in content contributing rather than user talk pages, private emailing and ircing, whose main qualification is their ambition to gain the mop. Promotions of the latter have had a detrimental effect on wikipedia. I really wish some of those guys understood this, as they wouldn't do it so much and they'd think beyond "hey my mandarin mate is voting for/opposing this guy....support/oppose". It's frankly appalling some of the users who get through this (and some of those in line too...so tempted to mention names here), while great users like Malleus who offer their service don't, and a bunch of the rest are so estranged and contemptful of it that they don't even bother. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And the detrimental effect has trickled down to GA and FAC, as these "admin coached" types are encouraged to engage those processes, are passing and reviewing GAs with little qualification, digging up someone else's work and putting in a few edits to bring an unprepared article to FAC, causing work for reviewers where we're already stretched thin ... when they have little experience or reason to be engaging those processes ... and the mentality over at RfA these days seems to be, support everyone so they'll support me when it's my turn. Very very bad for the Project. Balloonman, one thing you (and others) could do is take down those checklists; I found those yesterday, and admin character can't be created via checklist. I have no clue about XfD or a whole lot of things on those lists, but I'm fairly certain few people think I would abuse the tools if I had them. Now I understand why the path from GA to FAC to RfA is so easily predicted ... pass a bunch of buddies' GAs to accumulate goodwill, do a trial run through FAC (leaving a lot of Supports to garner good will and a wake that has to be corrected by other serious reviewers), and then head for RfA ... they're going down the checklists. Much more alarming is that, whenever I read some of these recent RfAs, I'm not seeing the names of many of the editors I respect; have people given up and left the page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think that you're right in surmising that the RfA checklist has contributed to a significant number of very poor GA reviews by admin wannabees. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a new hobby: lurking on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and discovering new things I never knew existed. For instance, yesterday I linked through a bunch of comments to get to the Essjay controversy that I never knew happened, but did not surprise me. One of the criticisms in that article is that the administrators' lack of oversight, of questioning the way things are. Wikipedia is fascinating as a study of group dynamics and how people behave. And as someone who detests politic of any sort, yet recognizes they are inevitable once more than two people communicate, it's becoming clear just by reading this talk page that admins are an insular group that have created their own sub-culture (the t-shirts and mops as symbols, for example), that separates them from normal users like li'l ol' me. The admin process, as I understand it (that's dubious, you know), requires users to work for the reward of number of votes whenver the opportunity arises for RfA. On one hand, that imposes civility, but on the other, it silences questioning of why things are the way they are. Once people are accepted into an exclusive group, they become cheerleaders for its maintenance and are less inclined to upset the people who have accepted them into the group. Why do people spend so much time writing these articles when they get no reward other than the self-knowledge that they wrote a damn good article and thousands of people are reading it? Should admin come with any different reward? What if there were non-admins who had access and input into the process, people who just asked, "Why are you doing this?" Or what if admins where required to do that? --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Oh my gosh, red-faced again! I forgot Moni3 on my list above !!! Please accept my humble plea for forgiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Moni, if you are interested, I would be honored to check you out on Sandy's recommendation as a possible candidate. (I can't say that I would nom you---I generally spend 2-5 hours checking out people I don't know before noming them. You can see my past noms on my talk page.)Balloonman (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, darlin' - you can check me out all you want! I don't know how successful any of that would be, though. As I stated, I despise politics and bureaucracy, and the admin system seems to cherish it. I would get opposed on SNOWBALL alone. I spent my lunch hour thinking of this. Would it be fruitful to point out to a group of folks their own patterns of behavior? Or are people destined to participate in groupthink no matter what? I don't know. I do know that I can no longer afford to be involved in systems like these, and I would say so right up front. Plus, I think my computer hacking skillz are kinda low. --Moni3 (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I recommend that Balloonman check you out just so he can read your edit summaries; he'll find it the best three hours he ever spent :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this comment will get me canned pretty quick. Well, if I'm good for anything, it's entertainment... --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, I must show that one to Ceoil :-) Is that the worse dirt we can find on you? When I was a complete newbie, somewhere I gave myself a GA. Didn't even know what GA was, but it sounded good :-) Then when I figured out what it was, couldn't find where I'd done it so I could un-do it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that and some "brisk" comments on James I of England's talk page and the Gay talk page. Kee kee...gay talk page... I suppose I'm lucky in that I'm too dorkus to figure anything out, so I ask people what am I doing?? But the snowball is my almost complete lack of experience in dramatic froofaws. I just don't like them and I enjoy the majesty of putting the computer down and walking away to look at the trees in my backyard. I can only imagine trying to get into some arbitration to say something like, "Y'all are fighting over what now? wtf?" And I like writing articles. --Moni3 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... um.... yeah... I guess you would be an interesting challenging different candidate... but nothing is impossible! I take if you're not interested ;-) Balloonman (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Strikethroughs say so much more than a Hallmark Card ever could... I would consider the nomination process an interesting intellectual exercise, and am interested in it if only to be able to challenge any prevailing opinions of what makes a good admin. I do not expect to, err, "win" anything, and will not attempt to persuade anyone that I am a good candidate for the position. I think that's where the harm begins. Rather, I would be honest about who I am and what I do, and if they don't want such a person as part of their organization, who am I to judge that? It's their club. I'll still be writing articles anyway. You decide if it would be worth it. I think at the least I can offer SandyGeorgia a snort or two, and if that's how I can pay her back for all the crap she puts up with I think that's more than fair. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What matters to me at RfA: is the person trustworthy, civil, an AGFer, do they add to the Project (not only content areas, but that helps), do they handle stress and conflict well, have they been around long enough to demonstrate these qualities and maturity, and will they abuse the tools. In short, do I know enough about them to know I can trust them. I don't think I've supported one yet that later embarrassed me. I don't care about all those other checklists that candidates who aren't any of those things are completing to get through RfA. And I'd much rather snort at Moni's edit summaries than read the pontifications of the admin postulates who are completing a checklist so they can gain the tools so they can flex their admin muscles to feel like a big cool dude on the 'net. Moni would be a good admin even if she pooped on a bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

BOINK! Ok let me axe you a question. I'm not entirely sure what the conversations refer to in these references to the "latest batch of admins". Can you point me to what their transgressions have been? Also, clearly I'm a content editor who's in her own tiny little world sometimes while doing the article thing. What can a content editor do as an admin that would help their project? I don't even know. I've asked admins to protect the Harper Lee article, and that's pretty much the extent of my requests. (One pooter decided it wasn't a good idea after I spent 2 hours reverting vandalism from the same IP address). He hath caused me to rend my garment. --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the reason why I asked Sandy for her recommendations. There are tons of qualified people out there, but they are overlooked because they don't fit the "mold." I think the type of admin that has been passing over the past month or two is different than the type that passed even 3-4 months ago. 3-4 months ago, there was a lot of focus on XfD's and ant-vandalism. If you weren't involved there, you might not as well apply. Right now, there is more of a push for civility and trust among the community. (Dihydrogen, myself, and a few others have been noming some atypical candidates lately that are passing with flying colors, while the anti-vandal candidates are facing stiffer opposition.)Balloonman (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people used to have a 1 FA criterion for adminship. That would have sunk me. I'm as guilty as anyone for not watching RfA. I tend to support the people I know, and know will make good admins, when they come up, and only oppose those I think I need to oppose (ie. if the nomination is not already failing). The others I just let slide on the assumption that they can learn on the job. Probably a dangerous assumption, actually, but not many people have the time to hang around RfA. BTW, I came here from the "joke oppose" thread on AN. My RfA had one of those: see here. It did make me realise what effect even a joke oppose can have, and this one was edited in as an already struck-out one! It also made me realise that RfA is too much of a popularity contest, but that is a story for another day. Carcharoth (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm up for this, too, if anyone else thinks it's worthwhile. Not that I'm entirely sure which admin tools I'd use. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't really have to use any. Even if you only use the them once a year thats still a net gain for the project. You should definetly run, with your editing record you shoulnd't have any trouble Acer (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray, I recently had a chance to observe how you handle conflict, and I'd be glad to co-nom, although I don't really know how to put a nom together very well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, here is my essay How to Nominate Somebody for RfA. It has my observations on what, IMHO, makes a successful effective nomination.Balloonman (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI I just created a nom for Jb.Balloonman (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my, just saw another one I missed: Slp1 (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slp1 if you wanted to conom...Balloonman (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, look what I found! Sandy, I really appreciate the compliment above, and think I might try, though the prospect of running makes me pretty darn nervous. If you were willing to co-nom I would be honoured. But there is time for plenty of coffee: I am busy in my real life for the next day or two and probably won't be able to answer the questions etc till Friday.--Slp1 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey! No worries at all. Funnily enough I am feeling under the weather myself, and not in a fit state to do much myself in any case. Get better soon! --Slp1 (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are feeling better? Thanks very much for the endorsement! No matter what happens from here on, it is nice to hear positive things from somebody whose work here I respect so much! I will be trying to write up the answers to the questions today. If you feel like looking in and giving any advice, don't be shy! --Slp1 (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Red-faced again: I also forgot Eubulides (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at a RfA some months ago and I saw some poor soul facing the "Spanish Inquisition", having to answer questions like "how do you explain this edit?" and so forth. I thought why would anyone want to suffer this? I saw my name on Sandy's list and I took this as a compliment. But I have to ask myself would it make me a better editor/reviewer? Of this I'm not convinced. GrahamColm^Talk 05:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

link delete

I didn't mention this on those other pages, because I don't want other to hear this and start snooping around. I'm gay (openly) but on that myspace page of mine I want it deleted because I have a lot of gay friends that aren't out of the closet. I am but they aren't, and I don't want people looking around at them. Although I am considered about people sending me messages (a valid privacy reason) that's secondary. I want the link deleted. I've seen other pages that have permanently been unviewable, and I would like that to happen to all pages that have that link after it is deleted. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't delete pages, and since you have that page linked on your own userpage, I doubt you would convince anyone to oversight that post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want it out there in general discussion. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Also - I never thought it would be a noticed much before when I first added it because I was barely ever editing before. And I happen to be aditing a lot lately which is unusual for me (check my contributor pages and you'll see) I've done more in the last week or so than I tend to do in a year. I didn't think my user page would ever get as much attention as it has lately. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want it out there, it shouldn't be on your userpage; I'm sorry, but this is not something within the realm that I can fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I found this on wikimedia, and it referes to wikimedia projects (including wikipedia) and contributors:

Personal information and its removal Main article: Privacy policy Definition: "Personal information" typically includes, but is not limited to, name, address, telephone number, precise date of birth, instant messenger contact details, photograph, appearance, food tastes, personal views, and similar details of an individual person.

Two policies govern personal information. Individuals in their role as editors, contributors and readers of Wikimedia projects, should refer to the privacy policy. Information on individuals forming part of an encyclopedia article, are subject to the policy on biographies of living people. "Right to vanish" relates specifically to the former.

The Wikimedia projects will delete personal information about editors and contributors (most likely on user and user talk pages) at their request, provided it is not needed for administrative reasons (which are generally limited to dealing with site misuse issues). Personal information related to encyclopedia articles and persons mentioned therein are not covered by "Right to Vanish". Instead, please see the relevant editorial policy on biographical articles, which contains full details of editorial directives, and actions to take if dissatisfied. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Quirky, I think you're misunderstanding. First, I'm not an admin and I can't take the decision to delete someone else's post unless there is a policy reason. Second, your privacy was not violated: you posted the information, so I don't see where this policy applies unless you exercise the right to vanish and ask that you be expunged from Wiki (and I'm not sure what an Oversighter would do in this case). I could start a thread at the Administrator's noticeboard to ask how this can be handled, but doing so will only draw more attention to the personal information that you posted and you now want withdrawn. Please let me know if you want me to do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted to Blnguyen (talk · contribs), who is better able to address this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Blnguyen, can you advise on this thread relative to the Hillary Clinton FAC and QuirkyAndSuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? The editor had his personal myspace account posted to his user page since March 2006, it was raised on the FAC, he removed his myspace link on May 11, 2008 (two years later) and he now wants the link removed from the FAC. My understanding is that policy doesn't allow me to do that, and that the only way that info can be expunged is if he exercises RTV, but I don't know policy in this area, and I don't want to do something that risks destabilizing the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I would be willing to bend the rules and oversight if another oversighter would agree with it. I'm not too worried about the compromising of the FAC, although you might think differently. A lot of FACs have ethnic bloc votes and I wouldn't really care whether the guy has a blog or a userpage with strong opinions on ethnic matters since even with most street-smart guys who don't declare their ideology, it still affects their dispute/poll positions anyway. A guy might not even know that he is biased but I have seen way biased people with no soapboxing on their userpages. But I think talking to the guy who raised his website and asking them to refactor is ok. And then oversighting. Raul can oversight as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up and a goofy idea

Hi Sandy, just a heads up that PeerReviewBot has been approved for a one week trial archiving Peer Review, including those already at FAC and FLC. Thanks go to Carl for writing and operating the bot. There will be a test for a week. Assuming it gets approved, the directions for PR and FAC might have to be tweaked.

I have a goofy idea I was wondering what you thought about - what if there were two Peer Reviews and one of them was some sort of "Featured Peer Review" similar to WP:PPR. The idea would be that before going to FAC or FLC, articles would be nominated there and could be nominated to FAC or FLC if enough editors thought it was ready. Perhaps this could also be a way to qualify articles for WP:LOCE. If the only problem was a copyedit, that would put it in line for a copyedit, and then FAC. There would also be regular peer review for articles that just wanted to improve, and get ready for GAN. The other advantage would be that splitting peer review would avoid size issues we now face at PR, and allow reviews on FPR to run longer if needed. What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lost long answer to ec, will try again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So, on the first, if I see a FAC that has an open peer review, I should check back later? This is really going to throw me off, since I check every FAC when it first appears, to make sure the talk page is prepped for GimmeBot, so this will force me check twice (which I may forget, so GimmeBot may get stalled).

Anything to let peer reviews run longer would be good, but I think the current problem there is the amount of overhead taken up in the new automated system. I don't even go to PR anymore because I can't/won't wait to load the page (takes too long). I'm still unsure why all those templates and busy-ness are needed, and wonder if the page couldn't get back to a reasonable load time with longer PRs if the overhead and excess templates within templates were dropped. I noticed from WP:FAS that the volume at peer review has remain pretty much unchanged for several years, while everything else has increased, so the shortened PR time to allow for extra automated overhead still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We need longer/stronger peer review, and I don't see that all that automation overhead is solving a problem.

On LOCE, that's a dead issue; nothing is happening there, we removed it from the FAC instructions because it's dead and no longer a viable option. No one is managing the lists there, and we haven't gotten a FAC copyedited from anyone there for as long as I can remember. (It worked when Gzkn was around, but he left.)

The general idea of a pre-FAC peer review or check has been discussed many times at WT:FAC and always defeated, because the fundamental problem across all content review areas is a severe lack of reviewers. Adding another step to the process won't increase the reviewer pool, and won't assure the rigorous review that articles (should) get at FAC; it will just be another content review stop that needs to be "staffed". What we need is for peer review and GAN to really have better defined niches in terms of steps along the path; they both can be hit-and-miss, so a lot of the work needed on articles isn't even mentioned until an article shows up at FAC ... which then becomes glorified peer review for unprepared articles (sigh). I still believe the solutions are in lengthening (back to the month we used to have) and strengthening the role of PR, and better defining the role of GAN and subjecting it to some sort of quality controls. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for the ec and thanks for your thoughtful repsonse. I would ask Carl what to do about FACs that are still listed at PR. I know the current plan is to run the bot once a day by hand (for the test). I have been archiving by hand once every day or two. VeblenBot, which does the current PR work, runs once an hour.

• I believe the reason PR is so large now is that there has been a commitment that every PR request gets a review and I have not archived a PR request made since Feb 22 without a response. In contrast a PR request that got no feedback took very little space. I just looked at Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2007 and it had 233 PR requests, with over 50 (53 if I counted right, which I doubt) with no (ZERO) responses. A similar number got very minimal responses (I did not count these exactly). So close to a quarter had zero replies and close to half had no or very minimal repsonses. Now every review gets something substantial and all that transcluded code makes things much bigger.

• I have said this before and you can ask Allen3 who used to do the PR archiving, but we are back to the same time to archive as always - two weeks with no response and two days with no response if the PR is over a month old (this is also what the bot will use to archive). I do think there is a problem with people going to PR and then right to FAC - Civil Air Patrol was in PR one week and now is at FAC. I am doing 60 or more PRs a month and do not have a lot of time to particiapte in FAC - sorry - but I do not think it is ready. I did not know LOCE was dead - I will stop refering to it. Pity. Thanks again for your reply and all you do, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• It sounds like you're single-handedly running PR, which is worrisome and must be exhausting and you will surely burn out (do you ever get barnstarred by anyone? :-). I've been referring people all over the place to WP:PRV and WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008; is that helping? I sometimes wonder if people really are bypassing PR and going straight to FAC and using FAC for peer review, where they'll get a solid review. Something to think about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I experimented once with the idea of highlighting prematurely closed (by the nom) peer reviews at FAC, but it was too much work for me. I'm generally still the person doing a lot of the prep/maintenance work on FACs, which is a job I did before I was also promoting/closing, so time is short, but yes, I generally notice when nominators close a scanty review after only a few days and come straight to FAC. The only thing I can do, is when noms want to come back too soon, is remind nominators of the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 for locating peer reviewers and inviting them to the PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I have been kind of running PR, but figured that was better than no one running it. Once the bot is up and running it will make my PR tasks much easier - archiving and semi-transcluding large PRs and doing the semi-automated peer reviews as AZPR all take time. I can sympathize on prep/maintenance work - just had some open a second PR while the first was still running.
  As for burnout, I do worry about that. For a while The Rambling Man and I did the bulk of the no response PRs, things have been a little more hectic since he moved on to codirect FLC, but lately several other editors have stepped up and started doing more of the orphan PRs. I do believe that the PRV list has helped a lot - I just deal with the ones that get no responses. Moni3 gave me a barnstar for PR just today, which was quite nice of her. I also saw on her page that you are not feeling well and wish you a speedy recovery. I will send CArl (CBM) this way to try and answer your questions, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC urgents

I wouldn't say I paid attention regularly (and at the moment I have extremely limited editing time) but on those occasions when I could contribute, I went to the FAC urgents first. There might be others with the same approach, so it might be worth maintaining. Mike Christie (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(Sound of large, angry crowd murmuring) --Laser brain (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Murmur, murmur. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I’ll maintain it if it’s something a non-director/delegate is able to do and, if so, you’re willing to train me in (i.e. explain what makes one urgent) . Since Gimmebot stole my main tag gig, I need something to fill the void (guns and religion only do so much…) Hope you feel better, by the way. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking; I feel awful and can't shake it (whatever it is). Dizzy, headache, weak, head spinning, never had something like this before, can sort of post but afraid to promote (maybe my brain really did explode yesterday). Anyway, no point in maintaining a list when only a handful are doing all the work. I just read through FAC and, dizziness aside, there are only a few articles I can move because there's no feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

аплодисменты --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what's an urgent? According to me ... Anything that's been up for a week but the director/delegate don't have enough info to determine consensus or close. That's the whole list lately, so I don't know whether to keep putting them all up (the list was running up to 16), or just put up the oldest five. Either way I did it, seemed to make no difference, except for the regular handful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(To you as well for looking that up!) Well, if more folks pop up wanting it back, you can always give me a proverbial ring. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

I would like to explain why I wikilinked the dates in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Dispatches which you subsequently reverted. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking (same as WP:MOSDATE and WP:DATE), dates should be wikilinked so that each user sees dates in the date format specified in their preferences. (Note: The comma in the date is optional; it is automatically added if needed for the date format preference.) Many articles follow this convention, including WP:MOSDATE itself. I dislike edit wars; would you please reconsider your edits. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice the wording in MOSDATE: "A combination of a day number and a month can be autoformatted by adding square brackets ... " Can you please show me where you found the word should? Tony1 (talk · contribs), who edited that Dispatch article, also helped craft the wording at MOSDATE, and he intentionally chooses not to link dates as he believes they are WP:OVERLINKing. As long as the date formats are consistent within the article, that's within guidelines. But it would be best if you took it up with Tony, since he stays on top of the guidelines daily, while I only catch up every few weeks. Perhaps the guideline has changed recently, but I doubt that Tony would miss that; if you can show me where in MOSDATE it says that dates should be linked, I'll revert back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A little thank you

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship, and for your support in advance of it as well. I’ve learned a great deal from the way you conduct yourself on Wikipedia, and hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawal

My FAC reviewers have suggested I withdraw my nomination and seek a peer review. Can you help with the withdrawal of Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Marriott_School_of_Management? Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look in a bit: by the way, see WP:FAC/ar on archiving instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ec; not feeling well, so that helps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about the archiving instructions. Hope you feel better. --Laser brain (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it if you like. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on Slp1 talk page

Hi SandyGeorgia, your comment "here" I want to clarify a bit. First, I have the utmost respect for this editor Eubulides (talk · contribs), he tries so hard to be fair and listen to everyone. As for being involved, not exactly. I watch the chiropractic page to help me understand this practice for RL since a member of my family is using a chiropractor. I am not involved in this article. I don't think I have ever edited on the article itself and the postings that I do have were to try to calm things down when things got really heated, which didn't help but I don't think my attempts hurt anything. My last contribution was the Rfa which requested opinions from outsiders about the 'big change' in the article that got the article recently blocked. I stated I was for the change because as someone who is 'learning' about the practice, I found the changes made it easier for a non-medical person to find the information and understand more. I have to say now, I'm sorry I even responded because of the problems that has occurred since, with revert wars and attacks. I went to Slp1 because he/she was the only one on a board who answered questions about the article and I thought he/she might be interested in giving input to the talk page. I did this with hopes that maybe another outsider making comments about all the disputes would prevent the escalation that has happened.

I don't know if what I am saying is clear, sorry if it's not, not feeling well myself (saw you were under the weather too lately, hope you are feeling better.) I want you to know so I am open about things that I am not in the medical field at all. If you have any questions for me please do not hesitate to tell me at my talk page, or here (please put Crohnie in the comment section so I catch it.) My plans in regards to this article are to be an outside observer. I do not plan on making anymore comments since the Rfa seemed to be ignored or some kind of problem which to be honest, I still don't understand why asking the community for input got ignored like it was. I don't like controversy like this and avoid it when it gets too much for me. Again, I hope I make sense here but if I don't please accept my apologies because my medications make it hard for me most of the time and I have to work real hard to edit. I am an editor here to help me with focusing and using the brain cells I have left. ;) I try to enjoy being an editor and usually, mostly I do. I also hope that the little bit of editing I do help the project that I am working on. I hope you are feeling better and have a wonderful weekend. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, CG; thanks for writing! I haven't followed the article either; I was only alerting Slp1 (because I saw that on her talk page when I was there about something else) that the mediation warrants an experienced mediator or a change of venue. It's a complex topic, MEDCAB is all volunteer, and anyone can take a case; I suggest this case warrants someone with experience. (Sorry for the short response; still not feeling well.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I agree with what you say above. Sorry you still are not feeling well. I know how hard it is to do things, anything and everything, when not feeling well so I can definitely sympathise. Take the time if you can to get lots of rest and take care of you , that's what I'm getting ready to do. I hope you are feeling better real soon. Take care,--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion requested

If you have a moment, could you comment on my last query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team#King Arthur article? Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll get over there in a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have just noticed above that you aren't well. Please get well soon and get to this when you are better. I wish I could give you a bunch of bluebells and yellow tulips from my garden. qp10qp (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel better; may be full steam by tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Now is the time for sharing

I'm thinking, which may take overnight or more.

In the meantime, I had to share that I have this sitting in my living room. I can't shake the idea that he looks like Dr. Bunsen Honeydew. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC workload

I just wanted to let you know - if you're feeling overworked on FAC, please let me know, and we can go about bringing in a third person to help share the work. Raul654 (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Overworked? Most of the time, I'm twiddling my thumbs, biding my time, bored as an oyster, unable to close anything for lack of reviews. And I thought giving out reviewer awards would help stimulate more reviews :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to TRY to get a few reviews in tomorrow. Cross your fingers for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh no you don't :-) You're already working too hard !! I 'spose I could be more aggressive about closing the older reviews, if reviewers feel overworked, but I try to leave them up as long as they still have a chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes I do! (sticks her tongue out at Mama Sandy) I'm still in a holding pattern about the next one to bring to FAC, can't decide! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For you

Have a nice day. . --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Realist2; you, too ! (See, I remembered to use 2 too.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, well remembered, sorry for being suck a d*ck a few months ago. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No need (but I may not remember the 2 next time; with me, 'ya never know about the memory :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tally

Hey Sandy, One thing, when you update the tally on RfA's it is nice to put the count in the summary rather than the word "tally". For example, this. That way people who see the edit in their watch list can see what the current count is.Balloonman (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you tell me :-)) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Military Brat

Hey Sandy, I don't think the military brat article is of FA quality anymore and have nom'ed it for FAR. Could you confirm that I nomed it for FAR correctly?Balloonman (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:-(( Are there any WikiProjects to notify (example, MilHist)? Can we save it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll add a note there... unfortunately, I think it would take a major effort to fix it as there has been a lot of 'creep' into the article that I didn't notice over the past year plus. There are things that I read where I said, no that is not what the original source said. Without restoring it to the original version (eg getting rid of up to a years worth of edits) I don't think we could get it back to where it should be... and even then, while I liked the article, I was never fully convinced that it should have passed in the first place. *MY* writing skills are not strong enough to write FA articles. My skills exist elsewhere.Balloonman (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We can talk about that on the FAR, but would a FAR-supported revert to after mainpage day resolve the new problems? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think so... while I personally was not convinced that it should have passed, it did pass. I would have no problem with it being restored to that state. As is, it definitely isn't FA quality IMHO.Balloonman (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Macintosh Classic FAC

Please review the citations of this article again. They should be fixed now. Thanks for your help. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

barnstar of nomination thanks

Barnstar of Nomination Thanks

Sandy: Thank you so much for suggesting, encouraging, and nominating my RfA. None of this would have happened, let alone so surprisingly smoothly, without you. Thank you for your thoughtful and careful (and far too generous) nomination, for keeping the tally ticking, and for generally watching over things. And thank you above all for putting your trust in me. I do hope to deserve it. And whenever you need someone with administrative tools for some FA-related task, just shout. Again, thanks so much. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thoughts

Hey Sandy, I'm writing to you specifically because you are the most experienced editor I know. I am asking you to tell me the truth: how do you think I would do in an RfA? Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:SandyGeorgia#RfA. Most importantly, I think you can trust Balloonman's judgment. For you, Tvoz or WTR, it would be harder than the average editor, because the political POV pushers (on one side or the other) would look for a reason to oppose you. Harder for you than them, because Wiki leans overwhelmingly left. No guarantees, but I would trust Balloonman, while knowing there's a chance some will oppose you simply because of the articles you edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy, I'll take a look at you this weekend... I am about to get offline now, but will try to come back this evening. I just asked WTR if he would be interested in making the run because I think it would be helpful to have a politically oriented Admin during the upcoming political season. A nod from Sandy goes a long way.Balloonman (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you for your time. Balloonman, I look forward to your conclusions. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, you might be interested in my analysis on Happy's talk page.Balloonman (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawal

I'd like to withdraw Gilberto Gil from its FAC, at the recommendation of Jbmurray. This is the place to request this sort of thing, right? --Kakofonous (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a very promising start, Kakofonous, and I hope we'll see it back quite soon ! Just add a note to the FAC requesting withdrawal, and I or someone will get to it soon. Take note of WP:FAC/ar in terms of leaving the fac template on the talk page. Good luck with the finishing polishes, and I'm looking forward to it sailing through next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Left the note, and thanks for the encouragement! Here's something for you:

		The Special Barnstar
		You certainly deserve this, for all the work you do to help others on WP. Every time I've come here with a question, you have always given a useful and prompt response. You do this for everyone else that comes here too, as well as contributing insightful commentary to discussions, working incredibly hard on articles, and leading much of the featured content process. Thanks. --Kakofonous (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)