User talk:SandyGeorgia

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

FACs needing feedback view •
Operation Matterhorn logistics	Review it now

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

The Fat Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hallmark

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

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

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

AH error

Figured it out; forgot to change the actions from action2 to action3 when i put it in. They're two distinct topics so the two FTC promotions is technically right. For that matter I forgot to change FTA to FTC as well (noticed it on others where I made the error, forgot there). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Otis Redding

hello,

do you have spare time? If yes, could you copyedit an article? Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 21:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)}

DYK

Have you seen Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed? I'm finding more issues this month than I was last, not quite sure why...Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No, barely keeping up, but I'll go look now-- the last I saw was two uncited hooks, both original research, neither corrected (still, and glaringly wrong although defended at DYK), both passed by the same reviewer who seems to be trying to do too much to keep up with volume there-- I'll go have a look now, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, that's excellent, but can you expand the page to somehow include the faulty hooks that ran nonetheless on the mainpage? Those include last week's stab wound (the hook is incorrect and the text is nowhere in the article), and Maroon Creek Bridge (see the talk page, Daniel Case has still not corrected the factual error in the article, the source says the bridge is a "relic", nothing "only significant", which is made up, since there are plenty of other remnants of the rail there). Great work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That sort of thing would maybe be better off in userspace rather than as a subpage of DYK? I'm trying to think of how best to approach it, will get back to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's where the real damage is done, and I'm tweaked that Daniel Case still hasn't corrected the error-- too many take their DYK bauble and never return to the article. You're tracking where the process is working, but not tracking where it's not working! (Some is better than nothing, but grumble, grumble ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just looked closer at each removed nom, and it looks like you're doing all the heavy lifting over there, while one editor continues to approve faulty hooks ... glad to see the record keeping and the accountability-- perhaps that editor needs to work elsewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I made the page - see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_74#Is_there_a_need_for_the_list_of_noms_returned_to_the_noms_page.3F for a related discussion. I'm tracking when it's working, but it's only working there because I'm catching things in queue (and in many cases arguing with the people creating such things to catch!). Tracking when it's not working requires that someone acknowledge when it's not working, and unless someone checks everything after it hits the Main Page that's tricky. You do good work in that area, but unless it's acknowledged that a hook is "faulty" you're likely going to be fighting over its inclusion in a "faulty hook" page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

FAC has its FAR, GAN has its GAR, but I guess DYK has no YWF (You Were Fooled)-- once a hook, always a hook, even when wrong. Perhaps I'll find time to track them myself, since word of the faulty hooks finds its way to me. And if Daniel Case doesn't correct that article soon, I may go do it myself. We're not supposed to just make it up-- original research may happen all the time on Wikipedia, but we don't need to put that sort of thing on the mainpage. Glad to see you've got at least one helper on that page-- the accountability may help turn things around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Lovely.

• Did you know ... that immunologist and AIDS advocate Robert Frascino considered himself privileged after being infected with HIV?

Not exactly wording found in the sources, a bit of supposition and original research, trying too hard to be hooky, and inspired by the DYK reviewer, Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Frascino. Working at DYK could make a sane person nuts. I wonder if his family, on reading that, considered him "privileged" to be dead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a pretty awful hook - although it did get me to click on the article, so maybe its awfulness served its purpose? In fact, Frascino was devastated to learn that he'd been infected, as any sane person would be. Over time, it would seem, he came to feel that being both an HIV-positive individual and a physician specializing in HIV/AIDS gave him a unique and valuable perspective. Of course, that's a bit too nuanced to fit in a hook. MastCell ^Talk 16:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night again

I'd be interested on your views on whether FA criteria are being represented correctly in continuing discussion at Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. This diff is obviously disgraceful from the point of view of civility; but the driver for the ongoing strife seems to be the feeling that the article has become a "walled garden". On that talk page the use of a FAR is the solution offered, rather than typical iterations of an attempt to reach consensus (on the scope of the article). Now some of us saw the RfC associated largely with this ruckus as misdirection from that point: if there is real disagreement on the scope of an article, it is not obviously a good idea if one side of the debate decides to push for FA status before the matter is better resolved.

In any case, what are the options? Presumably a FAR could simply be opened to look again at the issue of whether the article represents the topic fairly. If familiar arguments are simply brought to a new forum, will there be resulting clarification? In any case the discord is not going away. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First, that diff concerns me, and I 'spose it's a good thing I'm not an admin, because after perusing just a wee bit of that talk page, Parrot of Doom is not the only one I'd be blocking. I don't care who started it (although I have a good idea, seeing some familiar names in there, and some perseveration on issues), but someone should stop it, and Parrot of Doom should be taking the high road, since he was backed by the FAC.

Second, there are a number of persistent editors weighing in on that talk page who don't seem to get the message that they have been beating a dead horse for a long time. Yes, Consensus can change, but the consensus at the FAC was that a few editors were asking for TRIVIA to be added to the article, and FAs don't contain trivia typicaly. As I recall, the disagreement on the scope of the article came from a select group of editors, there was not concensus to support their view, and that they are STILL at it is disruptive IMO.

If a FAR is the only way to get the point across (re TRIVIA), it might be helpful-- except, FAR is not dispute resolution, and those editors should try other means of DR, since there is no basis for the argument that the article doesn't meet FA crit, unless something has changed since the FAC.

I believe your specific question to me is whether WP:WIAFA is being correctly represented in that talk page discussion. Per TLDR, could you please give me specific diffs that concern you as they relate to WIAFA? You didn't link me to the RFC, the "walled garden" comment, etc, so I'm unsure what your concern is-- I do see ongoing perseveration and disruption, and perhaps some ANI attention is warranted. Other than that, I'm afraid I'd just be reading through section after section of incivility-- some from editors who have been at the same issue for months, a few who are notoriously persistent and uncivil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The leadup to the diff I gave is this diff which is answered only by an ad hominem argument. The point made being that we are talking about a festival, I think it deserved better than that. The exclusion of sources relevant to traditions is quite serious here. That is one point: if work such as that of the Opies in folklore cannot be brought up, the article certainly risks not being "comprehensive". Further, the whole debate here hinges on what "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" is for a festival. My personal view would be that "stability" has been at the cost of an emphasis within the criterion of "high-quality reliable sources" on a restricted kind of source. But that is exactly the point an FAR might lay to rest. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I think this is a pattern that recurs frequently. The conversation goes something like this, in general terms:

"I think the article should mention X!"

OK, but do any reliable sources mention X?

"X is important. It's a travesty that the article doesn't mention X!"

Yes, I get that you think it's important, but what about reliable sources?

"I am a published expert and I know that X is important! Not mentioning X makes Wikipedia look like a joke!"

Stop it - if reliable sources don't mention X, then Wikipedia won't mention X.

"Well, reliable sources would mention it, except that academics are biased and only care about getting grants so they don't listen to new ideas."

That's as may be, but I'm getting tired of asking: do you have any reliable sources?

"Yes. Here are a dozen self-published websites and a passing mention in a footnote on page 276 of a reliable source."

But WP:RS isn't a hoop to Google your way through. It's supposed to ensure that we actually reflect the emphases of reliable sources.

"You know, scientists and academics were wrong about Y, so I don't know why we consider them authorities on X!"

For fuck's sake. Either produce a reliable source or shut the fuck up about X!!!!

"OMG incivility! OMG ownership!"

So I guess it depends on what you see as the problem in the above exchange. Most Wikipedians, I will grant, would point to the incivility at the end, although I see things a bit differently. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That's about it-- kinda the same thing I've been through with Hugo Chavez-- but the person who is relying on reliable sources should keep the high road ... not always easy, but since admins, arbs etc don't do "content disputes", sometimes the folks who are right get sunk by being driven to distraction and falling into the "civility" trap ... there are some at that talk page who can drive one to the brink :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly how I see it MastCell, every day, and not just with GFN. I've come to the conclusion that it's deliberate on the part of certain editors to provoke others into incivility so they can go running off to one of the playgrounds demanding that something (by which they always mean a block) should be done about the horrible editor they've just driven to distraction. Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• I saw this conversation and I took the liberty of blocking everybody involved er, requesting a restart of the conversation in talk. I hope that's ok. --John (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to say that hasn't already been said. Until somebody presents reliable authoritative sources that demonstrate the importance or relevance of songs, rhymes, poems, parkin, treacle, fireworks in other countries, whatever, my view that such things are essentially trivia will remain unchanged. As for civility, I have repeatedly had to endure muck being thrown in my direction. They may not use rude words but the intent is the same - grind good faith editors into the ground to get their own way. I am sick of it and will endure it no longer, on that article or anywhere else here.
  • Oh, and did anyone else notice that PBS stuck his head back in there and again tried to justify his earlier stance? Parrot of Doom 18:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I noticed all of the above, but PoD, 'ya still gotta take the road, or "they win, you lose", since admins/arbs don't do content disputes, but do do civility patrol. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

	Helpful comments
	Many thanks for your helpful comments on the article I nominated for FA review. Marj (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiving reference links for FA noms

Hi SandyGeorgia. Thanks for all you many years of work improving the quality of articles. It's certainly appreciated. As you're our resident expert, I was wondering if you had any opinion about archiving reference links for articles that are nominated for FA status. There was a thread about it at VPP a while ago that had support for it. I resurrected the thread a few days ago and thought I'd ask you opinion. Here's the link Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals#Automatically archive all reference links when an article gets FA nominated. Thanks again for all you service to the project. Best reagrds. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposal on that page is for promoted to FA status, but here yo said nominated for FA status-- it seems to me that archiving references for all nominations would be an incentive for premature FACs. I'm not aware of any problems with this proposal if it's done for those promoted, but I doubt that anyone will do the work, and if they do, I hope they don't do it in a way that alters citation formatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Yes, promoted not nominated. Thanks for the input. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why

has Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hard (song)/archive1 been closed already?????? It's only been open for 6 days. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 16:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Two opposes and no supports would be my guess. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Two opposes, no support, and multiple other comments indicating that the article was not yet ready for FAC-- a peer review might help better get it into shape at this point (articles really shouldn't appear at FAC with the number of basic issues reviewers identified in that one). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The first reviewer said that if I did all of his points, which I did, then his vote would change to a support. And the only other Oppose didn't really give me anything to go by in order to improve. But my main issue is that there are FACs which haven't been touched for a week and yet they are still open, if mine is being closed, then those others without doubt should be too. I think you were a bit to eager to close my nomination of Hard, because everyone else's appear to have been there for weeks. How am I mean't to make it FAC standard if you close it after 6 days? And the article had been copy edited by a member of the GOCE, and it was also listed for Peer Review, but you never get anywhere with those, no one can be bothered to do them. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/archive1

Okay, in reference to this one, you mentioned: "Generally, my concerns about aircraft and ship articles are general, not related to any given editor, because too often, non-MilHist editors will not engage because they find them boring and too full of lingo and numbers. Since most non-Milhist reviewers won't engage ships and planes, I have to spotcheck prose myself, and I almost always find issues in those articles, even after MilHist support." First, I'm a big fan of your work, and the times that you say that the prose in an article isn't up to FAC standards, I agree with your assessment almost every time. Second, prose in aviation FACs is a problem that hasn't been solved ... and it may never be solved, or it might take a while. We've tried everything we can think of at Milhist to get more aviation editors to nominate and review at our A-class review, with limited success. Third, I choose to see your comments at the linked FAC as supportive of my efforts rather than in opposition to me or Milhist ... this is stuff that I either silently fix or say something about every day, and clearly, I've been less than successful in getting my message across ... and your help is much appreciated.

OTOH ... on ship articles, you're saying this isn't about any one editor, but you're aware that I'm largely copyediting alone on Milhist FACs, so it seems likely that your comments are going to be interpreted as being aimed at me ... such as your edit summary ... "the usual" ... as if the undefined acronyms, redundancies and wrong tenses you point out in this one, which I hadn't copyedited yet, are usual in ship FACs. Over the last year, most of the ship articles have sailed through FAC (haha) ... were there problems with these that weren't pointed out at the time? And saying that someone outside Milhist needs to copyedit them suggests I'm not capable of seeing the problems even when they're pointed out to me ... is there any evidence of that? That's not the message I'm generally getting. Milhist people are aware that, this month and next, I don't have time to copyedit at A-class, so articles are showing up at FAC in less than perfect (okay, less than less than perfect) shape. One possible solution would be just to ask Milhist people not to bring articles to FAC until they've gotten a thorough copyedit somewhere. Thoughts? Again, I'm a fan and we've got the same goals here ... I just wish that if there's some major problem (and calling these problems "the usual" suggests that there is), you'd let me know about it article by article so I can deal with it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I think I'm going to have to oppose on this FAC, too. Changed my mind after seeing the edit history ... there's too much to fix here, and I don't want to get involved. This month and next, I'm not going to have time to work on aviation articles. Maybe in December. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My comments aren't aimed at you at all, ships are certainly getting better, but aviation remains a problem. They always have prose issues, and they always get support anyway (hence, "the usual"). It would be nice if we could get someone interested in addressing the aviation articles. Thanks for all you do, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. I'm working on a plan to recruit copyeditors. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If they didn't get support with obvious prose deficiencies, it would be nice as well :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I do understand the problem ... it puts the delegates in an impossible position (since you see your job as judging consensus) if you get 6 supports and no opposes for an article with obvious prose problems, and if it ever got to be a regular thing, that would be worse. I'm going back through all our current non-aviation FACs now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Gag order on discussing minors at RfAs, proposed at my RfC

Hi Sandy!

I was asked to agree that I would only state an objection to a minor becoming an administrator, as part of the closing summary of my RfC: I was not supposed to elaborate my objections. Since many of the minors have also had problems with poor scholarship and other policies, this would have chilled my ability to document misunderstanding of WP policies. (This seems to have been dropped.)

I objected to another statement, by which I am supposed to consult with a "neutral third party" (sic.) before writing about issues I "feel strongly about", "before they escalate". I stated that this was absurd, and noted my strong feelings that 1+1=2. Then I was told that the relevant example was (again) minors at RfAs.

Regardless of my feelings about the wisdom of this RfC, it is utterly improper to manipulate the closing statement to put a gag order on me, when our RfA policy allows editors freely to oppose minors. A gag order was not listed as a desired outcome of the RfC, and the complaints about RfA discussions have been ignored by the outside commentators.

I have noted an increasing concern about the group-thinking and scape-goating increasingly visible at the RfA Deform, for example the hysteria/threats/edit-warring about KeepsCases.

BTW, Pedro has referred to my concerns about "sexism" (in his quotes), and I referred to the "courting the Wikipedia fraternity" (only to have a glossing of "courting", which ignored "fraternity" quite nicely).

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I quote for convenience (from above)

I embolden and add italics for emphasis:

Demiurge1000 suggested this, which I quickly rejected:

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz agrees to limit himself to a simple statement about his views, rather than engaging in an prolonged argument, when someone under the age of minority applies to be a Wikipedia administrator.

WormThatTurned suggested this:

• DRAFT: "It is recommended that Kiefer.Wolfowitz discusses future issues with a neutral third party he trusts before they escalate, especially in areas he holds strong opinions."

• Thank you for the clarification. Under the circumstances, that seems rather weak to me... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I feel strongly that 1+1=2, but I shall not consult with anybody. Also the sentence's syntax is convoluted, I'm sorry to say, and "neutral" is redundant. I suggested the following  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  Before he strongly criticizes sources or edits, Kiefer.Wolfowitz should reflect on past experiences and consider discussing such criticism with any competent third-party.

• KW, there's a large difference between feeling strongly that 1+1=2 - which is a fact (for the majority of situations, I'm sure we can come up with a few where it isn't) - and you feeling strongly that say, that minors shouldn't be admins. All the above is recommending (and you don't have to follow the recommendation, but it is good practice), is you keep an eye on a situation and discuss it with someone you trust before letting things get too far. I'd not be happy with comments like "competent third party", as it is hard to quantify... I know there are people you'd regard as incompetent who I wouldn't. Also it's not just criticizing sources or edits, it's also commenting on editors. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course Keifer didn't actually bother to mention that it was another editor (Elen of the Roads) who made the commentary regarding courting [1] - but then he wouldn't would he. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(FetchComms is ready to block Elen and myself, so I did not mention her.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is this posted to my page, and where is this RFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why this is here I have no clue, but the RFC is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  21:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not only here, but it's now further up this page (in a section from September) as well. If Kiefer continues pasting sections of other talk pages into Sandy's talk page, he'll soon make manage to make this page into as much of a confused tl;dr mess as he's managed with the RfC/U and his own talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That RFC is a TLDR mess, and any experienced Wikipedian knows that discussing behaviors of child admins (and editors) is off-limits. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to add-- I'm typically pretty busy keeping up with damage done to articles by child editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You should be concerned about decisions that muzzle discussion at RfC. You have previously acknowledged my discussions of candidates' scholarship (at least once) or other issues, so I had wished that you would be concerned about a ban on my writing future discussions without having a prior consultation.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to follow that mess (nothing can be done about the demise of Wikipedia caused by child editors, since we have no means of stopping them from editing, and numerous senior editors who endorse their presence), but all I see is "Kiefer.Wolfowitz agrees to limit himself to a simple statement about his views, rather than engaging in an prolonged argument, when someone under the age of minority applies to be a Wikipedia administrator", and that isn't going to stop anyone from commenting reasonably on an admin candidate's preparedness, knowledge, or qualifications, whether child or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That phrase certainly won't stop me, from commenting.

However, that phrase will be blue-linked and cited in anguished cries of indignation in the future, by those who don't know what they are doing. You may recall that your reasonable comments have received many complaints by those who love to blue-link WP:AGF at RfAs.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

SandyG is, as usual, quite right. Let's not be too precious about this, and let's move on. My view on child administrators is likely as well known as your own, but there are senior editors here who are unable to see things as clearly as we can. In many cases that's because they no longer edit, just pontificate, so they don't experience the daily frustrations that we peons do. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The directors of writing on Wikipedia have cast me as Cassandra, then!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Would that there were "directors of writing". Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice use of the subjunctive!

When you are born a lion, you do not need a tag reading "Leo".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry about the mess Sandy. Kiefer won't (can't??) use diffs, so everyone is currently getting the copypasta treatment.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My goodness, how did we all end up here? Sorry Sandy for invading - I hoped the next time we'd run into each other would be at something more content based. DYK or FAC or something. It wasn't even about minors as admins, that was just an example of an area I knew KW felt passionate, as I explained here. Hopefully this won't happen again. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it :) We probably ended up here because it is known that I am concerned about the damage done to Wikipedia by child editors (child admins shouldn't even be a matter for discussion IMO), but I'm not about to pick to engage in an unwinnable debate. It's easy enough to find problems in their behaviors and editing at RFA, that we needn't get into the obvious issues of children playing on the internet before they've had the opportunity to learn conflict resolution, correct paraphrasing, correct use of sourcing, or how to play soccer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the damage is done by incompetent or lazy editors, many of whom are children. I've yet to see that turning 18 makes people competent or stops them being lazy, so I generally look on a case by case basis. So far, I haven't found many cases to disagree with your generalisation, but there are a few. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are indeed "a few", we should be encouraging them to enjoy their youth in pursuit of more appropriate activities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It is doubtful that the clock's telling midnight, notwithstanding its effects on Cinderella's escorts, magically transforms children into adults, young adults into grown ups, or promising leaders into presidential material, or crones and geezers into retired crones and geezers who must take eye examines before renewing drivers' licenses. Yet reasonable lines are drawn, to let adults get on with their productive work and intercourse, and to prevent foreseeable damage from children and seniles.

We don't need to have a case by case discussion on each of cases here or the principal that some age broundaries are appropriate, because it wastes too much time.

At RfA, it is telling how many of the nominated child or youthful candidates have never written anything worth reading, and how many cannot even write WP-compliant articles on, say (to protect the innocent), local pig-wrestling contests?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Your last sentence is still just about as true if you take out "child or youthful". Coverage of artiodactyla has always been rather patchy (notice that pig, an article of high importance in this field, is both indefinitely semi-protected and still marked as lacking citations!), and may not be benefitted much by the WMF's choice of countries in which to focus its expansion. I'm very much in agreement with your point that the real world has age restrictions at both ends of the spectrum, and this is why, every time someone suggests an age restriction for administrators, I query whether they mean a minimum age or a maximum one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that the median age is 17, and given the plurality of MySpace-like editors at RfAs (who habitually applaud even the worst candidates), your question there has been uneconomical and a distraction. It is a distraction here. Please stop following me with distracting remarks.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Or in plain English - Demiurge, please stop saying sensible things I don't know how to disagree with..."Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, you have shown your intellectual limitations at great length here, by explaining Lihaas's politics as libertarian national-socialist and Thomas-Scalia (conservative Catholics) and by your theories about my being Swedish or not speaking English regularly, in a way your editing an article on a commercial blender could not. Your speculations about my abilities and limits reminds me of little children playing at mathematics by asking their father to add really large numbers like 1500 and a million in his head. (23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

Please stop provoking me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You just can't stop, can you. You have to look down on, demean and insult everyone you come across. There's no need for it, really there isn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, I have asked you repeatedly, as have others, to stop provoking me or following my comments with a snide observation of your own. You have repeatedly commented on my lack of know how, inabilities, etc., while continuing to propound (on several talk pages) absurdities about Lihaas and my national origin or English competency. I have had enough to deal with in replying to ANI-jockies whom I've never heard of and the usual critics, that I don't need your distractions, when you are not making much effort to write clearly or to write things that cannot be read as insults.

I am very sorry to hear that you are stressed at your job, like I am, too (another reason I asked for this RfC to wait until January, I disclose). I used to be a fan, and I should hope that I should look forward to seeing your comments in the future. However, now, I don't see that your comments are helping at all; rather, I see that you are disrupting a miracle---Demiurge1000 and I having constructive conversations---and I beg you just to exercise maximum restraint with me for a while. Please!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Much as it pains me to be seen agreeing with an authority figure like Elen, I too think you are taking this too far Kiefer. Stick a cork in it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

FAC

Are you running through FAC today or should I? I'm prepared to do so, but it looks like you've been taking action the last few days, so if you want to do it/are looking through that's fine. Karanacs (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I can do it if you want-- I'm sorta kinda caught up around the house now. Do you think we could get our FAC chat page back to where we used it only for coordinating schedules? I hope the kiddo is well, and you didn't get sick, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone is healthy, thank goodness! We should probably be more aggressive about moving other topics to WT:FAC. As for today, I didn't want to step on your toes because I couldn't tell if you were already going through or not. Karanacs (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless something unplanned comes up (oh, like the fact that my new shower has to be torn out next week :) I do think I may finally be back in the saddle now. I'll send pics when I get around to them! I'd like to keep our FAC chat to two things: coordinating our schedules and our recusals. It just seems to me that anything else should be posted to WT:FAC for a wider audience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I just called into a meeting this afternoon. Can you take over? Karanacs (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep :) SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Understood ... this reminds me of prohibitions on ex parte conversations between lawyers and judges ... the cultures and the needs of the system are similar, I think. Would you (delegates) like to be notified on that page if a nom is trying to get your attention, or should I post to one of your talk pages? - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a notice at WT:FAC would be okay, if the nominator doesn't feel comfortable posting there themselves. Sometimes the questions can be answered by any reviewer. Thanks so much for your help overall, Dank! It's much appreciated. (As is Sandy's help today.) Karanacs (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank y'all (a perfectly good plural ... what's up with the vaguely sexist "you guys" and such? I think some Americans have difficulty acknowledging that Southerners got it right). WT:FAC it is. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs, my day didn't go as planned, FAC reading interrupted, starting again now. Dank, thanks for all you do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Dispatches

I responded on my talk page.

Coincidentally, your post reminded me of something, so there's an coming to your inbox that's FAC related.

Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The email has been sent. It's not an ASAP thing, but the sooner you get to it, the sooner I can feel comfortable doing reviews at FAC. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Going there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've also responded on my talk page to your point about vetting. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I read your disclaimer-- standard stuff, no problem, hope everyone doesn't write one because a) I rarely read them (I do see they will be useful for the nominators), and b) I usually have a good sense of reviewer areas, strengths, weaknesses, and what they review for anyway :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a year in and only starting to get into prose in a major way though (there are roughly a dozen people that keep the File namespace from imploding, and I am one of them), so I wanted to make sure that everyone knew that my strengths were not in Wikipedia article writing... yet. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

RAF Uxbridge at FAC

I saw that you removed the FAC nomination for RAF Uxbridge, presumably because the nominator already had a nomination for Ickenham. I noticed this myself yesterday evening and pointed it out to the nominator, with a suggestion to pull Ickenham (which to be honest I don't think has much chance of passing) and leaving RAF Uxbridge up. Is that not a possibility? Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I missed that-- I picked up the Uxbridge issue via a commentary at my user FAC chat (which was intended only for coordinating delegate schedules and recusals). Not sure what to do now, because if Ickenham is also closed, technically the nominator has to wait two weeks to put up a new one, so reinstating Uxbridge doesn't solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men [and women] and the obedience of fools." ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're saying that Uxbridge is ready, have him ping me ... I've got to go out, didn't get finished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for making the mistake with the nominations. If it's at all possible I'd like to keep the RAF Uxbridge nomination running, as I think it has a good chance. Harrison49 (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Percy LeSueur/archive1

Hi SandyGeorgia, could you archive Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Percy LeSueur/archive1? It's underprepared and FAC isn't a good venue to address the copyediting concerns brought up. Thanks. Maxim_(talk) 23:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Going there now-- hope to see you back soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Balance of comments at FAC

Sandy, would you have time to respond here (on your talk page, rather than at the FAC) to what I said here at a recent FAC in response to what you said? I think I know which bits of my review went outside the bounds of comments related to WP:WIAFA, but I can't be sure because you weren't specific ("Much of this" is a bit vague and it doesn't help me see where you draw the line - I initially thought it was only the "I guess" comment you were being critical of, but I'm now wondering how much you meant by "much of this", as I thought most of the rest of the comments I had made were OK). I was also a bit taken aback to see you quoting me here. I know you might not have time to return to every place where you make comments like that, but it seems you do have time to quote me elsewhere, which I hope you can understand annoys me a bit. If you don't have time to expand on what you said there, maybe you could suggest someone else I could ask who is likely to know what you meant by "much of this"? Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at this once I get through FAC, but my recollection is that just about everything up to that comment was heading the direction of that comment, hence related, and way off-topic. Where on earth did you get the notion to make a comment like that? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on secondary reliable sources; your statement directly contradicts everything we're about, and your very long off-topic review thusly made no sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying, been busy elsewhere. This is dispiriting because you've completely misunderstood what I was trying to say there, though I could have been clearer. It might help to understand what I said if you look at the preceding bit, where I said:

"unlike the use of book-length sources, where it is possible to greatly compress and summarise, or citing a source in passing for a brief point that needs referencing, the use of article-length sources as the main source for an article on Wikipedia can be problematic. The reason being that Wikipedia articles are generally of the same length and tone as these articles, and you may (by drawing on the same or similar sources) end up largely replicating what the author of that article did (merely rewriting things) - there is also the point that as being essentially the same thing, the articles are in some sense in direct competition for readers"

In other words, some publications produce articles of a very similar length and style to that of Wikipedia, and it was in this context that I asked: "what does a reader get from this article [in terms of the overall reading experience] that they wouldn't get elsewhere". Hopefully the bit in square brackets that I've inserted helps makes things clearer. What I will do in future is try not to go into that amount of detail during a FAC, as that sort of thing is (as you said) best discussed elsewhere. The rest of what I said in that review, I stand by (the fact that changes were made to the article based on what I pointed out should by itself be enough to refute your assertion that my review made no sense), and I make no apologies for the detailed discussion of the article's sources (something that doesn't happen enough at FAC, in my opinion). Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm intrigued

Obviously, as you've said elsewhere, you and the other FA delegates have a pretty good idea of what it is that we mere commentators bring to the party ... aaw, scrub that, I'm just feeling pissed off again. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So bring booze to the party and cheer up!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

An apology

I've acted very negatively to you over the last several months, including some barbed comments that were, frankly, well out of line (although not intentionally sexist, but that's another debate). I'd like to say I'm sorry for them. I'd give you the puff talk-page apology about how fantastic your work on Wikipedia is blah blah blah but that just looks naff and is not germane. I've been acting like a dick towards you and I regret that a great deal. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  19:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

well dangit, it's no fun to get an apology for something I have no recollection of :) (It takes a masterful dick being dickish over a sustained period of time, or one sweeping spectacularly stupid act-- like blocking The Fat Man-- for any editor's actions or posts to stick in my mind. I prefer to keep my brain space free for remembering the good folks.) I appreciate the thought, though, all the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro, you are making my eyes tear and my throat choak-up! Another classy move exemplary deed! Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 20:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not really meant to be a classy move, to be honest Kiefer. Just an apology for acting like a fool at times - with poorly thought out intent. Nothing more, nothing less. Pedro :  Chat  20:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(too Kiefer, and apologies to Sandy for the talk page hi-jack). My most warm recollections of interaction with Sandy can be seen in the emotive and sad history of this user's talk page; ironically one of the few moments on Wikipedia I can honestly say I was my real personality not an "on screen persona". I thank you for the "exemplary deed" comment. Pedro :  Chat  20:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I rarely mind the talk page interruptions, but you may as well know that my work day ends whenever I'm reminded of Jeff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Sandy. He was a wonderful person, and I know we both communicated with him regularly prior to his passing. It's been a few years and it still hurts. Best. Pedro :  Chat  20:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You two wrote lovely and heartfelt condolences to Jeff's family. Long ago, I was invited to go to a drag show, which was to raise money for AIDS research. What I remember most about the evening was a long conversation with a mother who was grieving for her son, and found it comforting to spend time in the supportive and accepting community, where gay men were just enjoying themselves. I am sure that your notes meant a lot to his family. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That he happened to be gay was "one of the least interesting things" about Jeff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That video link should move hearts-and-heads. Thank you for sharing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

CNN, website, and Youtube channel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Tbhotch

SandyGeorgia, I have nothing to do with what happened between you and Tbhotch. However, there is nowhere in his text a single word that can be described as offensive to anyone. In case you doubt, I can translate the entire text to you. However, since you made clear that you don't like being called "Sandra" (since it isn't your name), I removed it. If you don't like having links to what you or another editor said... well... then you shouldn't have said at all. But removing the entire text merely because you can not understand Spanish is way too much. Again: I can translate to you if you wish so. --Lecen (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You know I don't require a translation, but I would certainly have loved to have seen yours (but now we have Tbhotch's). Not a single word that is offensive? You have a most strange POV ... his characterization of MF, characterization of his powerful friends who lap up his insults, continued misuse of my name that is not his "fucking problem" because he can call me whatever he wants and there's no policy stopping him ... it's not the sort of screed that belongs on a userpage. The fella has quite a temper (but I knew that long before the MF incident, so I'm not surprised), and that is what led to the MF issue, where an involved admin blocked Malleus. TB might need to be blocked if he keeps this up (or at least his userpage protected), since he's not slowing down any, and he continues to revert and add the polemic as well as his misname for me (these Latin dramatics are always cute, no, how we Spanish-speakers hate diminuitive names, but where did he come up with the idea that Sandra is my name, even after I told him it's not? Anyway, thank you for the offer, but I don't need a translator; now, please leave this, since drama need not be fed and this molehill doesn't need to become a mountain. If he wants to persist and get himself into trouble, then so be it. And, please, do take care to tell the truth when on my page: But removing the entire text merely because you can not understand Spanish is way too much. Peddle that story somewhere else, please :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I was never his friend and I believe you are well aware of that. I don't remember ever having worked with him before. Although I certainly dislike the idea of a valuable editor leaving. You are indeed correct about not liking to be called "Sandra" (and in fact, I removed that piece from the text). But he did not offend you or anyone else specifically. Although he did say that he would return only after you were not here anymore. If you don't mind, I believe you should ask him to return and try to make peace with him. God knows why there are a few who mistake MF for a misunderstood genius. None of those who support MF ever complained about his behavior. But they were all too eager to jump over Tbhotch. It must not be easy for you, having to watch over the FAC nominations and be involved on editors' quarrels. However, precisely for the reason that you are a delegate you have an inherent moral authority that could be used to push the ears of those same quarreling editors. Anyway, it's really not my problem. Good luck there. --Lecen (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether we are "someone's friend" shouldn't even be part of this discussion. Besides that you made it abundantly clear well beforehand that you had issues with Malleus, and that seems to be what is driving your behavior. Yes, he did specifically offend others (and he even acknowledged the personal attacks in his translation). Yes, the "Sandra" thing was probably his misguided Spanish-speaking irritation at how we gringos shorten names, but I told him "sandra" is not my name, and he quite intentionally kept that up; it's such a small matter that it's not worth discussing, but it does show how he pokes and pokes and pokes, which is what he did to Malleus. Now, please strike your personal attack on Malleus MOST QUICKLY before I have to do something about it being on my page-- if I have to remove it myself, you will not be happy. Like quite a few others, I am quite sick of the tripe I've had to deal in the last 48 hours, after I hopefully was going to be able to return to normal editing now that my RL issues have settled down. If this is how my time is going to be spent I'd rather not be here. Strike the personal attack on Malleus now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't like your threat. It was really uncalled for. I came here as a friend and I was even trying to give you my support for having to deal with this kind of situation. But once seeing your words, there is no reason to be here anymore. I should have noticed that MF has indeed somekind of diplomatic immunity. Anyway, best wishes. --Lecen (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the personal attack; reminding editors that they may be sanctioned for same is not a threat, it's a promise that we have procedures for dealing with such. Your casting of aspersions continues; dealing with this kind of thing can wear down anyone so please do not continue to post on this topic here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Main Page gripe

See my response at Wikipedia:Help_desk#What_is_the_.27Article_of_the_Day.27_editor.27s_fascination_with_Australian_warships.3F, where I've tried to be very constructive. What do you think of the idea of working my response up a little and making it a template to use whenever these posts appear at Talk:Main Page, talk pages of TFAs, help desk or ref desks? --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your response combined with others on that page could probably be worked into a template, also comes up at WP:FA talk page. Good to see you now and then, the Wikipedia seems like such a hostile place lately :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Mmmm, I've always tried to either avoid or defuse conflict, but I don't think there's more of it. Just I'm spending more time in projectspace, where it's more obvious. Trying to push Jonathan Agnew through to FAC, which will help me pick up my mainspace editing. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

An example of the sort of things content editors have to deal with...

Rather than get to my own FAC and some much needed content work, I've had to devote time this morning to dealing with someone editing as an IP (but clearly who is very familiar with WP processes) who has some fixed idea of adding some content to John, King of England. So I had to go and deal with this as if they weren't POV pushing, and dig in books and marshall arguments as if I hadn't reveiwed the entire article at FAC. The talk page discussion is at Talk:John, King of England, and this is typical of what happens out in the wilds of content editing. Stuff like this is what will eventually drive me off Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

sheesh, I'd say get it protected, but that hasn't stopped the craziness at Guy Fawkes, so ... yep, eventually we give up ... I certainly did on most of my watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw your comments about some kind of essay, Sandy, and I don't know if essay or revolution would be more prudent, but in some way, the critical idea that needs to get across is that using and abusing content, particularly when the abuser has no intentions of finding or using reliable sources, is a more egregious offense on Wikipedia than impoliteness. That should be worded as strongly as possible. That needs to be publicized. This needs to be a mission and it needs to spread like a cause across this site. --Moni3 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It needs to become a revolution. Content writers can't write content and fight with editors who have no inclination of writing content. Something has to give. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@Moni3 and @Truthkeeper88,

You should look at my RfC, if you want to see how administrators value incivility versus source abuse.

See the 11-minute reading (of 103 kilobytes of RfC) and sermon by User:DGG:

Especially horrifying is his recent conclusion---DGG concluded that stern actions are needed, beyond the RfC, because I displayed a misunderstanding of NPOV. The sign that revealed my sin? I had written, "If there are two contradictory statements, then at most one of them can be true." (DGG first misquoted me as stating "only one" of them can be true.)

I posted a plea for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic? Can you guess which ArbComm administrator showed up immediately?

I see that core articles in statistics are being damaged this week. A few weeks ago, I would have spent an hour nursing them back to health. Now, I watch as parasitic edits, left unchecked, have weakened the host, invited further attacks, and the articles are being destroyed. Soon we shall have a Wikipedia worthy of its administrator corps.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

comments heard around my household at the end of the day. "Whatdya mean "diffuse" the situation, whatdya think this is a chemistry experiment? Doesn't anybody know basic English anymore"? We need the essay, and we need to begin to drill it into the admin corp, and we need the revolution. Or we could just all quietly leave; that's what's happening anyway. Ok, so good night. Whatever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no answer... I wish I did. But (similar to Truthkeeper88's statement above) I can say a few of us at Talk:Muhammad/Images are running into a very similar situation - and trying to remain calm. I'd be all up for being involved with any initiatives, proposals and so forth to rectify such things. :-/ ^{(Oh, and good night Mary Ellen!)} Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem has long been and continues to be that we just keep granting adminship to editors with absolutely NO content building experience. We just did it again. They don't get it because ... well, they can't. If they could build content, they would. What I most want to know is why do people nominate these RFA candidates anyway ?? Of course that, and the increasing number of immature editors, is not the only problem, but it's all beginning to add up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the vandal-fighting specialists who predominate at RfA is that their very limited experience leads them to believe that the role of administrators is to act as some kind of a police force. Added to which most of the administrators who've been around since Adam was a lad in reality have no legitimate authority at all, are completely out of touch, and ought to be relieved of their badges. Malleus Fatuorum 03:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

True. But pulling their badges and doing nothing else also means you have a mess on your hands. It's true that too many of us (ahem) are nothing but 'vandal fighters' (I hate that term; it's nothing to be proud of), but perhaps the related problem is that there aren't a lot of admins who have content experience. I mean, if you have enough of both you can tackle more issues in a productive way. I know plenty of admins (off the record, of course) who don't want to interfere in the kind of content dispute you're hinting at, above, for fear of having to decide on content, so to speak. What I see here is evidence of the urgency that one of y'all run for admin, right now. Eeny, meeny, miny, moe...Sandy, you're it. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Pulling their badges would go a long way towards improving my mood, so well worth doing IMO. Let's be honest, what can administrators do in content disputes that any regular editor can't, except wield a big stick? Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And to paraphrase Steve Redgrave, if you ever see me at RfA again you have my permission to shoot me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the moment admins starting swinging that big stick around you know what's next: dramafest on ANI. Being an admin is easy if you stay away from the real difficult issues, of course, and getting involved in a content dispute is the last thing that many admins want. Bad for one's reputation! Might not get a merit raise! An associated problem is that there's a bunch of folks in the peanut gallery and in other places who yell "involved" immediately, so an admin discussing content is very quickly disarmed as an admin and can only operate as a regular editor. I've seen these things and have wondered about getting involved--often these are lose-lose situations. Sometimes I jump in, sometimes I don't. Sometimes the shit is so absolutely moronic that one takes a few days off--when, as is hinted at above, one is dealing with complete idiots who think that a. they know their subject matter and don't need no stinkin' sources and b. don't know fuck-all (I'm practicing my BE) about our policies and MOS. And you have to extend good faith to these idiots! Wave your big stick against a group of such editors and you're biting the newbies. Etc, etc. PS: I do appreciate you showing up at mine. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And there's the crux of something interesting I brought up some while back. An admin who does not content edit but has a thorough understanding of policy (and strong ability in DR) can step in (as uninvolved) to work out policy disputes, enforce consensus and so on. I'm not saying it's necessarily better... though I have been on the sidelines for a dispute or two where a few admins have had to sit there and "say" something long the lines of (through inaction) "Ummm, someone get someone else with the bit". Anyway, I'd hope the big stick wouldn't be necessary very often. But that doesn't require skills in content - it requires skills in mediation/dispute resolution, ranging from being an unforgiving ass at the right times to being supportive at other times. It's why I kinda believe that "Strong in A, C, D, F & G" is as good as "Strong in A, B, C, E & G" (relevant combinations of course). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we're getting off-track here. The old discussion about the problems, or not, with the admin corp aren't going to get this problem moved forward. We are going to see less and less qualified admins just as we're seeing less and less qualified editors in general. I think we need to accept that the admin corp is what it is, some good some bad, and focus on getting this message across without taking on the competence of the admin corp: "the critical idea that needs to get across is that using and abusing content, particularly when the abuser has no intentions of finding or using reliable sources, is a more egregious offense on Wikipedia than impoliteness". We've seen half a dozen situations in the last week of novice (and experienced) editors destroying content, wasting time, making productive editors nutso, and after all the drama subsides, all the admin corp can manage to focus on is "civility". How can we get them to understand the effects of these disruptive editors, and make blocks for disruption and IDIDNTHEARTHAT or I don't care what policy says I'm going to make you waste boatloads of time more of a priority? There are some admins who will block thickheaded disruptive nimwits, but they are becoming the minority. We've seen a handful of editors cause these situations for all of us this week, but all the admin corp sees is "civility"-- we need to help them adjust their lenses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry for cutting in MF--ec, and I hope I'm addressing Sandy's point.) Well, as I suggested above, I think you'll quickly run into a brick wall of editors who thrown WP:AGF and WP:BITE in your face. I have great respect for editors who take what appear to be utter vandals under the wing of mentorship, but I have little faith there. I think people's feelings are important, and hurting them unnecessarily is bad, but WP is not a playground--but I'm in a minority. I agree with your slogan, but I don't think it will lessen the ANI dramas. We've had this out over a silly little article, Green Brigade, where one editor had no intentions of etc--and wasted hours and hours on a topic ban for that editor, in two acts, which we got by the grace of god. I wish it could be easier. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anything can change. Civility is one of the 5 pillars, but quality of the product isn't. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) to Sandy: LoL, guess I'll never become an admin... yet in the last few days, I've helped write/rewrite the leads or various sections of various articles. But check my article contributions, and... virtually nothing. I don't care about the credit, so I write, dump it on the talkpage, read other proposals, support or tweak, wash, rinse, repeat (sometimes with some fabric softener thrown in too) - and someone else ends up making the actual article edit. But alas, I'll be judged for content contributions by my stats.

Fortunately, I don't particularly care about the mop... but the point is, I've had decent sized contributions to a decent number of "higher profile" articles and a couple GAs for which my stats will never show. I'm sure there are plenty of others who fit into that same boat and will be judged similarly, while contributing a lot to content - even if all behind the scenes. Heck, the rework on Evolution, which is VERY extensive, will only end up showing up as the contribution of one or a small few editors - yet the talkpage clearly shows it's not.

Still not too sure either way that content building is as important as how the editor reacts and deals with situations. For instance me: One of my big flaws is AGF'ing to the point of absurdity at times. Or (see thread in earlier post) wasting time responding to attempts to derail legitimate good faith efforts at resolving something. Neither may be suitable for an admin. On the other hand, with one exception I remember (as pointed out at my RfA), I stay calm and generally civil (even if rather blunt once AGF has long since expired).

I've got no solution to this, and I think the point I am trying to make is content creation shouldnt be a "be all, end all" - and that other factors may make such less important (while lack of those other factors may make content creation more important). Or I'm babbling, because I still havent left for 7-11 for that much needed coffee. I'll trust your judgment on which. ;-)

(to Malleus) - perhaps true, if that's 100% the case for a candidate. But see above (same indent level to Sandy). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Revolution:

• Start the discussion to delete WP:Civility.
• Do the same with WP:OWN.
• System-wide campaign to overturn civility as the fifth pillar.
• Oppose, en masse, any RfA candidate who has never written a GA or above.
• ... ?

The idea isn't to accomplish these things, but slap the community into seeing a systemic problem of deliberate refusal to understand that sources are integral to material on this site. If you don't want to go look for sources, get another hobby.

I can describe at least a dozen examples of having to defend articles I wrote, just in the past year, from editors who refused to access sources. Just this week, I have had to justify edits I made to clean up the lead in an article I overhauled more than a year ago, reminding the overturning editors that I am fixing such matters as citations after punctuation and removing outdated information, as well as removing OR and POV from a lead where the editors who added the info obviously have not read the core source the article is about.

This is some ridiculous shit. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

With barely one new admin per week this year it isn't really the time to try and drastically increase the content experience required. It might be better to push for easier RFAs for "content specialist" admins without as much knowledge of the minutiae of admin-type policy as is required at present. Experienced editors blatently misusing sources (Talk:Medieval_art#Historical_comparison_of_wealth as here) or using minority or outdated sources inappropriately (King John, just now) are harder to combat than those who won't use any. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Pragmatism is nowhere near the concept of revolution. Revolution is a slap in the face--or a guillotine in a plaza. Enough of this bullshit. No, really. ENOUGH OF THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT. If you don't want to search for sources and improve articles to high standards, get another fucking hobby. We infantalize users. We're timid because we don't want to be accused of being a clique or a cabal, or classist in some way, as if high quality articles makes us the 1% on Wall Street looking down on the filthy masses. We tolerate bad quality and bad editing because we do not want to damage others' self esteems and what's worse, we don't want to damage our own by being accused of owning and being uncivil. What kind of bullshit priorities are these? --Moni3 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

IMO that's one new admin a week too many Johnbod. I'm with Moni, it's way past time to man those barricades and force something to change. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggested forming a Wikipedia Project:Encyclopedia at a recent RfA. However, it would be useful to have a WikiProject Articles where writers could discuss these concerns, and occasionally rally to the defense of writing (usually emotional support but occasional wopping-upside-the-head for the writer, or even criticism of an administrator that doesn't know his place).

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

So what's the revolutionary level to stop the swarm of disruptive editors? Getting rid of WP:CIVIL isn't going to stop them. I want to use my block button liberally and divest myself of all the disruptive editors, but Mal doesn't like it ;) Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it, no. Blocking is like being assigned to the naughty corner, which is why it makes me absolutely furious every time it happens to me, and that fury doesn't just go away after a few hours, days, or weeks. When I was studying psychology I worked in what was then known as a hospital for the mentally subnormal (we don't have them any more, politically incorrect now) and I became interested in the idea of prosthetic environments, designed to minimise the impact of whatever disability a patient had. In other words, we can't change human nature, human abilities, or human disabilities, but we can construct environments that control and minimise the rewards for disruption. Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the "GA or above" part-- I'm pretty sure I've supported some good RFA candidates who had shown special abilities in copyright, images, etc territory. But they are the exception. I'm more concerned when we pass admin candidates who have practically no content involvement whatsoever, and little even in the way of dispute resolution. They just don't know what goes on in the trenches. And I'm not opposed to our civility policy-- the problem is in uneven application. All I can think of is to drill into ANI the issue every time one of these absurd content disputes comes up, where the side who doesn't read, know, understand, or uphold Wikipedia's sourcing policies needs attention. I don't know if that will work, considering what has gone of for at least five years at Hugo Chavez, and many senior editors considering some of the POV pushers there as respected editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a big problem with focusing on content experience for admins. Most of us want to write articles. Most of us use our tools sparingly - and most of us know not to use them in the examples that have been thrown around here. But there are so many other admins who don't get it and rush to fill the gap that it doesn't matter. Unless all the content admins are at ANI all the time to call for unblocks or blocks, then nothing will change, no matter how many new content-focused admins we get.

I spent HOURS over the last few months dealing with an editor who continually changed a template to include random articles because HE thought those should be classified as part of the Texas Revolution. I analyzed sources on the talk page and his talk page. He never engaged. I reported him for slow edit-warring and the closing admin declined to block because the editor hadn't hit three in 24 hours (a dozen over a few weeks didn't count). I finally put up a content RfC, had to create new little-used templates for his pet project, and he went off to bother someone else. The time I spent was equivalent to about two days' worth of FAC processing and would have been enough for me to finish polishing the article I intend to bring to FAC next.

A lot of these editors have pattens of being a timesink, but it doesn't meet WP's definition of "disruption". I do not think we should throw away the civility policy, but I think we need to redefine "disruption" so that there is some recourse to dealing with these editors before the content experts get fed up. So how do we redefine "disruption", and what actions do we think ought to be take in these cases? We need a firmer plan. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What about starting with Wikipedia:Disruptive editing? The description of the problematic content seems okay to me, but the process for fixing the disruption is soooo long and doesn't really work. Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. The process described there is laughably divorced from reality, and assumes an infinite amount of time and patience on the part of the constructive editor. I once tried to follow the steps outlined there; I did all of them (and more) to address an obviously tendentious, disruptive agenda account. The process took over 6 months, during which I essentially curtailed any other contributions to Wikipedia, culminating in a poisonous ArbCom case.

I had to put up with a substantial volume of attacks, many of which were obviously made in bad faith, but which were permitted because I was engaged in "dispute resolution". And this was to deal with a single, obviously disruptive agenda account. It takes six months of a constructive editor's time to deal with a single disruptive agenda account, using the prescribed process. One can imagine how well that scales if you're faced with more than a single disruptive editor. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Tell me about it. You'd think that admins would be held to higher standards, but even after all that he still won't leave it alone. I'll never bother with RFC again. Parrot of Doom 18:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been around awhile, and I can't remember a single instance in which a user-conduct RfC led to any sort of meaningful resolution of a problem. Certainly I've never seen an instance where the end result was worth the amount of effort expended. They are best viewed (and, I think, are viewed by all but the most naive) as a necessary prelude to filing an ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"You think admins should be held to a higher standard..." I would. I do. And if (heh) that day comes, I'll insist on being judged by such. BUT, on the other hand, when admins try to do the right thing, such as reconfirmation RfAs, or dropping the bit and having to RfA to get it back, people give them hell. Yes, it's by and large the admins all or most of us highly respect. But no (as others have claimed) it is not useless. It accomplishes a few things: (1) it allows the community a level of control over who has that bit (even if unwarranted for those who have traveled this route), (2) it sets an example that other admins will hopefully follow one day and (3) it slowly creates a situation where perhaps such can be the norm. Doing so, when considering all three, additionally creates a situation where the community can continually give feedback on what they expect and don't expect from their admins. This eventually enforces a behavior/actions as desired by the community (and the policies the community sets) through either the removal of admins that are not acting in such fashion or lessons for those who want to ensure they pass their reconfirmation RfA. Yeah, it'll take quite some time for it to be truly helpful, but it's a start - and it does not preclude efforts to tackle the problem from other directions at the same time either. Just one more piece in our box to hopefully enable us putting the whole puzzle together. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion initiated here. Karanacs (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW over at the visual arts we had a great admin, brilliant on policy, great on content, always helpful, and willing to stand and fight for what's right - a good editor capable of coming up with really good sources, quit for over a year now - thankless job...Modernist (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Very true, but for the gender balance record, I think she was a she actually (I was never quite sure). Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Shes usually are shes in my experience. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually in this case the truth was well hidden...Modernist (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking ladyboys? I hope we are. Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You've got my attention as well now... Kafka Liz (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No no no guys; don't let your over educated imaginations get the better of you - it was just a case of a well concealed, well protected anonymity with no leaks...Modernist (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Aye, Modernist. That administrator has been sorely missed. Excellent on all levels. JNW (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Did he commit the unforgivable sin of suggesting that somebody read something or of explaining a logical error?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Over and over again; time and time again; politely, calmly, logically; until the burnout began to corrode and waste far too much precious and creative time...Modernist (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Modernist, I think you've used the operative word here: creative. Writing is creative. Some of only have a finite amount of time to devote to creative endeavors here. I'd prefer to spend the time being creative rather than, well doing all the other stuff, like explaining over and over .... Truthkeeper (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

TK - your creativity is an invaluable asset to this project; and as you know this project is a volunteer endeavor and those of us who enjoy a creative life in the real world have only so much time and energy to spend here; we need to do our best and at the same time move forward in our own projects. I could not possibly imagine the complexity of being a responsible, and thoughtful administrator here and at the same time trying to creatively function in the real world. It's becoming more and more a serious issue...Modernist (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm following this discussion with interest (a similar one is currently going on in the Gender Gap list), but guys, it's really scaring me. It seems that the consensus in this thread is that more experienced content editors need to become admins, and that's making me think that I should put myself through RfA. I mean, I have 8 FAs and 6 GAs, so that would make me "an experienced editor", right? I've avoided it up to now, mostly due to the scary things I've heard about the RfA process, and assuming that as a content editor and as someone who avoids conflict, it wouldn't be a positive experience for me. I'm rethinking that now, since things seem to have almost gotten out of control.

That being said, though, I actually have a positive experience with an admin to share, an example of what happens when you're lucky enough to get a good admin who knows what he/she is doing. A fellow editor, who is actually a friend of mine, helps me maintain The Wiggles, which was my very first FA. If you thought that I was a rabid Wiggles fan (I did write their WP article, you know), I don't even compete! There's some content in their article that she hated, so she removed it, even though it was well-sourced. I reverted her, and gently told her why. Two months later, she changed it again; she did that twice! After the second time, I strongly warned her that if she did it again, I'd have her blocked. Sure enough, she did it again, but waited six months. I felt bad about it, but I reported her to ARV. I mean, she loves Anthony Field; how bad can she be? She was blocked for a week because the evidence was there. I hope that she has learned from the experience; time will tell, I suppose. And yah for the good admin! Christine (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There's only one real predictor of success at RfA and it's this; have you ever upset another editor? If you have, then expect them to come down on you like a ton of bricks, so a good thick skin is essential. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus is absolutely right. Good work and good networking will get you supports, but pissing of a few morons may invite a bunch more morons to the party and destroy your run (look at my buddy Kelapstick's RfA, which totally got out of hand). My RfA was fun--I was opposed by two idiots. The first one is now (after a bunch of AGFing, even on my part) indefblocked; the other opposed me because I wouldn't support an indefblock for the first one. I wouldn't hesitate a moment right now to block that first idiot, by the way--now that I've picked up a healthy dose of I really don't care.

Christine, there's the lesson. Run for admin after a couple of months of welcome templates, play nice even to those who don't deserve it, and don't piss anyone off. Good luck--you will have my vote, after you show me some WikiLove! Drmies (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Forgive me for butting in here, but I'd just like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. We need people who write content, because an encyclopaedia with a bunch of empty pages is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, but an encyclopaedia whose articles have been trashed by vandals is equally useless, as is one full of copyright violations, or typos. I think it's wonderful that there are people who are willing to take on these tasks, and I think we should all be mindful of the good work that the others do, because peoples' talents lie in different places.

  To take one example, I'm an admin and much of what I do is blocking vandals—and I block them not to act like a policeman, but to stop them trashing your articles, and my articles, and all the other articles (in fact, I'm almost certain I've blocked people who have vandalised articles written by most of the contributors to this thread). The majority of my fellow admins spend their volunteer time performing all sorts of other tasks to keep the wheels turning so that it doesn't interfere with writing and maintaining articles. We're not perfect at it, and some of my colleagues might not be fit to do the job, but please don't tar the majority with the same brush as that minority.

  A parting thought, on WP:CIV: the policy itself is more of a hindrance than a help in my opinion, but the idea behind it—that the editors of an encyclopaedia should maintain some sense of decorum, and that everybody deserves to be treated with respect (at least until they prove themselves unworthy of it)—is sound logic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  • The idea of WP:CIV may be sound (or not, depending on your view of human nature), but its implementation stinks. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Indeed. All too often it's quoted as often as the Bible, by those who act in similar ways to certain Catholic priests. Parrot of Doom 22:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

HJMitchell, a collaborative effort means other editors read sources so they can check my mastery of the facts and how well I summarized them--or add their own summaries to an article. I welcome that. So far, that has happened perhaps three times in all the articles I've written where someone suggests something get changed. A collaborative effort does not mean I write stuff and others complain about it without doing any goddamn work. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated, and perhaps the new article feedback tool (not the current piece of shit) will make things a little easier. Earlier this week an editor I'd never come across before slapped an {{update}} tag on Pendle witches, because it didn't use a book published last year. As it happens I got hold of the book the following day and it does contain some interesting detail, but I very much resented the defacement of what is a perfectly decent article by tagging it, rather than just quietly drawing attention to a new book on the subject. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@HJMitchell,

However, your statement does not seem free of denial. I ask you to look at my RfC and particularly how civility and AGF are being used. Please examine the context of the diffs provided. Or look at the discussion at WikiProject Logic, which is shorter. Can you guess who is the administrator---and who is not--- by the tone (and lack of apologies, although some non-denial non-denials)?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll echo much of what HJM has said above, I for one genuinely believe that the reason I do vandal-figthing and admin tasks (with nowhere close to HJM's volume) is to let the article editors get on with what they like to do, which I often assume is improving articles. I have (at least) two frrustrations. One is that, even when I read a dispute and can easily see that one "side" is totally wrong on the merits of their argument, I can't actually say it. If I do so, I'm taking a content position, thus losing my freedom to act as an admin. Another is that the established and very competent editors around here get down into the trenches and fire back in oh-too-personal similar ilk, or even march out in front with the ad-hominems. This is a big problem for me when I'm trying to line up a clean shot to eliminate the problem. Franamax (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Franamax, I can certainly chime in with your first point; as I suggested above, though, I may see "freedom to act as an admin" a bit differently: I don't think such intervention impedes on my freedom, but it often enough is an occasion for other involved parties to throw that back at me. Your second point, I may not have been an admin for long enough to know that, and I've certainly stayed away from climate change and the current president. But, and this maybe responds to it in a roundabout way, some of us have histories, and with each other. I have one advantage when it comes to that: my (perception of my own) neutrality is greatly helped by advancing old age and the attendant memory loss. I carry grudges only for a few people. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I should banish you from my talk page for revealing the reason I don't carry too many grudges!! It takes a grandiose cock-up to earn a place in my long-term memory, where the space is mostly taken up by Eagles247 and a now-desysopped and presumably gone admin who was stupid enough to make a post to my talk page five years ago that guaranteed I'd stay around long enough try to make things right here, so no one else would ever have to be subjected to the admin abuse I was. That incident also gave me a different perspective on all these admin rants about civility, because I've never seen just about anything that compares to the things an admin cabal got away with saying to me, in plain view of boatloads of people, and protected because they had powerful admin friends or were admins themselves. It took more than a year of patience to see several of them desysopped or sanctioned, but uncivil has a whole 'nother meaning for me than the random "fuck" or "arse" that we often see admins ranting about-- I wanna say, honestly, get a sense of perspective and a history of the things admins have been known to say to lowly newbies like I was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is so much dishonesty here. A year or so ago, perhaps two years ago, I was met with the most astonishingly abusive attack I've seen anywhere, never mind Wikipedia, and from an administrator. That administrator was a friend of User:Pedro, also an administrator, who had seen the attack but declined to act because it came from his friend. Later in the day when sanity prevailed I think the admin was reined in, but by then of course the damage had been done. Admins right, plebs wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 04:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar FAC

Hi Sandy, just a note to let you know that the image issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive2 have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction and that the FAC is now ready to be closed. There are no opposes. Prioryman (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just starting through my watchlist now, no promises, but I hope to get through FAC today (if not, Ucucha usually makes it on the weekend). Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually running through now. Ucucha (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, since I ended up with surprise visits from two repairmen, still stuff around the house. Thanks, Ucucha. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Turkey test--I'll show you mine if you show me yours

[[:Image:John_Tukey.jpg|thumb|right|The turkey test should not be confused with the test of Tukey (pictured)—or a tuckus test (not pictured).]] Pray tell? (I'll tell you afterward what I think of as the turkey test--it has to do with boys and girls and medieval medical science.) Or is this some Georgian idiom I'm ignorant of? Drmies (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm ... I dunno if there's another meaning ... mine came about from a boss I had in the corporate world years ago. He wouldn't hire anyone until I'd had a long lunch interview with them-- he claimed I had the best "turkey test" in the Division, that I could pick out the losers (turkeys) over lunch. Once, while I was away in the US having surgery, he had to hire someone who hadn't passed my turkey test. Turned out to be the worst turkey ever. So, I use it to mean someone who reveals the character of others-- the Malleus "turkey test" is that anyone who can't get along with Malleus reveals something about their own character. OK, so what's yours? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's nothing like it, haha. You know that turkey thermometer, that they are bred with these days? It pops up when the thing is cooked through (and bone dry), right? Well, take the Artistotelian/Galenic theories on body heat and gender (women are cold and men are warm), apply that to the fetus, note the similarity between the male and female reproductive organs and how what's outside the one is inside the other--then, apply heat to the little human child in the oven (womb), and if it is cooked properly, POP, out comes the little Willie Wonka. In other words, girls are undercooked and probably not safe for human consumption by FDA standards. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe you got me to read that :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. (Oh, I'm licensed to tell this: I teach classes on medieval women and writing and such.) Hey, do I need to tell you how relaxing some homemade soup and a couple of glasses of wine are? The kids are watching Scooby Doo, and I'm doing nothing at all. Wonderful. Have a nice weekend!

@Drmies, Do you have a take on "Makelesse" in Pearl and I Sing of a Maiden. Am I correct that maiden/widow/husbandless is the primary meaning, but the secondary meaning "matchless" was also established, so that usual translation as "matchless" is justified? Or is "matchless" an abominable translation?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That is an accurate translation, yes. Doesn't it say makele(e)s in the original? I don't have a copy of Pearl out here on the patio, of course. The OED confirms "spouse" as the first meaning of "make (n.)", but the verb "make" is possible also (I don't have the MED here on the patio either; I have to OED online), which would point, IMO, to the idea that she was made without counterpart, without match. That fits obviously with Pearl, and also with the "Maiden", given the Marian reference. Both are wonderful poems. Have you studied Pearl? I recently got a new Norton edition of all the Gawain poet's poems (incl. Sir Erkenwald), translated by Marie Boroff--it's such a nice book that I want to teach a class just on those poems alone. But since we were speaking of authority in editing, up on this page--if Marie Boroff allows it as a translation (maybe one of hers is available through Google Books) you can take it to the bank, as far as I'm concerned.

As a side note, since I became a father a few years ago I've developed a completely new understanding of Pearl and the narrator's agony. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The MED is available on line. My first pint of Guiness was purchased for me (when I was underage) after the close of Medieval English by Professor McSparran (RIP), who noted that I had failed to treat the sexual tension in the bedroom-kissing scene(s) of Gawain (in one of the mid-term papers). I thought of her and Gawain when I read that anti-literary page-turner, The Da Vinci Code, and (with much greater pleasure) David Lodge's Small World.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha, well, if you have that at your fingertips, what you asking me for? ;) I have an excuse: I'm the Old English guy in my department. Thanks for the link! Drmies (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

UGH! Medieval Lit guys. Should have been Medieval historians, we have more fun... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break! Do you really want to spend time discussing the climatology of medieval France or the Sweezy (shudder of horror)/Brenner debates, when you can read The Miller's Tale?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

But I didn't! I studied medieval bishops ... and usually the bad boy ones ... like Ranulf Flambard... much more interesting... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Climate? Economics? Forms of Property? Land-distribution? Is it Christmas in October? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention they didn't have turkeys in the Middle Ages. Or oven basters. I'm confused. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's beside the point, Johnbod. You're talking reality, which is highly overrated. (Anyway, 'twas just a brillig metaphor.) BTW, Ealdgyth...you know what they say about medieval historians who are not Peter Brown, right? (They're old. And boring! With boring jobs!) Listen, if you go to the Zoo next year, I promise to go too, and we'll meet at the dance. I'll be one of the bald guys who can't dance. Oh, Fifelfoo--your name is Beowulf-inspired, no? If not, congrats on a great coincidence. Drmies (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(Apparently I am the gate of monsters that flows through the first meta-syntactic variable. Beware the Fifelbar.) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Illustration from title page to William Morris's A Dream of John Ball (1888)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your discussion of the way civility is used as a club to beat article-writers.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I owe you an apology

I have read, with great interest, all that you have had to say since the entire ANI civility versus content debate started. While talking with someone tonight, though, I came to the realization that I have lapsed into doing exactly what I was positive that I don't do... marginalizing someone's contributions because of their incivility. The person in question is a tremendous pain in the ass (in my biased opinion), but at the prompting of someone on IRC, I looked over his contributions tonight and was shocked at what an excellent writer he also is. The bottom line is that while I feel that civility is a cornerstone to good collaboration, I also am in total agreement that something has to be done to protect content contributors who feel they are under siege by a never-ending parade of substandard (and often new) editors. Even though this individual in question makes me insane, I will be the first to say that he's worth more to the project than any five thousand hit-and-run IP contributors. To me, it appears the changes necessary are going to be far more invasive than the community will probably concede to, but the alternative means losing a lot of fantastic writers only to have them replaced by a horde of Randy clones. I'm reading WP:QUIT in a new light. It doesn't just apply to experts, it applies to all respected and qualified content contributors who are finding themselves disillusioned with the project. Trusilver 06:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Trusilver-- it's a depressing situation, isn't it, and I don't see any solutions on the horizon. Last night it occurred to me that I might begin the process of "education" by starting two FAQs in my userspace-- 1) a list of incidents when FAs come under seige by editors that don't know policy, and 2) the history of Malleus's block log (the fact that he has a block log is now used as an excuse to block him, and it's insane that his first block was for using the word "wikilawyer", it goes downhill from there-- it might be good to have an FAQ for all who don't know the history of How Wikipedia Admins Created That Mess). Gosh, though, I hope that Pain in the Ass person you refer to above isn't the same one I'm thinking of, because we do have some competent writers who seem to perseverate to an extent that can make anyone nuts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about something else... that there really isn't a "new editor's guide", and there really should be. I'm not talking about WP:Introduction or such, I'm talking about an actual guide to what new users will expect without the candy coating. I consistently see shock (and the frequent angry talk page message) from new editors after I revert their first edit because it was unsourced, unencyclopedic, biased, improperly placed within the article, poorly written, rambling, batshit insane, etc. After reading things like the introduction or the tutorial, a new user can very easily get the idea that Wikipedia is a place where we spend our days giving group hugs and crapping rainbows. It takes the average IP editor about eleven seconds after editing Barack Obama to find out that this isn't the case at all. There should be a new user guide that mixed a nice welcome with a good dose of hard knocks. New editors should come into the project with the understanding that they are outsiders to an established system. They should understand that nearly every article of even mild importance already has a core group of editors tending to it. I like the idea that new editors are encouraged to be bold, but at the same time they should also be aware of when to step lightly. I'm also completely in favor of the idea that EVERY featured article should get semi-protected permanently. I find it very unlikely that IPxx.xxx.xx.xx is going to add anything to a very stable FA that's going to be a net positive. Trusilver 16:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I had something on my user page when I was new for a very long time to the effect of "who wrote the user manual for this thing"-- something like that might be helpful, but it might not get read. The "anyone can edit" facet of Wikipedia is stronger now than it was six years ago, when Wikipedia attracted those more interested in content, less interested in the social aspects. And my bad experiences went beyond that-- every time I found a place where I might get help, I tended to get misinformation. And then I got attacked by an admin cabal ... ah, memory lane :) I'm not sure semi-protection will help FAs-- the destruction often comes from registered editors. Where can we get stats? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a damned good question, one that I don't know the answer to. I have a certain amount of bias only because of the amount of time I spend doing recent change patrolling, so I have a habit of looking at IP contributors and new accounts with suspicion. But I suppose semi-protecting FAs are just preventing the drive-by IP changes and a good number of the Truth-bearing SPAs. Unfortunately, those aren't the users that cause the majority of the headaches. They usually edit once and then leave, or when the see resistance to their changes they get bored and go away as well. I can see semi-protection getting consensus... maybe. I don't see full protection getting consensus, even though it seems rational to me, for the same reason that "no anonymous edits" can't get consensus, even though it would nearly eliminate vandalism. Trusilver 03:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Truesilver,

Your statement was so generous that my vanity wishes that I had driven you crazy! (My RfC is over, BTW.) Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been on Wikipedia for five years now, and I have managed to avoid taking part in a lynching RFC. My only hope is that I can, God willing, go the NEXT five years without taking part in an one too. Trusilver 01:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I know of two RfC cases earlier. Look at a discussion with a statistician, months after we both had been threatened with blocks, etc., after he failed my turkey test; look at what it took for two administrators to state they were considering filing an RfC! The other case of RfCs and ArbComm cases involved the Monty Hall problem, and compare the problems discussed there.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I read the discussion at the aviation project about the glorified See also lists that a lot of plane articles suffer from. Well done for raising the point. I think I agree with you that they are unencyclopedic. --John (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been going on for years -- the problems on the Aviation Wikiproject first came to my attention via a) the use of Joe Baugher, a hobbyist, as a source on a FAR, b) Archtransit (now desysopped), and c) the MOS issues that repeatedly appeared on FARs. It's surprising when editors band together to support something that is so clearly original research, in breach of MOS, and unhelpful to our readers just because it's the way they've always done it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I followed that discussion too, and it came to mind when I read Statue of Liberty when it was on the front page recently. I was surprised to see List of statues in the 'see also' section there (imagine if list of aeroplanes was put in an aeroplane article). I may have said it before, but I don't see the structural elements of articles (see also, categories, navigational footer templates, external links) get as much attention at FAC as they probably should. I know the content and sourcing are the most important things, but I swear some articles look like the editors have not even looked at the 'appendix' elements (i.e. anything outside the main article text). Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Not any more. That was ridiculous; it isn't even a particularly good list. --John (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad stats on blog

Could anyone who posts to WR please get some clarification on what looks like erroneous stats here?

• http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/10/repetitive-labour-and-wikipedia.html

High of 20 edits per page among active admins? No. Karanacs, Moni3, Ucucha, Wehwalt, Casliber, Nikkimaria, Ruhrfisch, Iridescent -- too many to name, those are samples only-- are all admins, and there is no way they are making a high of 20 edits per page. That analysis looks flawed. What's up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why just admins, anyway? I guess us non-admin content editors aren't worth even crap... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, unclear just what the point of that blog entry is, and there is so much more that could be done via this sort of analysis. Does anyone know how "active admin" is defined and where I can find such a list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active. The main page tells you "Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months.". Very few (1% over 9) had the higher figures on his table, & I don't see anything inherently improbable in them myself, especially if working pages - requested moves etc - are counted. The 20 is the highest single figure. Of course it's a very unsophisticated & rather useless approach to analysis. I don't know how to get individual "edits per page" figures any more, but for a person who mainly just adds content high figures are not unusual. Actually I do know now, as the blog links to the tool. These are lifetime figures btw. I see I am at 5.3 & Sandy at 8.34. [2]. But 84% of admins are at 4 or below, which does perhaps reflect the lack of content work among them. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So it's an averaged figure? Like if someone has 1,000 edits and has edited 100 unique pages, then their number would be 10? Dana boomer (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - over all their editing history, and I think including all sort of pages - talk etc. It must have taken ages! New article patrollers, random changes watchers etc have low figures & content adders higher. But I do lots of category work, which pulls my figures down. It also depends on editing style of course. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, the blog post did not say it was an average-- besides that it's not a very helpful analysis, where did I miss that he said it was an average? Or was I supposed to check that tool to realize that? I guess he's not a statistician, but that admins are making a "high" of 20 edits per page is wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What would it be if it wasn't an average? This is a standard stat that used to be cited a lot at RFA. "The result is that there is a wide range of edits per page from a low value of 1.21 at one extreme, to a high value of 20.51 at the other." - that means one person had 20.51, which is indeed high. The table is heavily weighted towards the lower figures, with 84% up to 4, and only 1% over 9. But admins are the worst people to take for this sort of analysis if you are looking at how content is generated, as he seems to be doing Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I see now that it's an average by clicking on that tool, but he doesn't seem to clarify that in the text (he says a high, not an average high). And, if he's going by the average on that tool, sheesh, that's about the least helpful application of EDITCOUNTITIS I've encountered lately-- I'm the perfect example of why edit counts don't work (I have the highest or second highest edit count on gobs of articles that I've cleaned up at FAC or FAR without ever adding a relevant piece of text, and I make tons of typos). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My first thought when I read the blog post was the same as Sandy's - that this was the highest number of edits the admin had ever made to any individual page. This could have been much clarified by the blog poster with a simple "average edits per page" statement - as far as I can see, the word "average" doesn't appear in the post at all. I'm also confused as to how/why he decided to just focus on admins - it would be interesting to know the thought process behind this decision. Dana boomer (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, but there are bigger problems still with such a simple analysis. Moni3 and Malleus, as examples, have higher averages than mine, which is a true reflection of their contribs (because they're more efficient editors than I am), yet Ucucha is very low, probably reflecting 1) the way he edits-- likely efficient, and 2) possibly that his articles aren't vandalized much, so he has less maintenance. Honestly, editcountitis gone awry is all that blog post is about, but there could be some more interesting analysis of the active folks at the top of WP:WBFAN relative to those active admins. But please, let's not forget that several of our top content contributors are admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I imagine because the list was there, but it's the wrong one for his purposes entirely. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting approach. There are some anomolies, such as Iridescent who has of course produced a lot of FAs, but has also done a lot of editing with AWB (fixing typos, tagging pages for projects) so has an average edit per page value of 1.53, though this is something of an extreme case. It is only a single measure so you can't put too much weight on it, but it tallies more or less with experience; generally people who write articles have a higher average than those who don't. What would be more interesting is average edits per mainspace article, as the current tool covers everything. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What he's saying is that the higher the ratio of edits per person to a page is indicative of a page being built/written as opposed to lower ratios which are indicative of an editor floating from page to page without actually contributing. I think it's a good analysis - but I have an embarrassingly high edit count per page (which everyone will now rush to look at) because I spend a lot of time on individual pages rather than flitting around. In the example he gives, one of Ceoil's and Modernist's pages as it happens, he shows that the high ratio shows they are content contributors vs. flitters for lack of a better word. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm as editcountitis-wrong as that blog is, but when I look at an RFA candidate, I don't look at their average, since I know that can be deceiving. I look at the articles they have the most edits to, and go see what they've done there. When a candidate comes up whose highest-ever-edited article shows just about nothing (relative to what we're used to in top content), I get suspicious and look closer. So, I think highest ever is more relevant than average. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that he selected admins because its a clearly defined manageable group. Doing "all editors" would be near impossible, I would think. I can't see what point the average has. Unless you focus on a few article to the exclusion of all others, and add content by tiny increments, the average is bound to be in single figures Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

<---------------- The figures should be correct. I am the author of that blog. The 'active admins' is as someone correctly defined above. I.e. 30 edits in the last month. This omits many admins, and of course omits non-admins. The purpose was to get a clearly defined population, to avoid selection bias. I didn't mention many specific names, as my blog is mostly read by non-Wikipedians. But for your benefit. the highest edit per page was Wehwalt (20.51) then Moni3 at 12.72, Tony the Marine (10.08) and a number of others. Non-admins or non-active ones were not discussed in this post but include Giano (13.19), RelHistBuff (12.43), Serendipodous (12.34) and many others. Not to forget Truthkeeper above at 14.75.

The purpose of that post was to discuss whether there is any meaning at all to the edit-per-page statistic. It's not necessarily meaningful, which is why I introduce the thought-experiment of 1,000 different editors making one edit to an article, and producing a featured article. Common sense suggests this is unrealistic or impossible, and the evidence bears it out. There is a very broad correlation between the number of edits per page and 'content contribution'. Typically those with e.p.p. under 2 are running bots, or making very mechanical and (if you like) 'low value' contributions. Those with counts over 4 are probably making some content contributions, those over 10 are almost entirely pure 'content contributors'.

The reason why 'flitters' cannot contribute 'content' is actually very difficult. Why can't I do to many different articles what a 'content contributor' is doing to a single article? I suspect the reason is this. A 'flitter' is likely to be coming to an article with the point of view of correcting a single type of mistake. For example, adding links to the Estonian Wikipedia (my example in the post), or correcting 'teh' to 'the' or something like that. There will be a limited number of such corrections necessary in any article - in the case of the Estonian Wikipedia, max of one - so the flitter will move on. Also, creating brilliant and arresting and entertaining prose is a matter of understanding the whole thread of the article. Summarising in the right way, getting the right order, getting out reference works and sourcing the right material. This takes hours of work and requires immersion in the article. Hence the creation of 'real value' means many many edits to the same article. That's my explanation. There is no logical reason why many flitters working independently and randomly could not create featured articles. The fact is that they don't.

You are probably asking why that number appears so low. An editor writing a whole article will make typically hundreds of edits to that article. Answer, the figure is contaminated by edits to talk pages, 'gnome' work on other articles and so on.

This is part of a broader piece of work, to go into a book, to answer the question whether 'crowdsourcing' works. All the evidence so far suggests that it does not. Most of the articles I have surveyed have a small number of contributors, who make a significant portion of the edits. The rest are small numbers of edits made by random contributors, some of which are 'gnome' work, the rest of which are just vandalism or noise.

The other significant finding is that the majority of admins contribute 'low value' content. By 'low value', I mean as defined in the article, namely mechanical and repetitive work that in the real world would be poorly paid or mechanised, because it is easily learned.

I hope that clarifies the point of the post.

I will be doing further work on 'content creators' but the problem is to find a sample without selection bias. I started by taking the list of featured articles then taking the top 3 contributors then looking at their e.p.p. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this is most helpful info. Could you retroactively add the word "average" to your blog post, since that is what led to my original confusion? And if your future analysis could look into those admins who are also at the top of WP:WBFAN, and active WBFANers compared to active admins in general, it might be interesting. Some disclaimers about the limits of editcountitis would also be good-- my edit count means very little because of the way I edit, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done so, in italics :) I realise the blunt nature of such statistics, but it is necessary in order to get an entirely objective measure of whether "content creators" even exist. For example, an editor with a low e.p.p. average might complain that their contributions are also valuable content. And so they are, but as I point out, their relatively mechanical nature means that they would command a low price in an efficient labour market. And the nature of an average means that content contributors who also make significant mechanical edits will be discriminated against. I found a few examples today. I like your idea of highest edits per page, but the problem is to mechanically locate which article it was, given the problems of accessing the database. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I will also look at WP:WBFAN, thanks. The point of the current post was to look at how admins edit. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You might also look at the amount of text added overall, as a way of excluding typo corrections. The trouble is needing to find a way to exclude reversions of blankings. Also, it is theoretically possible (but very difficult) to create a featured article with one edit, or more realistically to add to an article in large chunks. Those working from sandboxes in their userspace sometimes do this, so the number of edits related to a single article is obscured somewhat when that happens (though the amount of content added will still be the same, regardless of whether it is added in bits or all at once). Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Our stats are certainly very bad at distinguishing between content addition and other stuff. In a short article someone who adds an infobox may add more bytes and take more edits that are in all the text. Citatuion templates are another thing that screws up the stats. I'm not sure why you conclude that crowdsourcing doesn't work - it doesn't have to work at the level of the individual article, though it often does. Many short articles are greatly improved by a single edit from someone who knows the subject area well - sometimes ISPs, and I don't see why these should be called "random". Obviously the content creation "crowd" is smaller than it has been, & that's a concern. Btw it's 30 edits in the last 2 months to be "active". Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is adding an infobox, or adding a link to the Estonian Wikipedia not adding 'content'? The point of the blog post, which is one of a series of such posts, was to address the issue of what 'content' means in the first place. I mean, I agree with you, but you have to be careful about what you mean by 'content' here. On 'crowdsourcing', I am thinking about a suitable definition of it, and an objective means of establishing whether articles have been crowdsourced or not. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well by content I mean article text, and images, which may be a lazy usage but is a common one. You will find it very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions on this from the stats available, as the many previous academic efforts demonstrate. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would adding a template or a link not be 'content'? We need clear criteria for what counts as content. The only two I can think of are (a) Wikipedia's own measure, which is the Featured article and (b) how (un) mechanical the task is. Saying 'text' is quite arbitrary. Which academic efforts are these? Would be grateful for references. I think the broad conclusions are meaningful in that there is a clear correlation between the e.p.p. average taken from various sample populations, and 'content' as defined by various measures. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Academic studies about Wikipedia is a starting point. A useful section in a paper this summer summarized over 1,300 papers & books, but I have lost that reference. I don't see how Featured articles define what is content. Obviously everything in articlespace, and perhaps beyond, is content at one level, but internal discussions tend to mean article text by "content". Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've moved discussion to your talk page. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but misleading. My avg edits per page is 3.94. My top 10 edited articles range from 145 to 375 edits; 6 FAs and a GA represented there. I think the stat includes ALL edits, not just mainspace, which skews mine a lot. Karanacs (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The skew in cases like yours I think is in the rather brutal distinction between article space and other. For instance, GA reviews always take place in article talk, but FA reviews are "hidden away" so far as the analysis is concerned. Therefore your epp is dragged down by your FAC contributions. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who has ever done RC patrol will have a large number of pages with one or two revisions, which will make the edits/page metric rather inaccurate for them. Even if you have worked on an article for a long time, and made hundreds of revisions on it, it will be lost in hundreds (thousands?) of pages where all you did was click [rollback]. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but the underlying point is in the balance of your work. How many RC patrollers have ever done more than one or two edits to an article? Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the usual problem with trying to distill a complex phenomenon like a human editor's editing behavior into one number; I was slightly miffed to see my "magic ratio" was only 2.36, I suppose because I've done a lot of typo work with AWB historically. Nevertheless I am not above sometimes doing many edits to one article as part of an improvement drive, like my recent 100+ to Battle of Vukovar. An average over a large number doesn't capture that though. Maybe something like what Sandy originally thought this was would be more interesting; the most edits an editor has made to an article, though this would only be really interesting in comparison with the current quality of the article. This might reflect badly on me too though; the last time I looked my most edited article was Celtic F.C., which is not one I am particularly proud of. I suppose, ultimately, an editor here is more than just a number. Long may this remain true. --John (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WT:V

Hi, SandyGeorgia. The reason for this post is that I'm wondering whether you've fully understood the RFC that you opposed earlier today. When you say that the proposed change resembles WP:ATT, do you understand that both the editors you named as proponents of WP:ATT (SlimVirgin and Slrubenstein) are very vocal opponents of what the RFC is trying to accomplish? Their involvement has been purely to try to stop it from going through.—S Marshall T/C 23:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm unaware of past Wikipedia policy disputes in this matter, but your long post there [3] may be interpreted as an attack or at least as a continuation of a past dispute in the wrong forum. Giving examples of policy misuse (one way or the other) is fine and I have added a few myself, but you should probably avoid naming specific editors for wrongdoings in the policy page itself. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, ASCIIn2Bme, but I'm afraid we're way past that. The evidence of that user's misconduct is quite strong enough to justify my repeated naming of her in the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And on the substantive matter itself, I am puzzled why you think that removing "not truth" will allow attributed POV easier. My impression is that the opposite will happen, i.e. minority POVs will be harder to include. As I said elsewhere on that page [using my previous user name "Have mörser, will travel"], "NPOV, not 'truth'" would be a much better slogan for Wikipedia than "verifiability, not truth", because some points of view are given zero WP:WEIGHT in certain contexts, and so are excluded even if verifiable. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Too many edit conflicts-- the problem is less in the removal of "not truth" than in the fine print in the final sentence about attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• The proposed change does not remove "not truth". I understand why you thought it did, because a great deal of misinformation has been spread.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, S Marshall, too many edit conflicts on my page to get to you quickly, and the WP:V page is lengthy, so I may have missed something, but I don't think so. The text proposed is at the top of page; the concern is in the final sentence. I note that the possibility of POVing articles to include false info is added in the last sentence of the proposed new text-- that is, it would allow us to add false info if we attribute it, and shifts the burden of sourcing to article talk from the reliable sources noticeboard. This is precisely what the old defeated WP:ATT tried to accomplish-- it weakened our sourcing policies. I am just now reading this thread, after finishing my post to the RFC. If I've gotten something wrong, pls direct me to it-- it appear that the text of the RFC changed several times, was closed and reopened, and a whole mess, so ... Yes, I think we're past the point of discussion about continuing disputes, considering the matter came to my attention via the ANI and Sarek's talk page, when I heard he had resigned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It surely removes it from (undue) prominence, i.e. from the lead. The explanatory section/paragraph addition on how to handle trivial errors in otherwise reliable sources could use some improvements, but like I said in the RfC: I chose the lesser evil. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I found my error (thanks S Marshall); ASCII, I don't know what you're arguing, but I've more urgently got to go strike and fix this mistake first. Later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 The intention was not to weaken our sourcing policies, but to try to describe how to deal with potentially untrue information. From the very lengthy discussions during the working group, I can be sure that what Blueboar was trying to say is:- "The moon landings never took place" = unacceptable in any article, but "Mr Smith denies that the moon landings ever took place" = may be acceptable depending on the article (specifically unacceptable in Apollo program, but tolerable in Moon landing conspiracy theories). If that were clarified, would you consider revising your !vote?—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for calling my error to my attention, S Marshall, but I've got to go fix this other places. The example I gave of why that wording doesn't work still holds-- we shouldn't open the door to including false info by attributing it. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) If I got this right, Sandy is bothered by "Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information." I also think that's pretty silly, and I'd rather have the article fixed rather than attribute clearly wrong info. Relevant examples were discussed in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 52. Unfortunately those have been archived already while the RfC is still ongoing. But that sentence is a lesser evil in my view than having "not truth" in the lead. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is a weak paraphrase of the NPOV policy, namely Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#A_simple_formulation. I suspect it was written to support the paradoxical notion of "verifiability, not truth". Another user in the discussion describes this as "NPOV, not truth", which is more accurate. The problem that we're dealing with here is that someone at sometime in the near past decided to make the "verifiability" policy separate from the guideline on "reliable sources". Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. I've now redacted and apologized, think I got it all, and trying to post while trick or treaters are ringing my doorbell was A Very Bad Idea. Anyway, if we can resume this conversation at another time, the example that concerns me was explained there (Female genital manipulation, info attributed to an advocate, likely false). We shouldn't include false info by attributing it, when that data is noticeably not included in reliable medical sources, and we shouldn't shift the burden to article talk from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, since article talk is often burdened by ownership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, there's another interesting example that I found linked from somewhere on WT:V (I think; can't find from where owing to massive TLDR there) even though it's somewhat TLDR itself: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 100#Using sources which one hasn't actually read. In a nutshell: someone quoted a contraction of "GDP per capita" as GDP from an abstract and insisted that per WP:V it must be written in Wikipedia that way, even though the context made it clear without reading the paper that it was per capita. And, of course, when someone did read the rather obscure paper, it was talking about GDP per capita. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Goodness me, that FGM article is a rather distressing thing to read. I had intended to track down the diffs you refer to, but I'm afraid I decided to stop reading it for the sake of my personal equilibrium instead. Could we discuss a different example?—S Marshall T/C 00:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• That troubles me, too-- the medical articles on the topic treat it with cultural sensitivity and are not at all hard to read. I think we've got some attitude coming through that I just don't see in the medical journal literature, and I think that's what makes it hard to read. It's a cultural issue as well as a medical issue as well as a human rights issue, and presenting it as only one of those three is POV. Imagine if we treated our circumcision article, hence the Jewish religion, like this one? Or imagine if we had an article on divorce and the Catholic Church and what LatinAmerican women endure in marriage because of their cultural and religious beliefs, and presented it as if they were all barbarians because their religion encourages them to stay married to whore-mongerers, since some are convinced they'll rot in hell if they divorce? We have to have some cultural sensitivity, just as we have to treat the medical issue with sensitivity-- that article does not do that, it uses the advocacy sources for sensationalism, and does not reflect the same tone as seen in the medical articles treating the subject. It is an issue that many physicians in the US will encounter. The advocate claims 10% of women are dying from this: I haven't found a medical source that backs that up. It looks like sensationalism to hype the human rights aspect, at the expense of medical accuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I think the human rights aspect of FGM is a pretty big deal. I'm not a squeamish man; I've spent too many years working in Children's Services to be easily upset by horror stories. But to my uninformed eyes, comparing FGM with circumcision is like treating decapitation as a kind of serious haircut. A circumcised male experiences little pain and remains a functional male afterwards. You're probably right that the article could be toned down, but Wikipedia isn't pretending to be a medical textbook, and a strongly-worded disquisition on the human rights aspect seems appropriate to me. All the best—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• There are different degrees of FGM, and I always wonder why people think lopping off a newborn boy's tallywacker isn't painful ... anyway, I don't have one, so what do I know ... but we don't need to be a medical textbook, but we should be treating the article from all aspects to avoid POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• When you say "we should be treating the article from all aspects to avoid POV", I only partly agree. I don't think that NPOV is achieved by averaging out all the POVs, and I think that there are many times when it's appropriate to disregard a POV entirely. (For example, I think it's right that our article on evolution doesn't mention baraminology.) In the case of FGM, the POVs I feel it would be appropriate to examine are the historical, medical and legal ones. I'm conscious that there's a religio-cultural aspect to it as well, but I would be anxious to avoid giving that much weight. For example, I believe there's a somewhat disputed hadith about it (link), but I certainly wouldn't want FGM to be seen as a muslim practice!

  Going back to the point with WT:V, Blueboar's proposal deals with this kind of thing by saying that potentially untrue things should be rephrased as statements of opinion. So for example, any mention of Islam in connection with FGM should not read "There is a disputed hadith about it (cite)", but use actual in-text attribution ("according to source x, there is a hadith about it (cite)".—S Marshall T/C 01:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that NPOV is achieved by averaging out all the POVs ... That's not what I'm saying. In the case of FGM, the POVs I feel it would be appropriate to examine are the historical, medical and legal ones. I'm conscious that there's a religio-cultural aspect to it as well, but I would be anxious to avoid giving that much weight. But that's not our choice-- we report what reliable sources cover, and the secondary peer-reviewed medical sources cover all of these aspects of the issue, since physicians will need to know all of these aspects in order to deal with their female patients with FGM with cultural sensitivity. And, we don't get to leave out aspects covered by the highest quality, peer-reviewed medical sources, while advancing medical data that has not been peer-reviewed and comes from a known advocate (who doesn't even provide a source for her data, that doesn't even pass the duck test-- do you really think 10% of women in Africa are dying from this?). Undue. POV.

  FGM says that a known advocate against FGM says that 10% of women die from it. That is likely false-- it's not repeated in any medical source that I can find. Adding false info to an article-- and justifying it via attribution to someone with a known position to advance-- is undue and POV. That's what that Blueboar's proposed text gives us. We don't need to hype to inform our readers of the problems with FGM; we can let the highest quality sources speak for themselves, as they do a very good job of doing that-- presenting the issues with cultural sensitivity and medical accuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, well that's much closer to what I think. I had the wrong impression there. I should have explained that I do not believe the 10% mortality figure and I certainly would not include it. This is what Blueboar's trying to say with his "an initial threshold for inclusion"—he's trying to say that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. (Personally my preferred phrasing is "A criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" and to omit "not truth" entirely, but I was obliged to accept compromise on that or we'd never have got as far as RFC.)

  The only part of your post that I disagree with is when you say, "we don't get to leave out aspects covered by the highest quality...sources", and my position is that we can and should make a judgment about that. I think that the process of writing an encyclopaedia article is analysing the sources, weighing them, and summarising them. Part of "summarising" is deciding what we can leave out.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Gee, I hadn't seen this long thread here, but wanted to let you know that I just left you a reply at WT:V: [4]. In my view, the problem you are concerned about is far more likely to occur with the present policy wording than with the new compromise wording that Blueboar proposed (in part to address concerns very much like yours). (Note that I edit-conflicted with your most recent edit over there, so I hadn't read that when I clicked Save.) Cheers, --JN466 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Considering the momental gaffe I made there, I really think I should bow out of the discussion altogether, no? I hope I've fixed/clarified with my final post? I'm not opposed to removing "not truth", I am opposed to adding false data via attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I think you've clarified your post admirably.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

:) --JN466 20:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're smiling about this, nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

But maybe you should work on the paraphrasing, or quote it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done some work on the close paraphrasing. Better? --JN466 00:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Very good! If it were up to me, I might go a step further, though -- the Monroh "says" is a good case for the use of the word "claims" instead. There are times when "claims" is the right word-- in this case, specifically since Monroh cites no source in her book and more reliable sources do not support that data. At any rate, we are much improved over what was there. There's a lot more of same in the article (possibly inaccurate medical data attributed to laysource). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for a comment?

Hey there! I hope you are having a great day, I was wondering if you check an article I am hoping to bring at WP:FAC in the near future. It recently received a peer review but I was told that the outstanding issues is the fancrut in it. I have a hard time with identifying fancrut in articles (esp Selena-related ones) so I decided to ask someone who is familiar with the process at WP:FAC to help me identify the issues so I can fix them. I hope you can help, please forgive me if you are very busy with active FACs and if you are busy in RL. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sandy....

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Persoonia lanceolata/archive1 has three supports and although an image review has not been done it'll be pretty straightforward, are you ok if I fling up another short FAC one now? Promise to review a few ;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Kthx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Klazomania References

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

Wafflephile (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Malleus v Kaldari

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination) is what you're looking for. Black Kite (t) 19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Providing examples of fixed paraphrasing

I've just been reading the latest round of examples you gave at WT:DYK, and while I still don't particularly agree with the approach you are taking there, there is a point that I would really like to see cleared up, which is the matter of actually providing examples of how to fix such close paraphrasing. It is not always easy to do such rewriting (you really need to have the entire article and its sources in front of you to do that), but it would be helpful to do a rewrite for at least one example to give people an idea of where you personally draw the line. To take the three examples you raised recently (link to fixed page version):

• Article: Church of St Michael, Alnham
• Article text: The font, dated 1664, is a small bowl, octagonal in shape with a moulded profile in the Gothic tradition,
• Source text: Dated 1664, octagonal, small bowl with a moulded profile, still meant to be in the Gothic tradition
• Rewrite: The 17th-century font dates from 1664 and takes the shape of a small octagonal bowl with a profile moulded in the Gothic tradition.

The information communicated here is '1664', 'small', bowl', 'octagonal', 'moulded profile' and 'Gothic tradition'. Not sure what "still meant" refers to (can't see original source). In any case, it is very difficult to communicate that information without using those words in some form or fashion similar to the original text, so any rewriting will be minimal here by the nature of the density of information contained in the source text (though one option is to spread the information out over a longer paragraph). If there are other ways to write this, it would be really helpful to have that demonstrated. If you can't rewrite this yourself, then that might indicate that this is not really the problem you think it is (and if you can, then it would really help show others what is needed).

• Article: Church of St Michael, Alnham
• Article text: Building features include a Bell-Cot, a lower chancel with a porch on the south side, and a 3-bay arcade on the north side.
• Source text: Nave with Bell-cot, lower chancel, transepts, and S porch. A N aisle was pulled down, but the three-bay arcade can still be seen on the north side
• Rewrite: The building's Pevsner guide lists its features, which include a bell-Cot, a lower chancel with a porch on the south side, and a 3-bay arcade on the north side.

This is a descriptive list of building features. By its very nature you are not going to be able to extensively rewrite a list like this, and the same words will be repeated regardless of how much you try to paraphrase the source, though my approach above seeks to surmount this by making clear within the text where the information is from. Regardless of that, this was, IMO, a poor example of duplicated text to raise at WT:DYK. In case it helps, Nikolaus Pevsner was the original author of the guides, and though new generations of authors doing the updates are also listed as authors, the guides are generally referred to with that name - see Pevsner Architectural Guides.

• Article: Ratih Hardjono
• Article text: Furthermore, she was also unpopular with clerics within the Nahdlatul Ulama, a Muslim organisation which is the President's political power base, because the clerics disputed her claims that an eminent 19th century Muslim guru was her ancestor.
• Source text: She also stirred opposition inside the Muslim organisation Nahdlatul Ulama, which is the President's political powerbase, where clerics disputed her claims that she was descended from an eminent 19th-century Muslim' holy man ...
• Rewrite: The Australian Financial Review reported that Hardjono's claims of descent from a 19th-century kyai were disputed by clerics from Nahdlatul Ulama, a Muslim organisation described as "the President's political powerbase".

This, IMO, is a valid catch. The sentence structure here is copied (with minimal ordering changes) and can (and should) be rephrased with in-text attribution and quotes for the glossing of Nahdlatul Ulama. Some rewording has already taken place here, but above is what I would have done (presuming that Crisco's use of 'kyai' is correct). Talking of Crisco's rephrasing, IMO, when rewording takes place after criticism like that you made, it is critical that you either approve or reject the new wording, otherwise any point of the initial criticism is lost and no closure is achieved.

I realise it is not reasonable to expect such close discussion for every example raised, but sometimes such discussion is needed, otherwise no-one really moves forward in any way. Do you think it is reasonable for those raising such concerns to provide at least one example of a rewrite at the same time, similar to how I've tried to do it above? I'm posting this here, rather than over at WT:DYK, but will post a link there stating that I've posted this here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)