User talk:SandyGeorgia

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

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

FACs needing feedback view •
American Writers	review it now
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now
Roswell incident	Review it now

Template:FixBunching

Fast question on citation templates

I have just seen the discussion on citation templates on FAC talk and as I am planning to take parkinson's disease to FAC soon I wanted to fix citations before hand. While I have used diberri for pmids I think I have mixed templates in the society section (citation and cite news). Which one should be used for a consistent style compatible with diberri's formatting? Would you mind answering at my talk? Your talk is a hell to watch... :-) Thanks in advance. --Garrondo (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom subcommittee to review admin actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Kirill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewer checks at FAC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SG response

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

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

However, in an environment where an arb is making irresponsible statements, aimed at FAC's diligent and hard-working reviewers who get no thanks for the work they do, I am not going to open up FAC for such irresponsible and ill-founded statements from a disgruntled and very unprofessional arb to attack the integrity of FAC,[1] [2] [3] even if that means I have to do the work myself. We have here an arb making unfounded, inaccurate, unexplained and completely unhelpful statements at a time when FAC is struggling to find ways to deal with these new realities. Curiously, Shell Kinney, in maligning "the entire group at the FAC review"; claiming that "a more thorough review of Featured Articles needs to happen have stalled in a number of places, often due to calls for someone's head" (?); and asking what "are the pack of editors at FAC really doing during these article reviews?" fails to notice that a fellow arb, accomplished FA writer and reviewer, stated that she had watched the development of this article. Such a statement, obviously, is given weight in the decision to promote, and yet an irresponsible arb has maligned the entire group of editors who work at FAC for the faults of another arb who inserted the copyvio. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I have no intention of opening the door for an irresponsible arb to take more pot shots at our hard-working and conscientous reviewers, even if I have to do this work myself.

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

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

Explanation

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

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

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

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

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have to Ask

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbcom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The thought of something random, considering the disproportionate amount of psychopathy and personality disorders evidenced on Wiki [4] is just too frightening to contemplate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to admins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to arbs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elen, if you run, I will ask you about [5], which I consider the type of response not helpful at ANI for a couple reasons. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speedreading

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of FAs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fasach Nua

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dana, in fairness, Lecen did bring up the issue of other FACs ("I've noticed that he has the same behavior on other FAC nominations"), which have primarily involved image issues. Fasach's concern here seems to be the lack of external (i.e. WP:V) support/reasoning for inclusion of the entities in the template. He's made that clear.[7] [8] While I suspect you and I both find this an incorrect interpretation of the policy, Fasach nevertheless has the right to oppose the FAC based on what he perceives to be a violation. The bigger issue, which Sandy seems to have been attempting to address, is that calling contributions "disruptive" is not a particularly helpful approach - especially when they're not actually disruptive, as it the case here. There's no disruption when delegates have the ability to disregard comments which do not have basis in policy or support of consensus. Эlcobbola _talk 16:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Ow, since you brought the image issues into light, I'd like to share a thought on it. I don't remember ever saying that Jappalang was diruptive, although I still believe that he is wrong. I talked with two different editors, who are both administrators at the English Wikipedia and also at Commons and both told me that Jappalang is wrong (See "Re images of Pedro Cabral" [9]). Either Commons rules and the two administrators are wrong or Jappalang is wrong. The FAC's responsibles have to pick a side. --Lecen (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

While I haven't looked at the ins and outs of this particular image, if it's a question of whether to trust Jappalang or Dcoetzee over image copyrights I'd take the former every time. The latter's unusual approach to copyright has already led to legal action being taken against the WMF, gotten Wikipedia huge amounts of negative media coverage ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]), and done damage to our relationship with cultural institutions which still isn't fully repaired. – iridescent 18:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent, I do not mean to be rude, and I ask you to forgive me if you think that, but... what that has to do with my problem? We are not talking about images, but about a template. Fasach Nua has opposed the article I wrote based on a template he disliked. He did not care to read the article itself! Not only that, he ignored two messages sent to him by another editor requesting him to answer why he opposed. Not only he ignored, but he also erased those messages! (Here [16] and here [17]) That is not the kind of behavior someone should expect from a FAC reviewer. Not only that, but in his exchange with Andy Walsh (A.K.A. Laser brain) he told the latter that he would not answer back in the FAC nomination because the editor was rude with him. That is, he will "punish" me and the article I wrote for something that another editor - who I do not know - did to him! That's a childish and unappropriate behavior that we should not expect from a reviewer here at FAC. --Lecen (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(Od0 I realize this conversation has been silent for a few days now, but I only just came across it after looking over some of Fasach Nua's latest contributions. While I understand that FAC needs all the reviewers it can get, and that FN does excellent work much of the time on NFCC images and similar areas, it seems like their attitude can often be blunt, bordering on rude and uncommunicative. While in some FACs they give quite detailed explanations, in numerous others their reviews don't seem to help matters. In the FAC for Flower Drum Song, for example, in this edit [18] FN simply states that an image lacks an FUR, which it blatantly has quite a detailed one. Or here [19] where they simply say that the article fails WIAFA without any more details. This has happened a number of times, and usually any questions from FAC editors to FN's talkpage are deleted and not replied to. It seems like a lot of FACs that pass do so with his opposes still active and not developed upon. Again, I realize that FN is a valued FAC reviewer, which we need more of, and I wouldn't go so far as to call his behaviour disruptive. But is is incredibly blunt at times and very unhelpful to FAC writers, especially when they don't follow up on opposes and delete questions to their talkpages. Skinny87 (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom voting guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyvios on MP again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewing lesson

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

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

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

Ping

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

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

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

Miss Moppet

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it's you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi/Question

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

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

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

WP and plagiarism

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

Hmm?

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

Do FAs have good writing?

Should FAs be crisply written? Personally, I'm not some super writer! Never worked for a newspaper or worked as a communications specialist or the like. But, I at least know enough to see issues elsewhere. I thought FAs were supposed to be the articles that were written to a professional standard? Like Britannica or NYT or a good book or National Geographic or a good book or what have you? But, for instance, looking at Virginia, I see the climate section has duplication of content, lacks a clear logic (topic sentences with supports organized in a logical sequence), etc. Further down in flora and fauna, it seems to be a set of random animals and such. And does not use the opportunity to describe how the fauna changes from NW to SE (there is a great opportunity to follow the theme set forward under climate). Sorry...I guess this is an unformed thought, but do you get me? Has this been discussed elsewhere, for me to read about? TCO (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles degrade in quality over time—article protectors lose interest and/or burn out, and drive-by users come in and add unsourced content or duplicate information. As far as the "topic sentences with support" comment...that's mostly a product of high school writing. Prose can be cohesive without the "writing by the numbers" approach—especially since we have descriptive headings on Wikipedia—but there are many instances where topic sentences are good and pretty much necessary. Edit: the "climate" section is actually a clinic in solid cohesiveness and paragraph breaks; I'm not sure what you are talking about there.

With that said, the prose in the article could use work. Spot checks: "Virginia has a total an area of 42,774.2 square miles"..."In 1781, the combined action of Continental and French land and naval forces"..."every September. Also in September is"...excessive passive voice, some awkward in-prose list formatting in the transportation section, over vs. more than errors, and so on.—Deckiller (t-c-l) 04:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

place to get involved with editing

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

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

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

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

"I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article meets the FA criteria...."

Is this the norm? I'm seeing it a lot, and it's an awfully bland sentence and a case of the "I like pie because I like pie" rationale. Perhaps we should encourage more robust nomination paragraphs? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 12:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The prompt when creating a new FAC nom tells you to start the nom statement "I am nominating this for featured article because". The regulars know that's a suggestion, not a rule, but one can't expect first-time nominators to know that it's not a requirement, and there are only a limited numbers of ways one can complete that sentence. – iridescent 12:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I completely forgot. I haven't actually nominated FACs in more than 3 years. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 12:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason that I like pie is because it's pie. I don't need another reason. Just sayin. Keeper | 76 01:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I try to add some spice and DYK? facts to it to make it at least moderately more interestin'... :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

When I used to "do" FAs, I would often write 2-3 paragraph nominations. Nobody reads those, but it makes me feel happy inside. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I always try to add some explanation as to why it's worth the reviewer's time reading it. Anything at FAC is competing for attention with 20–40 other articles; it seems common sense both to explain why someone should read this particular one, and enough of an indication as to what the article's actually about that people who won't be interested know to avoid it. – iridescent 19:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree - at the very least the nom should explain what the article subject is, if this is not totally obvious to everyone. If it is a biography of the Governor of Kentucky 1834-38, it should say so. Far too many don't even do this, and just say "...because I believe it meets the FA criteria". I'd support a change in the instructions to specify this. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe a blurb at the top of the FAC room intro discouraging generic nominations? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 19:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you discourage that, you have to tell people what is encouraged, or they will get confused/put off. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Jameela Jamil

Hi. Regarding Jameela Jamil, this appeared very briefly on DYK, but was withdrawn - I think you were one of the people who raised an objection, possibly.

Anyway, Shubinator (talk · contribs) has agreed to re-add it to DYK, if/when yourself or another user agree it is 'acceptable'. So - is there anything you consider unacceptable about the article now? Please could you let me know. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (Shapley–Folkman lemma)

Thanks for removing the redundancies with the article history template, which I had never used before. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

I think that I am doing a serious mistake in nominating an article to be featured.I have read WP:FAC, but can't catch what was wrong.Can you suggest me things to become better at nominating at WP:FAC?It'll be very helpful and also tell me why you called my two nomination ill-prepared and removed it?I might learn something from my mistakes.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 14:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Bu the way, I'm wondering where the 'Featured portal', 'Featured sound' and 'Featured list' is placed, insted of Main page of wikipedia like, featured article.?

This article, The Walt Disney Company was not ready to be nominated because it does not come anywhere close to the standards required. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria where the expected standards are listed. WP:FAC is not a place to suggest articles that you like, but where editors, and these are usually those who have made significant contributions to the article, finally nominate articles often after many months working on them. I notice that you have not made many, if any, edits to the article and this is just one of many, many reasons why it is "ill-prepared". Graham Colm (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

For some understanding take a look at the article quality scale. On the Walt Disney talk page you can see the article has been assessed by 6 WikiProjects, 5 of them have assessed it as C-Class and 1 as Start-Class. Articles typically go through an evolution as shown in this image.

The Walt Disney Company article is most like a C-class now, there are many giveaways from this article. One is the appearance of a template, in this case {{Expand section}} which indicates C-class criteria of 'still missing important content'. Another issue is referencing, there are whole sections without any references. dablinks also poor, also that Disney Media Networks linked in the article points back to the article. WP:LEAD isn't good as it's doesn't adequately summarise the article. Colons in section headings are an issue per WP:MOSHEAD etc. Basically lots and lots of work is required before FA can be thought of and would suggest peer review or GA is done before submission as an FA candidate. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks completely accurate to me, but his (legions) of supporters came out in force, so also looks dead in the water. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably better at this point to let it close without summary. It's on record if he does something similar again. I'm afraid I haven't got Wehwalt's faith in him.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks

Sorry. I hadn't realised you separated articles and lists! Thanks for cleaning up after me... Nightw 16:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

Hi, I was contemplating renominating the Introduction to Evolution for FA. My intent, for the process to be observed by my struggling group of students in the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010. If they observed the many challenges and scrutiny that often occurs they may better grasp the futility of a last minute effort. This particular article has always been tumultuous at best ^{understatement of the year}. Even the demotion was a bit convoluted in that it was nominated for deletion by an enthusiastic editor who immediately deleted it in its entirety; then lost the FA star under an entirely different version. The original has since been restored, hopefully improved and has been stable for some time. My question. Would you consider taking a quick look at the referencing format to see if it still meets FA standards? I will not waste the time if it's an automatic fail on that note. Just a quick glance at format with a thumbs up or thumbs down will suffice - not a detailed critique. If it is not too grotesque - I will nominate in hopes that the former Fa version is still a quality piece of work! Incidentally, both you and User:Malleus Fatuorum are perceived as a sort of deity among my band of high schoolers - someone to fear and respect. --JimmyButler (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Talk:Asperger syndrome.
Message added 21:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI

I noticed your comment at ANEW that you couldn't determine when rollback was being used, so I thought I'd enlighten you. The links in the edit summary are the giveaway: reverts by other tools usually have a link to that tool in parentheses at the end, like (HG) or (TW), but only rollback produces an edit summary that links the word "reverted" as "Reverted". Hope that helps or at least enlightens you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood FAR

Hi Sandy - If you could revisit your comments at the Grace Sherwood FAR (review page located at WP:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1) it would be much appreciated. After the push to get it to FARC early, there has been no activity on the FAR page since the day it was moved. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Your cite does not seem to support your edit

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Absinthe&diff=next&oldid=385641457 , where in wp:Layout is there a prohibition against a Related information heading? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

O.k. then, I'll answer the question: There isn't. See also Wikipedia:Related_information/answers#Generic objections and responses Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you are clearly pushing personal opinion into an article which I don't much care about, I'm not much worried about it. If you try it on an FA or GA, we'll talk about what's wrong with your approach. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Related information heading is a good idea. You disagree. But if you are going to call my "personal opinion" "wrong" then, I respectfully suggest, you should explain your reasoning. Will you educate me regarding the error of my ways here or must I take you up on your invitation to "try it" on an FA or GA? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Speaking of the error of my ways, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Related_information/answers to see whether your concerns have been raised and responded to in the past. In fact, I invite you to continue this discussion on that page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Since that page is clearly your own opinion, edited only by you, enjoying no consensus anywhere, defeated at WP:LAYOUT, please userfy it so it won't have to be submitted to MFD. At best, please refrain from presenting in on my page as anything but your own opinion: I'm not as dumb as I look. If you are trying to engage me on Absinthe, forget about it; I'm not going to edit war with you over your idiosyncratic opinion on a page of little import. But you're still wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

First, as you say, I am the only editor of Wikipedia:Related_information/answers. However, I am not the only editor of Wikipedia:Related_information, which actually contains the proposal. In fact, the proposal was initially made by another editor. Regardless, whether a proposal has one proponent or 500 doesn't tell us much about whether it is a good idea. Compare wp:GOOGLEHITS (merit not determined by the number of Google hits generated). Second, the proposal was not "defeated" at wp:layout. Instead, the editors of that page said that the purpose of that page was to reflect current practice and, since the proposal was new, it should not appear on that page. Instead, they recommended, the idea should be introduced on a page-by-page basis. While they did not say so, I assume this was so that the proposal could go through the BRD process to achieve consensus one way or the other. Finally, BRD includes D. Saying that the proposal is an "idiosyncratic opinion" or "wrong" is not D - unless, that is, you OWN Wikipedia and the fact that you don't like the idea (why? you won't say) is enough. If that is the case please let me know. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I have been informed that part of the posting above could be understood to be an attack on you. That was not my intent and I apologize for inadvertently using language that crossed the line from forceful to uncivil discourse. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether Related information heading is a good idea

Thank you for your recent edit comment at [[20]] providing the rationale for your belief that the Related information heading is a bad idea, to wit: "no purpose established for this non-standard heading containing no content." As explained at wp:NAVHEAD the purpose of the heading is to eliminate confusion and to provide overview and access for the navbox content. So there is both a purpose and there is content. Do you have any other concerns? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

For the second time, if you want to promote your personal opinion and essays, please do so elsewhere-- I'm uninterested in being used as a target to promote a new and useless heading which has failed to gain consensus. Please stop using me to make a WP:POINT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT says "Issues with rules or practices should be addressed through plain discussion" (emphasis in original). I am trying to have a discussion with you, the person that twice removed the Related information heading from the Absinthe article. If having a discussion with you is not the proper procedure then what is? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Turning to the substance of your comments: First, new things are not good or bad because they are new. Second, the heading can be used to eliminates confusion and provide an overview and access. Finally, while there is no consensus requiring the heading, there is no consensus prohibiting either. It may be a bit late in the day but, to get us back to the real issue here, I ask you to consider whether the Related information heading idea would have been a good idea back in the early days of Wikipedia (when everything was new). If not, why not? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This sort of thing shouldn't be established ad hoc. The place to discuss it would be Wikipedia:Layout. Rd232 ^talk 01:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the proposal was discussed at Layout and the advice there was to try it on an article-by-article basis. However, as the absinthe episode demonstrates, some folks construe the absence of any statement in Layout whatsoever regarding navbox headings as a prohibition. I will bring that issue up there. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon

I have been running through the cites at John Lennon, and identifing errors, and fixing what I can. I would like you to see that the treatment I am getting is no better than what I wrongly did to SlimVirgin. My point is, it's in the Wiki culture, it's not just me, IME there is a great lack of good faith on Wiki, all around. — GabeMc (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please look at this diff from Andrew. — GabeMc (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

JJ

Hi Sandy,

I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at #Jameela Jamil above. Shubinator (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ping. Shubinator (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick policy question

Hi. I'm trying to understand the nomination rule on WP:FAC but the wording is unclear to me. I was under the impression that a nominator must wait two weeks to nominate a new FAC only if their previous FAC was unsuccessful. Is this right, or do I have to wait two weeks to nominate a new FAC even if mine is successful? I did a string of three FACs earlier in the year right in a row and no one saw a problem with it after the first two were promoted. —Ed!^(talk) 05:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's only if your nom was unsuccessful. If it was successful, you can nominate another one as soon as you'd like. Dana boomer (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Intrusive thoughts

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Talk:Intrusive thoughts#Citation style in use in this article – clarification needed.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeking FAC advice

Hello, I have nominated the Bollywood film Taare Zameen Par for a second time here. The previous nomination had one support and only failed because there was not enough activity. The current nomination has been up for almost two weeks, and the only new reviewer just told me that he is too busy to continue his review. Nobody else that I've asked has been willing to review it since the topic is so uncommon. Any advice? Thanks. :) Ωphois 01:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support in your voter guide. I'll be bearing your comments in mind as I continue my service over the next two years. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinion request about external links

Hello, your name was suggested as a knowledgeable editor whose opinion would be valuable. Would you mind taking a look at this query at WP:EL/N? Thanks muchly. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

I have an FAC question. How many books do you have to read to satisfy 1c? I know this depends on the article, but to meet this new 1c I am buying some books on Jordan for a slight overhaul to avoid FAR, and I had to spend $100 buying books for some articles I'm working on, including $60 alone for this one film history article. Basically, since like many people who don't live in a major city, the library system where I'm at sucks. Its not really that bothersome, as I began reading more even before I came back and like these subject but the money adds up. I'm asking this question because I want to work on Muhammad Ali, since he's such an important figure and his article is shit. But I don't want to have to break the bank. Can I just buy the one or two best bios and then use the NYT archives, and web sources? Would that pass muster at FAC? AaronY (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is Quadzilla btw, I got tired of that name. AaronY (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer. It depends on the volume and quality of material that's been published. How many biographies are there of Ali for instance? A quick search of my local library's catalogue suggests that there are dozens, so I doubt that picking any one or two would cut it at FAC. What I tend to do is to restrict myself to topics that I can easily source from my local libraries. Basically I just wander around the shelves or browse the online catalogues until something catches my eye, like this for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 05:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks that answers my question. I like how you responded by crowbarring one of your articles in, I do that myself all the time lol. Very nice article btw, may I respond back with an obscure one of my own? Then raise you one?

Anyways, I took a long break, so I'm catching up a little. I guess we're happy with the fact that maybe 100 million people (a number I just pulled out of my ass, but still) couldn't write a featured article on a major topic given some of this country's shit libraries? Especially since once you get 30-40 miles out of a major city in many areas the libraries are laughable. I mean its not like I live in the boonies, just a normal upper-middle class suburb.

On the other hand, we're probably lucky this is just a book fetish from what I can tell; I could make a case that the NYT archives are as valuable as 5 good books on many subjects. Provided you scour through them and read every article specifically on the subject (which can number in the hundreds, and probably even thousands in some cases). If we're going to make 1c that strict you could even say that you should have access to the major local newspapers' archives (NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune) when you do a local subject, and have scoured through those. Especially since when you do that you often find out tons of points biographers missed. I would imagine the LA Times and Chicago Tribune archives would be as good as the mega-awesome NYT archives, especially for local articles. Magic Johnson, for example, could benefit from these articles published during his playing career. Also this film history article I'm working on (don't judge that; its like 40% done, and will be shrunk, copy-edited, etc. ;)) would definitely satisfy 1c and I still have like 6 books to go through. But from just reading the sources I have, you could make a case that I should get a subscription to Variety's archives since every researcher uses them extensively. AaronY (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Does your library allow for inter-library loan? I've found that's quite helpful to get access to high-quality sources that your library may not have. YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Another good source is local colleges and universities. They will often allow locals to access and check out books from their libraries, as well as allowing access to some of the academic databases like JSTOR and Wiley. I find myself copying the pages that are relevant to the subject so that I have a permanent record of what I accessed. As far as getting comprehensive - for a biography, I've found your best bet is to figure to read everything that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or Oxford Dictionary of American Biography lists as a source at the bottom of the article. Something like M. Ali, I'd expect someone to have read at least a breadth of the biographies, but not all of them. The most recent ones from academic presses would probably be the best place to start, and then read any that seem to be important enough for the most recent biographies to refute. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well finding out what books I would need wouldn't be hard, but the library system only has two biographies, a bunch of young adult books, and two of his autobiographies. I found a single pdf (Muhammad Ali - The Making of an Icon) floating around on the internet, but its a fairly insubstantial book plus even if it was good, I would need more than that. As for colleges, the local community college said I could read their books in the library, but not take them out unless I was an alumni. That won't work since they're nine miles away, plus I wouldn't want to hang out in a JuCo library all day anyway. Maybe I'll just do what I can when I finish the other stuff I'm working on, and see if I can get someone to collaborate. It's weird; the library system has so few Ali books, but they have 7 Jordan bios. AaronY (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

AlastorMoody

Sandy, as a delegate, just keep an eye on the supports of the above user. Also check the talk page. This goes for both you Karen and Andy. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Format at Autism

Having the portal link up top distorts the formatting of the refs using firefox leaving a large white space to the left. It is also not a reference. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

intrigued

Hi Sandy. I am intrigued about [21]. Please feel free to email me if you wish to say things that you don't want to say in public because I am not up to speed on your concerns. Polargeo (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture upload

Hi Sandy,

I'm wondering if you can figure out a way to get the following onto the main English language wiki: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canuslupus.jpg

Ideally, load it up to the user talk I am currently using and then I can add it Grey wolf when the page is unlocked. (If anyone can find a better picture of a wolf then I'd be happy to see it!)

A plus tard, ma ami. - Tim

Wikileadspresident (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(TPS) Hey Tim, any image uploaded on commons can be accessed on a project using the same syntax, i.e. File:Filename.ext. However http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canuslupus.jpg doesn't have a copyright tag and the uploader does not appear to be the copyright holder. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Pie charts

Re this, they show the raw aggregate totals. They supposedly illustrate a sharp trend of people no longer remaining neutral; in the old days people would support and oppose a couple of candidates but ignore the rest, whereas this year most people who voted expressed opinions on all or most of the candidates. – iridescent 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks Iri, but it would be nice if they would explain that in the report (since it's unintelligible), and I wonder how they got the neutral data, considering how past elections were run. They don't seem to be a very communicative bunch over at The Signpost, and have become increasingly protective of their POV, if'n you ask me (which no one has :) That is a problem considering the overlap between The Signpost, arb election coordinators, and the long-standing anti-arb POV on The Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Razer future FA issue

Hello, SandyGeorgia. A couple of months ago you mentioned in the FA nom of Razer (robot) that I should get the majority contributor's (CountdownCrispy) consent before re-noming. There is however a problem on that front as CC hasn't edited since the 7th of November and it doesn't look like he'll be around to make any comment anytime soon. I had a word with Nikkimaria and she suggested that I have a doublecheck with you if there was any way to circumvent that obsticle so we could have another crack at an FA nom? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If the other significant contributors aren't around, there's nothing you can or are expected to do, other than make sure you have access to sources used so you can answer queries. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't planning on taking it to FA just yet I haven't quite done the final checks but it's good to know that I don't need to wait for CountdownCrispy for consent before noming. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's for a great 2011

From Tony

Sandy, I want to give you my wishes for an enjoyable end-of-year break, and to say that despite our differences I look forward to another year of your superb stewardship of the FA process. Tony (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

History of viruses

Hi Sandy, could you Karanacs or Andy please archive the FAC? Colin has raised a valid oppose, and the article requires some radical re-writing that cannot be completed in a reasonable time. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Got it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Military brats

Category:Military brats has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the category's entry on the Category for Deletion page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I need your help

Somebody has nominated this article for GA status. I remember you telling me a couple months ago that Legends of America isn't a reliable source. I've been working on replacing the Legends source with reliable sources, but I'm not exactly finished. Can you take a look at the article and tell me if there are any other unreliable sources? I think I found them all (still have to take care of them, though), but I want to get a second opinion. Thanks, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 17:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Since you are online, what do you do when a sockpuppet's comment ahve been added at a FAC? I just found a confirmed sock going on with the same comments, for which he had been previously warned at FAR also. I think you must have noticed my comments when you archived the All I Want for Christmas is You FAC. So? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to research your concern, but so far, it looks like you're confusing the terms "sockpuppets" and "alternate accounts"; you also haven't made clear what you mean by "confirmed" (checkuser ?). As long as the accounts are being used appropriately, the socking isn't a concern; if they are being used inappropriately, you should let us know how and what evidence you have, and whether they are influencing outcomes (any more than other drive by supports on some of those FACs, which create extra work for serious reviewers). Please clarify at WT:FAC on the thread you started; in general, I look at the validity of the support, regardless of who lodges it, but I'm not yet clear on what issue you are raising. I'm also not remembering just now a previous issue at FAR? Do you have diffs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The user in question is User:56tyvfg88yju. Confirmed as in, confirmed by the user contributions. The user in question is User:Piano non troppo, who was asked by the FAR community to stop nominating Halkett boat for FAR, just weeks after it passed. There is the discussion present at his talk page regarding this, where User:Moni3 tried to explain him about the FAC process, of which he was extremely critical. Next, I looked up at the GAR of "Paparazzi" where I remembered him placing similar comments that he placed at the FACs of "All I Want for Christmas" and the ongoing "Halo (Beyonce Knowles song)". My suspicions were confirmed when the user placed similar examples of "Hey Jude" and a Mozart symphony at the FACs; examples used by Piano non troppo in the GAR too. So, then I checked the contributions of 56tyvfg88yju, and found that the first comments are at two song FACs, comments which are shockingly similar. I think the user promotes the addition of pure technical content in song articles, whether they are sourced or not. So in this case, what is your stance? I am asking this, since I will be nominating a future song FAC, I need to know how to approach against such comments also. 05:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In the context of socking, "confirmed" usually refers to "confirmed by checkuser"; you may think it's another user, but unless confirmed by CU, that's only a hunch, and unless using alternate accounts disruptively, not an issue. At any rate, the answer to your question is that I weigh all supports according to their rigor and relative to other reviewers' input; we have lots of iffy reviewrs, regardless of use of alternate accounts. I archived All I Want for Christmas because it had many issues pointed out by many solid reviewers (casting doubt upon the seriousness of the previous Supporters' reviews). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That is fine Sandy, I do understand your reasons and had pointed out earlier that some of those reviews might appear as iffy. Can I request you one thing? The primary nominator of the article feels really de-motivated that none of his articles are promoted in FAC. Would you mind in explaining in short the reason for your closure? That might cool him also. Just a request. Also, is it a mandatory thing that the joined users of a particular project, to whcih a said nomination is attached, cannot review it? I am asking this in light of the tag you placed at the nomination of Halo. Because later when the project was initialized, even I joined the project. Does that make my review worthless? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Halo

Podrias cerrar la nominación de Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive1, Estoy harto en este momento, ahi dos opocisiones por cosas realmente estúpidas y patéticas, me voy de vacaciones una semana y gracisa a ti (no lo tomes personal) no tengo nada, demasiado obvio que no logré nada solo un WP:PR. Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 05:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

You should take it a little easy. I have NOT been editwarring or reverting any edits on the Asperger syndrome article. You do not seem to understand the difference between "edit" and "revert". WP:REV quite clearly says: Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. I have never added the image of Asperger before, I have never used the word "syndrome" in the article previously. It is you who keep on revert-warring, by reverting against consensus. And in the matter of non-free picture of Asperger, WP:NFCC circumvents WP:WIAFA. As this dispute looks unsolvable, I am going to take it to mediation if you and Colin keep on reverting without consensus. MikeNicho231 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem very confused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In what way do I seem very confused? May you please make a comment on my statements? MikeNicho231 (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "WP:NFCC circumvents WP:WIAFA"? We can't use that Asperger photo in any article other than the one on the person, as it is non-free.

The "revert"ing that Sandy refers to is repeatedly removing the existing photo. Yes, you've done this in different ways each time, but a common factor is removing that photo. And there's no consensus on the talk page that the photo should be removed. Colin°^Talk 16:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

So I'm the only person who has been revert-warring? Hasn't Sandy and you been revert-warring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeNicho231 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

YOu have again added an image against consensus; I'm too busy now to file an edit warring report on you, but will do it tonight unless you revert yourself or someone else does it first-- three reverts are not required for edit warring, and you have been slowly edit warring ever since your return from your last block. You also don't seem to understand Wiki policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)