From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Need edit to tomorrow's TFA summary (William de St Calais)[edit]

Hello, Raul. Can you add "and Bishop of Durham". to the end of the first sentence of the TFA summary? Without it, the second sentence is confusing. Thanks. I've left a message at Dabomb87's talk and sent an email, but I don't see the change yet. --Kenatipo speak! 19:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Done (and a few other tweaks whilst I was there). BencherliteTalk 19:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference in Roger Craig article[edit]

Hi. I tried to add descriptive information to the bare-URL reference to , but I couldn't access that page or . Did you intend to refer to ? --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That link was added by Gwern, not me. And Gwern's not at fault, because that was the correct URL, until they changed it to this. Raul654 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, I should be getting a freely licensed pic of Rog in the very near future. Raul654 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

TFA alert![edit]

We have no TFA for the 26th at the moment. Edokter (talk) — 00:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In the emergency, I inserted the nonspecific date article. I will not presently remove that from the requests page for the time being, as it may be you or Dabomb will move in quickly and select another article. No harm done. There is probably cleanup work to implement the standard processes, I do not know how to do that, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I updated the {{ArticleHistory}} template for the emergency article (The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker) and updated WP:FA's listing of articles that have been on the Main Page to reflect that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The other (standard) thing that is done is to update the last three that appeared on the next TFAs, which we don't have yet. I'm worried that DaBomb87 hasn't edited, and it's a US holiday, so unless we hear from Raul in the next 12 hours, we need a Nov 27 TFA. Wehwalt, I don't see one at TFA/R-- should we post to the talk page there to solicit one, or does someone have a blurb in their backpocket? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, before Wehwalt edit-conflicted me, I was in the midst of putting up Marcus Trescothick. (I just randomly chose an article from WP:FA and that came up.) It hasn't been featured on the Main Page yet, and the article has been featured for awhile. I intentionally passed over the non-specific date one because I thought the quality of the blurb and the article were actually quite poor, and it seemed like people were gunning for another date. Anyway, in case Raul, et al, doesn't come back, we could use that one for tomorrow. I'll even put together a blurb for the meantime. -- tariqabjotu 00:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, I see we had an athlete up fairly recently. So, that may not be a good choice. We have 23 hours to decide. -- tariqabjotu 00:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest what we do is select three eligible FAs, blurb them and put them on a special page (Raul or Dabomb, on return, can delete or change them). And find someone to set a bot to select the top one of them if the TFA hasn't been assigned by 0000.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The bot is for the future, as a backup plan to director and delegate.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's give it another 12 hours before we get too worried-- Raul or Dabomb may surface. Wehwalt's plan to have three in sandbox wouldn't hurt any, if anyone feels up to that (we sure don't want me writing blurbs with my stinky prose, but I can help preview whatever you choose to be sure they're in shape.) Since Zelda is up, I doubt that either of them will take it down, so perhaps Wehwalt will want to remove it at WP:TFA/R non-specific so that someone will bring forward something else soonish. No need to panic yet, and I hope all is well with Dabomb87, since it's unlike him to miss. Thanks to everyone who helped-- it was pretty fast, but I'm going to go back to my old practice of watchisting the next open TFA to be sure this doesn't happen again-- I used to do that regularly, but stopped when Dabomb87 was appointed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To be honest, I think there should just be some sort of notice or warning when TFA or POTD for the following day is missing. This may be the first time it has happened for TFA, but it seems to happen all the time for POTD (especially with the Main Page version not being created). It takes less than half an hour or an hour to fix this issue. If a notification had just been placed in a prominent place (e.g. in the WP:ERRORS section of Talk:Main Page), this would have been averted. -- tariqabjotu 00:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but the thing is, Raul has told us in the past not to panic, sometimes he assigns at the last moment. If we have emergency blurbs, we don't have to worry. I was looking at Mary Anning.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
We never needed a bot or a system, because it's never happened before. I was a manual backup, and I stopped following with Dabomb's appointment. It's always good to have an emergency blurb, but I wouldn't want to formalize that notion, because that article is then effectively taken out of the running for TFA (it's already taken). Let's not panic-- we still need to hear from Raul. But if you want to write a blurb for whatever, Wehwalt, that's probably cool (I haven't looked at the aricle you mention, rather imagine it's fine though!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
About a year and a half old, the only biology biography not yet run. Well, we can swap out the articles in the reserve bank every few months. Maybe the reward for having the article sit there is to have it run at the end of its time, it does not get returned to ranks. We are only human, Sandy, and you could be skiing and me traveling or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Me ski? Not enough! So, do you want to work that one up, put it here in case Raul surfaces, or more, in case he doesn't surface? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Oopsie. I used to always watch, but with the app't of DaBomb87, I stopped worrying, so I'm glad you got it, Wehwalt, but we were 22 minutes late. No panic, but let's hear what happened? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Worry wart here, Dabomb87 hasn't edited since the 22nd-- I hope all is well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
No big deal, the TFA sometimes takes a few minutes to switch over sometimes, I doubt the world will notice. Well, Wikipedia Review, but that can't be helped. It is a cost, as you pointed out Sandy, of working in the open.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's just one of those things. And hey, this leaves slightly less time for people to complain that the featured article is about an "unimportant" video game. That's a silver lining, right?
I, too, hope that Dabomb87 is okay. —David Levy 01:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Ditto me, but I'm sure it is just too much turkey and that they'll be looking at each other like two volleyball players after the ball goes by between them ;) --Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I will work up an Anning blurb. If Raul and/or Dabomb comes back, they'll have a ready made blurb they can use when they want. There are no TFA requests until December 1.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I have started a page here. I will post to main page talk and ask for opinions on keeping this as emergency TFA. I will look for one or two more, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Get Jenna Jameson ready and see if that prompts an emergency return. Yomanganitalk 01:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Y'know, I wish I had thought of that! Unfortunately, I think there are those who would take a dim view of it, even though it's a hell of a way of making sure this never happens again! :D --Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry y'all. Holiday + family emergency + lack of internet connection made for a perfect storm. Thanks for stepping in. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem, we are after all a community.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A Perfect Storm, eh, Dabomb? Face-wink.svg HurricaneFan25 02:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I was traveling for the Thanksgiving holiday and I didn't realize the queue was so short. Mea culpa. I see it's now scheduled out through the end of the month, so I'll deal with this more thoroughly once I fly home tomorrow night. Raul654 (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Dec 4 watch[edit]

Got it. Raul654 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Slowpoke :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & DC Meetup 26![edit]

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & Meetup - Who should come? You should. Really.
FINE ART EDIT-A-THON & DC MEETUP 26 is December 17! The Edit-a-Thon will cover fine art subjects from the Federal Art Project and the meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. You don't have to attend both to attend one (but we hope you do!) Click the link above and sign up & spread the word! See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Why hello there! CableModem^^ (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Bix Beiderbecke suggestion[edit]

Hi there, I've had to remove the image from the TFA blurb as it was non-free. I've left a suggestion at WP:ERRORS about adding a sound file instead. Yours, BencherliteTalk 00:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No dice - All the sound samples available are also copyrighted. Raul654 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, I posted just before heading to bed and hadn't checked that minor detail... (and I do know it wasn't you who put up the non-free image on the main page!) BencherliteTalk 18:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant)[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

TFA again empty[edit]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#Alert:_system_not_working.3F. Ta, Trafford09 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it. Raul654 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it, the other day.

Seems like it's a labour of love for you & others - kudos for all your efforts.

I've had the "tomorrow's FA" template in my user page for some time - I sometimes check the page for minor tweaks in the 24 hours prior to its main page release. Also, it looks nice on my page, I think, & may advertise it & perhaps attract others to give the page attention.

One thing, though - if I'm correct - do forgive me as I'm pretty new to TFA - is TFA only guaranteed to have content at 23:50 each day? If so, what merit is its slot on the Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article#Tomorrow's featured article page? If it's in red, there, I suppose it's some sort of alert, but apparently its useful lifetime is then limited to 10 minutes, which seems a bit odd - just 10 minutes' margin of error if you like.

I read something about some intended new bot. Would that change things and the timing?

My apols if I'm missing something, and thanks for your time. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's unusual for me to wait until the last minute to schedule an FA. (Not unheard of, but definitely not SOP). I'm trying to get better about that. So tomorrow's featured article should work most of the time. Raul654 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor[edit]

Raul, I haven't started through FAC yet, but there's a FAC that someone had hopes for on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 7, 2011 (will look as soon as I get a chance-- it had a rough start so may not be ready). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I reviewed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Arizona (BB-39)/archive1; perhaps you can look in tomorrow (Monday) to see how it looks for Dec 7 TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
All my concerns were addressed (quickly)-- 70th anniversary of Arizona sinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The article has now been promoted. Ucucha (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe[edit]

Raul, I don't see anything in the Reception sections that says O'Keefe's work is widely seen as deceptive. I see that someone named Gerson found something "deceptive", but that's not enough. Can you point me to something specific? Thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 03:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's just a few select quotes found in the reception sections:

  • Comparison of the raw video with the released one revealed editing that was characterized as "selective" and "deceptive" by Michael Gerson, opinion writer in the Washington Post, who wrote, "O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie."
  • Scott Baker of The Blaze wrote in March 2011 about the NPR videos that O'Keefe was "unethical" because he calls himself an "investigative journalist" but "uses editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented."[3]
  • The journalist Chris Rovzar of New York Magazine, in reporting on the NPR video, wrote that O'Keefe's videos are "edited in a highly misleading way."[79]
  • Time magazine noted that the video "transposed remarks from a different part of the meeting", was "manipulative" and "a partisan hit-job".[53]
  • "The evidence illustrates that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor." - California Attorney General Jerry Brown,

You removed the sentence claiming it in contentious, but in order to be contentious, there has to be disagreement. Where the validity of the O'Keefe videos is concerned, I have yet to see a single person argue that they are truthful. Raul654 (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Raul, here are some other things that Jerry Brown said at the end of his AG report [1] (see pp.23–24):


The video recordings evidence a serious and glaring deficit in management, governance and accountability within the ACORN organization. It is both disturbing and offensive that ACORN employees in different and far-flung offices were willing to engage in such conversations. ACORN’s conduct suggests an organizational ethos at odds with the norms of American society. Empowering and serving low- and moderate-income families cannot be squared with counseling and encouraging illegal activities. This is particularly so given that ACORN received government grant funds and the support of major charitable foundations and thousands of members.


... ACORN is, however, disorganized and its operations were far from transparent, leaving it vulnerable to allegations of illegal activity and misuse of funds. Many of the ACORN employees lacked appropriate training and ACORN did not comply with its own internal policies and procedures. Unfortunately for ACORN, ACORN itself had undermined public confidence in the organization before O’Keefe and Giles walked into the first ACORN office. By covering up Dale Rathke’s embezzlement, keeping him as an employee and going after board members who sought to

rectify the situation, ACORN’s management damaged the organization.
The reason that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President decided to defund ACORN is because O'Keefe's videos exposed that organization for what it was. The reason ACORN employees were fired (by ACORN) is because they did and said what the videos showed. Were the videos truthful enough for the Congress, the President, and ACORN itself to act? The answer is YES.
I would guess that just about all the videos we've seen during our lives have been "heavily" and "selectively" edited. It's the nature of the beast. "Deceptive"? Some journalists and others have come to that conclusion, but that doesn't translate into "O'Keefe's videos are widely seen to be deceptive". You can't list six or seven people who think they're deceptive and then make a generalization about "widely". To make that statement within Wikipedia's rules, you'd need Gallup poll results, especially since we're dealing with a BLP. --Kenatipo speak! 16:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
They're not merely saying he selectively edited them. They're using words like "Deceive", "lie", "mislead", "manipulate". In short, they are saying that he attempts to create a false impression in the minds of his viewers, which is the textbook definition of deception.
You can't list six or seven people who think they're deceptive and then make a generalization about "widely". - actually, that's precisely what I'm doing. And unless you can come up with a much better reason than "You need a gallup poll for that" - like someone who actually disagrees - I'm going to restore it. Raul654 (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The reason that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President decided to defund ACORN is because O'Keefe's videos exposed that organization for what it was. --Kenatipo
No. That is a common misperception, but doesn't square with the facts. The reason Congress (not the President) passed the Defund ACORN Act (which addresses funding of organizations indicted for illegal activities) was because the videos were made to misrepresent ACORN as conducting illegal activities. The passage of that bill by Congress (as well as the firing of an employee by ACORN) were done prior to serious investigation into the issue. Once the truth was revealed, the bill died and failed to pass into law; the one "fired" employee successfully sued for wrongful termination; and the one "suspended" employee was reinstated. There were no illegal activities, and the most egregious of video taped activities turned out to be distortions and misrepresentations of what really transpired. But damage had already been done.
No one is saying the large, 40+ year old organization didn't have its faults -- as evidenced by critical statements made by various agencies looking into the matter with any measure of thoroughness. But the issue here isn't ACORN; it's the video productions of O'Keefe. Quite simply, he deceived to achieve a desired goal. He took recorded conversations and situations, and through editing, omission and fabrication, created a false narrative. Similar to replacing certain qualifying statements made by the Attorney General with ellipsis in the transcript above, but to a far greater degree. What you left out was:

The edited O’Keefe videos released on the website portrayed ACORN as an organization infested with employees committing crimes. However, the impression of rampant illegal conduct created by the recordings at the various ACORN offices around the country is not supported by the evidence related to the videos in California. Our investigation revealed facts which were not reflected in the recordings. The San Diego employee’s answers were influenced by his limited English and intent to contact the police. The San Bernardino ACORN receptionist knew it to be a prank and made outrageous and false statements. O’Keefe stated he was out to make a point and to damage ACORN and therefore did not act as a journalist objectively reporting a story. The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O’Keefe and Giles. Each of the ACORN employees recorded in California was a low level employee whose job was to help the needy individuals who walked in the door seeking assistance. Giles and O’Keefe lied to engender compassion, but then edited their statements from the released videos. Would it have been best had each ACORN employee simply refused to deal with the couple and shown them the door when their story came out? Of course. ACORN was not the criminal enterprise described by O’Keefe in his “Chaos for Glory” statement – it did not receive billions in federal funds and did not control elections.

...but I'm sure O'Keefe would still be proud.  ;-) When you say, "You can't list six or seven people who think they're deceptive and then make a generalization", you seem to be misunderstanding. The fact is, every thorough investigation into O'Keefe's productions have found deception and misrepresentation, not just the ones Raul654 chose to list. And no, Gallup Polls aren't needed to support assertions of fact; reliable sources will suffice. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
@Raul654: I copied this discussion to the James O'Keefe talk page, where it continues. --Kenatipo speak! 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Object to running Mary Anning on the main page Dec. 16th[edit]

I am the person who has done the most edits to Mary Anning and I would like to be around to help patrol the article when it runs on the main page. I will not be available to do that around the 16th. Also I was really hoping to try and get this article run on the main page closer to or preferably on her birthday on May 21. I really think that if you are going to nominate articles that you are not involved with editing you should try and notify the principle editors of the article BEFORE it is scheduled to see if they have an objection. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(A) It would greatly increase my workload to ask permission from each article's editors before scheduling them for the main page, especially since objections are relatively rare. I'm not going to do it. If the article's editors don't want it to appear on the main page, it's on them to poke me after I schedule it and the bot posts a notice on the talk page. (B) The Mary Anning article was specifically requested for the main page. Raul654 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my comment above was cut and pasted from the one I left at TFA. I meant that criticism for whoever requested the article in the first place, since they seem to have done so without contacting anyone who actually worked on the article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It was a combination of things. I prepared three "emergency blurbs" some time ago to be used in case of there was no TFA ready. Casliber noticed they were all biographies, and wanted to add a bio article. I suggested he nominate whatever biography he removed, since we don't need more than three emergency blurbs. So he did, as we are trying to help Raul and Dabomb out by having some ready-made blurbs in the nonspecific slots. Notification, I fear, fell in the crack somewhere. Sincere regrets and also congratulations on a most interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, well sorry if my reaction seemed a little intemperate. I was just a little shocked when the notice appeared on my talk page right after I had just made travel arrangements that would have me en-route that day. When an article I have worked on extensively is going to be on the main page I like to be able to check it periodically throughout the day, since, as I am sure you are aware, being on the main page always produces a bunch of edits both good and bad. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Too true. I am not immune from getting irritated over such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

All righty, I've unscheduled it. Raul654 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I promise I will polish it a little and renominate it no later than the anniversary of her birthday in May. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Just <3 you! Zalgo (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe[edit]

You're not doing me any favors here. Think we could dial it back on the revtalk and edit warring? Aren't we pursuing any other avenues for resolving this? causa sui (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Saying that James O'Keefe's videos are deceptive falls on the surprise scale somewhere between 'the sky is blue' and 'water is wet'. Kentapo has adopted a throw-it-and-see-what sticks approach. So far, by my count, he's used at least 5 different reasons for removing that sentence:
  • it violates BLP (it doesn't)
  • that it's not sourced (it is, later in the article)
  • that he couldn't find such sources later in the article (I posted 5 on the talk page)
  • that such an assertion requires a gallup poll (ludicrous on its face)
  • that the sources of such claims are partisan (they aren't - Xenomorhic just posted 4 right-leaning sources that say the same thing)
Despite repeated requests, he has yet to provide as single source that asserts the sentence is wrong. As each of his excuses for removing the sentence gets knocked down, he invents new ones. I could go on but it basically boils down to the fact that he's got an agenda to push, and he's going to edit war until he gets his way. If he keeps it up, I'm going to open up a thread about him on ANI. Raul654 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
You might well be right. I really have no horse in that race. From my standpoint, I just want to put a stop to disruptive editing, whoever is doing it. With extremely rare exceptions, edit warring is not helpful no matter how right you are. As a personal suggestion, you might want to consider what behavior on your part will make who is wrong the most obvious to others. causa sui (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. You've been here a long time, so answer me this: How am I, or anyone, supposed to sanction Kentapio for edit warring now? I don't want to block you for edit warring, because of how disruptive that would be in the wider community, so I have to protect the page. It's a slimy feeling. So, we have one week to get this resolved while the page is protected. I think you have plenty of history to make whatever arguments you want to make to whoever you want to make them. I really, really hope you don't just wait for protection to expire (since I protected it on the "right" version) so you can go on reverting when someone restores the wrong version. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

How am I, or anyone, supposed to sanction Kentapio for edit warring now? - because his edit warring is, objectively, a lot worse than mine. I've reverted four times in five days; he's reverted *a lot* more than that (and probably vioalted the three revert rule). And he's doing it single-handedly against four other people. And he has yet to provide a single coherent argument for doing so, or even a single citation to back up his ludicrous claims.
I don't want to block you for edit warring - which you cannot, since I haven't violated the 3 revert rule or even come close. And I've been discussing it on the talk page in the mean time.
so I have to protect the page. - yes, that is what you are supposed to do.

More to the point, this is not one of those hard-to-sort-out situations. This is clearly one person with an agenda, edit warring against a bunch of other editors who (A) are right, and (B) have already provided citations to back up their editing. So I'm getting a little tired of your 'I don't have a horse in this race' approach which assumes that because edit warring is happening, both sides are in the wrong. That is clearly not the case here. Raul654 (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that 3RR is an electric fence, as we like to say, and not an entitlement. But since you interpreted my comment as a threat, I'll point out that I'm emphasizing the fact that since I don't want to block you (for various reasons, and completely independently of whether policy would justify it), your edit warring makes it difficult to justify blocking others for edit warring. If you'd simply walked away and stuck to the talk page it may have been unambiguous who the troublemakers were. Really, nothing you've written here even resembles a justification for your edit warring. And it couldn't. There can't possibly be a good reason for you to do what you're doing. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Adiantum viridimontanum[edit]

Hi Raul, would you mind keeping an eye on WP:Featured article candidates/Adiantum viridimontanum/archive1? I'm now unfortunately the only remaining active FAC delegate, and I already GA-reviewed that particular article. Thanks, Ucucha (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm back on, an exhaustingly long December with real life events, then uninformed editors jumped on Tourette syndrome, which was most discouraging, anyway, no need for you to watch that one, Raul, I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Flatlist at WP:FA[edit]

Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#List markup-- it may make some sense to you, but it is excruciatingly slow to load for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza[edit]

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

National Archives ExtravaSCANza.png

Sinz u mizzed it...[edit]

Ceiling cat.jpg Catmas!
To quote your cat:

This year, we haz decided to celibrate catmas instead. We'll play catmas music, don our catmas apparel, gather round to sing catmas carols, and wait for the jolly fat cat to bring us goodies. Meanwhile, ceiling cat will stare down from above watching everything that happens.)

HurricaneFan25 — 18:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Why thank you *grin* The wife and I did in fact celebrate Catmas in style this year. We put up Catmas decorations and exchanged catmas gifts. (She got a shirt from Icanhazcheeseburger and a cat puzzle) She made me cat waffles using the cat waffle iron I gave her last catmas. We did a cat puzzle. (One of her new catmas gifts for this year) We went to petco to play with their kitties, but unfortunately they were all out for adoption. Then we went to see a cat movie. It was the cattiest catmas ever :) Raul654 (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
/me grins HurricaneFan25 — 15:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC 2012 discussion[edit]

... following on issues that arose in November, statements that only articles with high page views should be eligible for FAC and TFA, we need leadership to promote "vital" articles to FA, etc., discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC 2012. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

God, that discussion has gotten so long I don't even know where to begin. Raul654 (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It's now clear from whence it's coming and what it's about, so I suggest that you go back and read the whole thing-- it started months ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with IP editor[edit]

Hi. I really need some administrator-to-administrator advice. Can you offer your opinions on Question 2 - 5 that I've posed at the top of this discussion?

Everyone else participating there is only focusing on Question 1, which I thought would be answered more quickly and straightforwardly, and is already being discussed at Talk:Kobe Bryant sexual assault case If you want to offer your insights on Question 1 as well, can you do so there? Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

2) I agree with the anon - once it's printed in the new york times, it's widely disseminated.
3) Again, I agree with the anon that her name should be in the article. Once it's printed in the new york times, the cat is out of the bag and there's no sense in pretending it is not.
4) Repeated accusations like that might be blockable. I haven't been following the anon's behavior closely enough to pass judgement on it.
5) Yes, in general others should not rewrite your comments, even if it is to add in-line rebuttals. If someone does that, you'd be best off reposting the original text above their comment (and making it clear that their post re-copied your comment in order to reply to it). Raul654 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Wehwalt for FA director"[edit]

A thorough read of the buildup and background (going back well more than six months) of the whole kerfuffle that started at FAC since Wehwalt's mentee TCO called for "elections" last November is revealing: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the Karanacs' situation. Raul, you wrote "the attacks of Sandy and the rest of the delegates", when it appears from the context that you meant "the attacks on Sandy and the rest of the delegates"-- big difference :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC delegate resignation[edit]

Per my email of an hour ago, I'm sorry for the notice, but will stay on to help if you need me, for up to 30 days. [3] I've not said it enough, but working as your delegate has been a pleasure, I admire what you created in FAC, and am encouraged that the RFC will most likely affirm the leadership of Wikipedia's brightest spot. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for FAC's loss, for everyone's loss here. Raul, I don't think it would be out of line at all if you want to let people know that, under the circumstances, Mike Christie's mention of some kind of Monday-night deadline on deciding some big question might be too soon; I'm sure you'll need some time to take all this in and make some decisions. - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate Sandy's comments, Raul. I greatly enjoyed my time as a delegate, and I wish circumstances would have made it easier for me to continue in the role. You've shepherded this into a great process, and I hope to see it continue to shine for many years. Karanacs (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


Hey Raul, I took the liberty of expanding the SP's coverage of the recent kerfuffle at FAC. Could you check to make sure I am not messing up any of the history or any of your views? I'd also love to include a quote or information as to how you look at a potential delegate for a vacancy (ie participation at FAC/FAR/TFA, consultation with delegates, and the like). Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not surprising considering the complex history behind the current FAC setup. Raul654 was voted into the role of FA director in 2004. - A little more backstory would be helpful. In December 2003 I suggested that featured articles should appear on the main page, which at that time was an all-text affair. (Featured articles themselves where something new, as the switch-over from the old brilliant prose had just been completed) In March 2003, my suggestion was put into practice, and I took it upon myself to do the jobs now associated with the FA director. The vote in August of 2004 was to confirm me officially in a job I had already been doing in unofficial fashion for half a year.
For filling vacancies, the usual way I do it is to ask the current delegates to suggest a few candidates (and maybe bounce a few ideas off of them). I pick someone from that short list, and ask that person privately if he/she is willing to do the job. If they don't want it, I go back to the short list and choose someone else. If they do, then I announce it and see what the community thinks. Raul654 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Most were centered on a single issue: whether the positions of featured article (FA) director and delegate should be elected, or if the delegates should continue to be appointed by current FA director Raul654. - it is worth mentioning now that this has already been RFC'd twice (here and here) and rejected both times with strong majorities opposing it. (The later RFC was unanimous except for the proposer) Raul654 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've included some of this in the article with a couple different dates based on the diffs I found. Would you take one last look to make sure I've gotten everything right (particularly this diff? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Since Wehwalt is editing, I figgered it would be OK for me tag a few instances of POV and factual errors; besides that I can't find any charitable explanation for this edit summary or version, I thought the sentence, "This is not surprising considering the complex history behind the current FAC setup", introduced by Crisco 1492, shows a curious POV. The history is simple and straightforward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


Would you be able to read "S&M (song)" and tell me if there is anything outstanding that would prevent the article from passing FAC pleased? CalvinWatch n' Learn 15:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Unable to post link on TFA.[edit]

Hi Raul, I work for the publishing house that publishes The Green Child, and I want to post the link to Wikipedia's main page where people can see that The Green Child is TFA. However, when I post the main page link on Facebook, it instead brings up an article on some battle that I imagine is tomorrow's TFA. Can this be fixed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msbarron82 (talkcontribs) 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Try linking to instead of Does that solve your problem? Raul654 (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, in a personal note, I'd be curious to know how the spike of attention affects the book's sales. Raul654 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems to have affected them quite extraordinarily. At the start of the day the book was ranked #1,004,576 in Amazon's bestsellers list on the US site, but by the end of the day it had shot up to #15,962. Similarly, on Amazon's UK site it jumped from #253,945 at the start of the day to end at #6,447. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice one! Next time, arrange some commission! Does anyone have any idea what volumes these represent? Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates‎[edit]

I think there are some who may interpret your protection of this page as unwise or inappropriate, for three reasons:

  • You are requesting a "cool off" from discussion, some of which has been highly critical of you; you are certainly involved, and so there may be a conflict of interest interpreted.
  • This may imply your ownership of the page, something which has been contended.
  • Protection of talk pages is extremely rare.

I am not meaning I am personally critical of this particular action (like a lot of things tied to this whole issue, I am on the fence) but I thought you may appreciate my thoughts anyway. If you do not, then apologies for contacting you- I don't want to stir anything up. J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt suggested it, and he would be, under the circumstances, the person most likely to oppose the semi, so no, I'm not seeing that. It was a wise choice, and Raul only followed Wehwalt's suggestion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Technical point: It's not a semi protection, it's a full (only admins can edit). However, I agree that Wehwalt suggested it, and he's been one of the ones calling for elections the hardest, so I'd say this is a meeting of the minds on at least one point. Dana boomer (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As I say, I don't personally have an opinion. I just thought that Raul being the one pressing the button may not be interpreted as the best move. If others are happy, then I'm happy. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't take the decision to archive and protect lightly. Protecting a talk page is unusual, but I think the circumstances in this case justify it. I saw numerous people saying that the discussion was moving too fast, or the page was too long and should be archived. And though the thought of protecting it occurred to me while I was archiving it, I didn't do it until after it was first suggested by Wehwalt (one of the people leveling those criticisms and thus most likely to oppose it). Furthermore, that's why I archived the page in its entirety, rather than subjectively deciding what should stay and what should go, and why I explicitly said that Mike Christie should take over once the protection is finished. And lastly, seeing as how one of the main criticisms leveled against me has been that I use too light a touch and don't participate enough, I can hardly be criticized - at least not fairly - for giving those critics exactly what they asked for.

On a relate dnote, I made it full protection because I don't want anyone (except Mike) to edit it in the interrum. (And since Mike isn't an admin, he [User_talk:Mike_Christie#FA_discussion asked me] if I'd be willing to proxy for him and I agreed) Furthermore, since the current expiry is badly timed for him, I'm probably going to change it to whatever he says is convenient for him. (So it's probably going to be a little more than 24 hours) Raul654 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Raul654 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to any of that. And as is mentioned, I suggested it. Let's take a break.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
ARchiving is ok. but protecting a page, especially a talk page, and full protect, in which you're a central figure==total BS. and saying "I don't want anyone (except Mike) to edit it in the interrum" = who are you to decide that? Talk about INVOLVED admin actions! At a minimum you shouldn't have been the one to do that. And they wonder why people avoid FA.PumpkinSky talk 22:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The policy which you cite says that administrators "must never use [admin powers] to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved. So I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing how temporarily protecting the page - at Wehwalt's suggestion - and turning it over to Mike somehow gains me an advantage.
And to address your second question, "who am I to do that" -- I'm the featured article director, making an executive decision about a featured article-related page. It's part of the job. Raul654 (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Uh huh. No wonder so many people avoid FA and this dispute blew up. If you can't see what's wrong with this, the whole effort is pointless. PumpkinSky talk 22:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I took my own break, which was fun, and have read with one eye open the day's discussions. Or most of them. When the page returns, I have some suggestions:

  • We need to determine what we're actually trying to accomplish. I don't know anymore. I'm unclear if one of the first orders of business should be to figure out the primary dispute.
  • What kind of changes does the FAC community agree need to be discussed? Would it be possible to poll the FAC community to determine the consensus on actual problems? Can we first determine what they are? Elections seems like a solution to me, but the problem that it solves hasn't been determined. Unless the appointed roles of director and delegates are themselves the problem, but if that's the case, I don't see it. What detrimental effect does that have on the current system, article quality, article production, or anything else we've been involved in? That's hypothetical, to illustrate the basic confusion about what it is we're really arguing about.
  • The following issues are what I've seen as repeated themes that are points of confusion:
  • Director/delegate job description: does the FAC community need to agree on what this is/should be? If so, what should it be?
  • Director/delegate accountability: should the director/delegates be more accountable to the FAC community? In what ways? Reconfirmations or elections? Other ways?
  • Director/delegate communication: how often, where, in what format?
  • Recruiting writers and reviewers
  • I'm still assuming good faith for the most part that there is no great conspiracy to categorically destabilize the current system, although it is heading that way. However, there are participants in this discussion who 1. have no obvious reason to be there, 2. have no background knowledge on the basic functioning of the FA and FAC processes, what has been tried in the past, and what the community has already discussed at length, and 3. are using bombast, hyperbole, and other melodramatic language to make up for not having this knowledge. This is extremely disruptive to any discussion we're having to get at the root of the problems. Either we need a couple of uninvolved admins to referee this discussion, or the very involved admins currently in the discussion, including Wehwalt and myself, need to start removing comments that are unsubstantiated and mostly based in emotion (PumpkinSky's comments above are a good example), placing warnings on users' talk pages, and following up with temporary topic ban proposals at ANI. Diffs and evidence to prove a conspiracy of any kind should be taken seriously but in the proper venue, which WT:FAC is not. Accusations, despite their merit or lack thereof, are a distraction to the root of what it is we're trying to accomplish, which again, I'm no longer sure of.
Furthermore, any referees are going to have to sort out the actual issues presented by TCO and Ettrig, which are often served with misconceptions, misunderstandings, and an antagonistic and polemic tone. TCO and Ettrig have a tendency to focus on high-traffic articles at FA; the FA community needs to decide if this is an actual problem, and get creative to solve it if the community agrees it is. If not, it needs to stop being a distraction. We keep coming back to this and it splinters conversations about other problems. I am also considering the very large problem that TCO's and Ettrig's lack of knowledge about FAC is feeding their perceptions of what actually is problematic in this process.

So Mike Christie, or whoever....I'm really just confused about where we're going and what we're trying to accomplish. We're getting really pissed off at each other without making any progress to solve any problems. --Moni3 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to draft a re-opening section in a sandbox some time this evening. I think it's now settled that there's a consensus to have an RfC, and I see my task as formulating a coherent RfC that is as productive as possible. I think I'm going to have to refactor comments that go off-topic; I don't feel I will have authority to remove them, but I can move them to outside the discussion sections. I will think about what kind of exhortation to the community might lead to a less frantic discussion. One problem is that I have a full time job, and sleep at least six hours, and am out of the house part of the next two evenings, but I think that's not fatal. I'll post a note here when I'm done, and I hope there will be time for talk page comments before it's posted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to pipe in these are important to the FA project -
  1. A delegated editor or editors to check references and sources and style.
  2. A delegated editor or editors to check images.
  3. A delegated editor or editors to pass or fail and to archive nominated articles.
  4. A large number of able and willing editors to write and nominate feature worthy articles.
  5. A large number of able and willing editors to review nominated feature worthy articles.

In my opinion the project has been running reasonably well...Modernist (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Raul, I've posted a draft; could you post that to the FAC talk page at the time you remove the protection? As it turns out I now think I'm going to be out of the house Wednesday and Thursday evening, so I will only be intermittently available to help manage the discussion. Since I'm not online twenty-four hours a day, the page has to be able to survive without my oversight, so I don't think we should let that cause a delay. I would suggest posting the text from my draft at about 3 or 4 in the afternoon US eastern time; I'm usually at a computer by 5:30 to 6 and should have at least twenty or thirty minutes free then to make some initial responses, so perhaps I can help set (or reset) the tone then. I'll also have an hour or two late tomorrow evening.
Comments from anyone reading this are welcome on talk page of the draft. I plan to be very resistant to suggested changes simply because I am unable to advertise the draft widely, so I think it would be unfair to accept input from those who happen to read this. However, if someone convinces me I've made an error of some kind I'll change it as needed. I will remove from that talk page any substantive discussions (as opposed to comments about the draft); those should be saved for after the text is posted to WT:FAC.
To reply to Modernist and Moni3 above: regardless of what I might think about the points you make, I see my role as synthesizing something coherent from the input that's been given. For example, Moni, you ask what the community should do, if anything, about the way TCO and Ettrig are raising the issues they are interested in. I didn't see that as a key issue in the straw poll comments, so I don't think that can be included in the RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I would answer the questions on governance as primary. Let's have elections (or not).TCO (Reviews needed) 15:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of your preferences. I'm also well aware that the community has rejected them en mass. Twice. Raul654 (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I was commenting on Moni's comment because I don't want my words put in my mouth or views ascribed to me that are not mine. I won't respond again for the time out duration. (It feels like we are still debating things and not all from the change proponents, e.g. you and Moni are arguing positions.) You may have the last word.TCO (Reviews needed) 16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Username Change issue[edit]

Hello. Can you approve or deny my username change request. Thank you. ShareToGain (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I had noted several other Bureaucrats too but i don't want them noted. How can i revert their read pages so not note them. OnlineGamesExpert (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


Good call. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Having recently had my own "I agree with what you did but you shouldn't have done it" hassles, I sympathise. Colin°Talk 09:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
He should have recused and let someone else do it, if it really needed to be done. That he went ahead and did it proves many of the points of those calling for change. PumpkinSky talk 11:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Pumpkin: Don't you think I'm already aware of your views? That I disagree with them and support Raul's action is why I posted here. Why would repeating your views, to folk who disagree with them, help your argument? That's a rhetorical question btw. Just drop it. Colin°Talk 12:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
That he went ahead and did it proves many of the points of those calling for change - Your statement just proves just how incoherent those criticisms are, because I'm alternately described as a heavy-handed tyrant, or an absentee landlord who doesn't participate enough. But it's rather difficult for both of these to be true, and in some cases it's the same people leveling both criticisms. But who needs coherent ideas when you can just fling crap against the wall and see what sticks? Raul654 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hogwash Raul. You're not coherent here but I'm sure neither of us will change the other's mind. And Colin, I'll post wherever I want. Now let's all on our merry wiki way. PumpkinSky talk 23:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This is another attempt for me to try to find out where all this vitriol comes from, PumpkinSky. If you had tried to write 5 FAs and did not succeed, I could understand why you would call Raul incoherent, and want him removed from FAC. But you have no experience in FAs. Why are you engaging Raul? Is this carryover from another interaction that I missed? If not, I was going to ask what you're doing, but it occurs to me you may not know. Do you know what you are trying to accomplish? If so, what is it? --Moni3 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Parallel net force.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Parallel net force.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Haz talk 20:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


Raul, I put up some history for Mike at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership#History, but I'm sure there were other endorsements of your leadership that I can't locate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

TFA, TFP and SOPA[edit]

Hi Raul. It looks pretty likely that the RFC on protesting the Stop Online Privacy Act is going to close as some form of blackout, at least for the United States. The blackout would be a 24 hour one, beginning at 8AM EST (13:00 UTC) on January 18. Do you think that any changes should be made to TFA for that day and the following one, considering that the article and the main page are going to be inaccessible to a good portion or even all of our readers for about half of both days? NW (Talk) 21:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This applies just as well to TFP, I think, so I'm giving Howcheng a pointer towards here too. NW (Talk) 21:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd feel a bad about short-changing someone who wants an FA they worked hard on to appear on a day that wikipedia is inaccessible. It might be worthwhile to use the same article over both days (GMT) that the blackout will occur. Raul654 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This is exactly what I came here to suggest. That way, the article/picture will receive its full 24 hours on the main page. —David Levy 04:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Great minds drink a light (or something like that). I suggested the same thing on the Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 18, 2012. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
POTD is now scheduled for a repeat, and I didn't bother with updating OTD either. howcheng {chat} 06:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've implemented it. The article scheduled for Jan 18 (GMT) will repeat on the 19th. The one that was previously scheduled for the 19th has been bumped to the 20th. Raul654 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Would it make more sense just to put up some boilerplate text "No Featured article was selected due to site-wide blackout." At least for the archive version since I think we're going to be missing the email deadline. — Dispenser 00:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The blackout doesn't correspond to a particular date (UTC). The featured article will appear on the main page for five hours on the 18th and nineteen hours on the 19th (totaling the usual twenty-four hours, with each individual hour covered once). —David Levy 04:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Mauna Kea lead[edit]

Main page synopsis does not reflect article text: discussed here. Should be ok if the bit about "and viewplanes used in the traditional Hawaiian measurement of time" is removed as it's uncited. (What happened to the notification bot, anyhow? That was really handy). Iridia (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

TFA suggestion[edit]

I can't make the formal request yet because I don't know the specific dates, but I was wondering if you would consider putting either Conservation of slow lorises or Slow loris on TFA to coincide with the premier of a new documentary called "Jungle Gremlins of Java". (You can read more about it at Dr. Nekaris' loris research and conservation website.) The show will air on the 25th of January in the UK, and then on different dates for other countries. I'm not sure yet if it would be best to wait for the U.S. air date or aim the U.K. air date.

Most people don't realize it, but this documentary lies at the heart of a little-known war that broke out between YouTube, Wikipedia, and loris researchers early last year, when YouTube videos of pet slow lorises became viral at a time when a collaborative project I was heading up was writing these articles for conservation reasons. Because of the timing, YouTube users came to Wiki to learn more about slow lorises, and then immediately bounced back to YouTube to protest after learning about the illegal trade of these exotic animals. The press picked up on the controversy (sadly ignoring Wiki... and Wikimedia dropped the ball on it despite my attempts to tip them off as to what was going on), and Dr. Nekaris capitalized on it. Anyway, it's a big victory for loris conservation, and if Wiki could highlight the slow loris at a time when many thousands of people will be learning about them on Animal Planet, that would be ideal. Let me know if something like this is possible. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership[edit]

The RfC at Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership has gone live. If you look at the talk page, you will see that I edit conflicted with Mike as he was tidying things up there. What I said there was that I thought it would be reasonable for you to provide a statement of some sort at the RfC giving your position on the three items being discussed there, and specifically providing a statement on why you think you should be reconfirmed in the role (this provides those commenting there with your views, rather than the views of others). It might be a bit awkward now that the RfC has gone live (and it might take time for you to answer that question), but would you be willing to do that? If you feel it better to reply here rather than there (or on the talk page over there), I can link to what you say. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm willing to answer questions. Where my role as FA director is concerned*, I support the status quo. (Specifically, I support #1 and #2, and oppose #3). As for why I think I should be reconfirmed, I'll let my work speak for itself. If the community is happy with the job I've done, they should reconfirm me. I'm not saying the system is perfect, but I think I've done a reasonably good job setting up the various FA processes and - with the assistance of the delegates - maintaining them.
* - On a related note, I find it unfortunate the form the RFC ultimately took focused entirely on my leadership role, which I think is a red herring. A small, very vocal minority pushed for it, and effectively distracted us from what would (I think) have been a much more productive discussion the lack of reviewers and what the objectives for FA should be. Raul654 (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I know you posted at the RFC talk page to say that you replied here, but I don't think everyone who has commented at the RfC realised that. I'll post a diff on the RfC itself. One of my comments there did say that I had hoped you would go into more detail about the work you are saying should speak for itself, so in the absence of specific details I took the liberty of looking back through your contributions to see what that work was, and comparing it to the description of what the featured article director does (some of which is delegated). Apart from a couple of complaints about main page blurbs and scheduling (do you keep track of those complaints?) it all looked fine. I could just leave things there and enter my support, but following on from what you say above, and from what has been said at the RfC, I do still have a couple more questions, which I hope you'll feel free to answer:
  • (1) You say you've done a reasonably good job setting up and maintaining the various FA processes. I'd agree with that, but do you think the role should involve more than just maintaining the status quo? And if change or proactive action is needed, should that be instigated by the director/delegates or the entire community of editors active at FA, or a combination of both (and how would such combined action work in practice)?
  • (2) One of the points I raised was whether the delegates at FAC and FAR should have recent and in-depth experience of contributing to featured articles and reviewing featured article candidates. Since not many people have responded on that point, I'd like to ask you directly what your view is on that. The reason I'm asking this is because when trying to get an idea of the history and track record of the various delegates, I noticed that some (including you) have much less recent experience than might be expected (in my view). So that leads me to three questions:
  • (i) Is it necessary for the featured article director to be as experienced in writing and reviewing featured articles as the delegates?
  • (ii) Do you think you yourself have enough recent experience of delegate work to do that work yourself if needed?
  • (iii) Are the current or departing delegates better placed than you to assess who of those currently active in the FA processes may be best suited to be delegates?
  • (3) Once the RfC is closed, do you intend to make a statement of some kind responding to the points made there?
  • (4) What was the reason for delaying the announcement of new delegate(s) until after the RfC? Would you consider making the selection process more transparent?
That should be the last of my questions. Thanks again for being willing to answer them. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

0) Yes, I keep track of main page related comments/questions/requests/complaints and and act on them if i see them at the appropriate time (most of them are highly time sensitive and need to be acted upon within a day or two at most). With that said, though, I'm not about to wade into the 497th discussion on Talk:Main Page about why video games shouldn't be on the main page. It's not a productive use of my time.

1) Yes, being FA director involves more than keeping status quo. But I think it is a two-way street. The push for improving the FA process has to come both from the director and from the FA regulars.

2) Experience reviewing candidates is an absolute must for delegates. Experience contributing helps a lot, but strictly speaking is not a requirement. Or, to use an analogy, Bill Walsh never played in the NFL but he's still one of the all-time greastest coaches. 2i) Both the director and delegates need experience reviewing articles, and both benefit greatly from experience writing them. I'm not sure if one benefits from more experience than the others. 2ii) I have lots of experience writing and reviewing FAs - at one time I was one of the most productive FA writers on Wikipedia. Most of that is not recent, and the expectations have gone up, but neither the criteria nor the reviewing process have changed much. 2iii) Yes. Collectively, they pay much closer attention to the various users than I do.

3) Though I think I've already addressed all of the RFC's main points, there are a couple of side-issues I'd like to address once it is closed. Also, once it is closed, I intend to move on to more productive (hopefully less vitriolic) issues. I need to appoint replaceemnts for Sandy and Kara, and I'd like to open a discussion on some of the issues that came up on the WT:FAC discussion prior to the RFC (about improving the quantity and quality of FAC reviews.)

4) I delayed announcing the new delegates until after the RFC because that would have only added more drama to an already unpleasant situation. With Sandy promising to stay until February, it didn't seem especially necessary. Raul654 (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Raul, I've got a boatload of proposals and ideas I want to put forward, but it appears that anything coming from me is likely to be shot down, and it doesn't appear that a collaborative environment is about to spring upon us just yet. I also don't want to get crosswise with you, in terms of what things I might propose and you might propose-- so it occurs to me that perhaps I should work in my own userspace, elaborate my ideas there, and then you or someone else can bring forward anything useful from that. I may find time to start on that later today or tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I encourage and support you in doing so, Sandy. Editors might actually pay attention to your ideas... Geometry guy 01:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I plan to G guy, and appreciate the encouragement ... delay is, I'd like to organize my thoughts in a way that hopefully won't be too taxing for the already discussion weary, and since my prose tends to be listy, verbose and linear, I'd also like to work on ... ummmmm ... some inspirational wording. All that in an environment where anything coming from me is likely to attract criticism. Fun! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Fun indeed - but you'll also surely attract help, and helpers can find your userspace and chip in to improve the prose and raise that wording up to inspirational standard :) Geometry guy 01:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe not. Until/unless a collaborative spirit breaks out among the FA regulars, I don't need to deal with Carcharoth's veiled insinuations and misunderstandings ("veto" power indeed, what a strange interpretation of Raul's character he has). Let others do it. We need a newsletter, clerks (to deal with the day-to-day upkeep that bogs down delegates, also clerks to deal with "hospitality" and education of reviewers and nominators and dealing with disruption), a discusion of how to deal with the technical aspects of page layout since reviewers refuse to stop using FAC as peer review so a different structure is needed because FAC pages are becoming gynormous, and to discuss new page design of WP:FA as it approaches 4,000, we need to pull together all the bits and pieces of how FAC works and its history that are spread thoughout user spaces, Dispatches, FAS, etc, we need to revisit long-discounted possibility of a pre-review for reliable sources before moving into prose review since so many FACs are gynormous prose review pages before sourcing has even been looked at ... well, that's enough for me for now. I have lots more proposals, but let's see who does any work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll reply briefly below to the other post you made here, Sandy, but really this needs to be taken to either your talk page, or mine, or to the talk page of the RfC (ideally the latter). The reason I posted my initial questions here was because of what Moni said about whether people had bothered to approach Raul directly on his talk page. Discussions that branch off from that should really involve everyone following FA, not just those following Raul's user talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for those replies, Raul. You missed one: Would you consider making the selection process more transparent? What I mean by that is the community of those active at FA may wish to in addition to endorsing or objecting to anyone you chose, may also want to know whether you (and those who advise you) have vetoed or rejected anyone behind closed doors. I can understand why you might not want to make that public, but I do think that any non-public elements to the process should be explicitly detailed somewhere (along with other documentation - the description of your overall role should be written down somewhere more permanent, for example). The reason I asked question 4 was that the participation at the RfC of any new delegates that you announce may come under retrospective scrutiny (assuming they participated) - probably unfairly as the same would apply if you had announced before the RfC, but perceptions do matter. A few final points: while current and former delegates are very knowledgeable about what is needed, I hope you will listen to everyone who has ideas (including those who raised criticisms) and ensure the post-RfC discussion is not dominated by individuals or groups (many of the ideas mentioned at the RfC have been around in some form before); related to that, I hope that those who have turned out in impressive numbers to participate at the RfC will stay around and help out with what is needed in the coming weeks and months. I've never been the most active of reviewers (and have only really been doing that for a year), but I'll try and pitch in where I can, hopefully with more feedback this time round so I get some idea of how helpful my reviews are and where things can improve. Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
What I mean by that is the community of those active at FA may wish to in addition to endorsing or objecting to anyone you chose, may also want to know whether you (and those who advise you) have vetoed or rejected anyone behind closed doors. I can understand why you might not want to make that public - No, I would not ever make them public.
but I do think that any non-public elements to the process should be explicitly detailed somewhere (along with other documentation - the description of your overall role should be written down somewhere more permanent, for example) - I have mixed feelings about this. I'm reluctant to create another FA-related page because that's one more thing that has to be maintained, but some of the commnets during the discussion showed some people were confused or ignorant about the process and/or the position.
the participation at the RfC of any new delegates that you announce may come under retrospective scrutiny (assuming they participated) - probably unfairly as the same would apply if you had announced before the RfC, but perceptions do matter. - If someone tries to make a stink about it, I suspect the general reaction would be mostly yawning. This is not something I'm overly worried about.Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
A few final points: while current and former delegates are very knowledgeable about what is needed, I hope you will listen to everyone who has ideas (including those who raised criticisms) - I listen to the people who have good, practical ideas. In fact, I will say right here that I actually agree with the goals TCO described - increasing the percentage of featured articles and having them written on more important, less esoteric topics. Once the RFC is over, and assuming it ends the way it appears to be trending (with a very lopsided endorsement of me in the role of FA director as it now exists) my plan is to announce the appointments in relatively short order. Then, after everyone has a few weeks to catch their breath, I'd like to open a discussion on some of the issues that were brought up in the pre-RFC discussion, including particularly the lack of reviewers and ways to address the problem. And I'm perfectly willing to listen to ideas from anyone, regardless of what position they took in the RFC, assuming they are good ideas.
and ensure the post-RfC discussion is not dominated by individuals or groups - I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. I can steer the discussion to avenues I see as being useful, but as with all things Wikipedia-related, people choose how much or how little to participate. Raul654 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I see some most strange implications in Carcharoth's post (I'm hoping he'll cut down on his character count and "Say what he means and mean what he says"), but more specifically, if you eliminate individuals and groups, who's left? Aren't we all either individuals or groups? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
All I'm really saying here Sandy, is that I hope no-one, whether you, me, or anyone else, will make so many proposals that good ideas get lost in the process. I've made some suggestions, which others have agreed with, and I want to make sure those suggestions get adequate consideration. The same applies to your proposals and anyone else's proposals. What do you think is the best way to handle, discuss and consolidate the various proposals, ensuring all reasonable ideas get adequate scrutiny, while not taking up too much time in the process? As I said above, this might be better taken back to the RfC talk page or somewhere else more central than Raul's talk page. User talk pages are possibly the worst venue to carry out lengthy discussions. It is probably best if everyone follows the schedule suggested by Raul above: "after everyone has a few weeks to catch their breath, I'd like to open a discussion on some of the issues that were brought up in the pre-RFC discussion". I'd certainly like a bit of time to catch my breath. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I put a beginning list up here so that Raul can make those decisions-- the biggest problem now is that folks are certainly RFC weary, so getting any work out of anyone might be a challenge. But I don't think new proposals belong on the RFC, which was focused on leadership, not improvements. Slowly but surely-- there has been so much damage from partisan warfare, but I'm confident that Raul (in his usual style) will craft the best way forward, and with much less verbosity than is typical of both you and me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


I just wanted to say thanks for putting Sarah Trimmer on the main page on January 6. In a completely fortuitous turn of events, I had a job interview that day in which I was asked "so, how are you a public intellectual?" and I could turn to the main page of Wikiepdia and show them that article and its traffic. What could be better? Awadewit (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fantastic. Glad I could be of some service. Congratulations! I hope you got the job. Raul654 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Dred Scott.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dred Scott.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 04:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


Not sure if it was intentional or not, but it's nice to see Australian Cattle Dog as the TFA on Australia Day. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it was quite intentional... ;-) Bonza, mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It was purely a coincidence, but I'm glad to have been of service :) Raul654 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It was entirely intentional. That's why I nominated it for that day :) Iridia (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, was it a nominated one? I thought that was one of the ones I selected. In that case, good job. Raul654 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Typhoon Gay (1992)[edit]

Hey there. I noticed you made the aforementioned article the TFA on February 5th. However, I was considering nominating that for the April fools TFA (see here for how I was thinking the blurb would be). Would you advise against such an article for the April fools TFA? (particularly with such a blurb) Or, do you think that could be funny? I didn't know where to mention that as a request for April fools TFA, fwiw. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on this? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's a middling candidate to be the April Fools article - not terrible and not great. It could be the April Fools article if nothing better comes along. But I'll leave the decision whether or not to save it up to you. Raul654 (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I'd rather drop it. If not for April Fools, it'd be its 20th anniversary this December. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Chew Stoke TFA[edit]

Per the message on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2, 2012, delaying it a few days will not make any difference to me - as I will not have any time to work on this. NB during one of the FACs (I can't remember which one) a reviewer or delegate commented that although they supported FA status they wouldn't support it appearing on the front page as it is a tiny village with possibly limited interest - but I guess that is your decision.— Rod talk 15:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Over to you[edit]

All of that, for this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight - PumpkinSky, the guy who has been making all these personal attacks on me, is a sockpuppet of disgraced ex-arbitrator Rlevse? And he's guilty of adding tons of new copyvios? (In addition to Rlevse's old copyvios?) Oh, that's just peachy. Raul654 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm disgusted. Going away now. And exactly why did we have an RFC, by the way, when we had work to do????? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, now that he's been confirmed as a sockpuppet, I'll help break out the pitchforks. I've just about had it with him and the trouble he's caused. Raul654 (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, for the record, he accused me privately of being part of whatever/whomever it was that brought the original copyvio issue on his head (which is simply not true), so there's motive for going after me as well. It seems that we allowed a wholly "sour grapes" RFC to take up a month of our time (which doesn't mean I'm saying there weren't some legitimate differences or issues raised by legitimate editors). If nothing else, this raises a perfect example of why sour grapes is a concern at FAC, and why letting it be politicized is wrong. But too many were silent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thread opened. Raul654 (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This is really disappointing, I'd expected better of Rlevse than that. But at least the RfC is scheduled to close on Saturday, after which the first aid kit can come out to patch up some of the wounds. So far as blaming you for bringing that final copyright violation to light, well, that's simply bizarre. The way avoid such scrutiny is not to cut and paste stuff in the first place, and certainly not from a web site that can be easily checked. I don't know what the "official" line is on so-called sockpuppets, but to be honest they don't bother me too much so long as they don't head off down the same track, as in this case. Abusing the right to vanish seems a little dishonest to me as well. I can't help but wonder how many of the arbitrators knew about this but decided to keep quiet? Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
... I see you were ahead of me Raul.[4] Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm so sure all will be promptly, courteously, and correctly dealt with at ANI !!!

Another troubling factor (out of many) is that plenty of the "FAC regulars" smelled that something has been amiss (a la "sour grapes") and feeding discord at FAC in the last month, but a review of WT:DYK archives reveals that it appears that no one at DYK noticed anything whatsoever, he slid right back in there, business as usual, although DYK was Rlevse's former hangout so someone there shoulda recognized him (review the last DYK archives). In other words, he did it again at DYK, because there is such an entrenched mentality there against looking for copyvio. Folks over there need to pay closer attention; his issues keep bleeding over in to FAC.

By the way, is Rlevse deliberately trying to discredit Wikipedia with copyvios on the mainpage, or is he just so addicted that he can't help it ??

As to what the arbs and the WMF knew and when-- lips do not unpurse, fingers do not type. Wasted time at FAC, destruction that may take a long time to recover from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The one ARB I asked a few days ago did not know. To the best of my knowledge, they were only made aware when I informed them about 30 minutes before I made the connection here. Amalthea 21:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. Note that User:PumpkinSky started out just 2 days after User:BarkingMoon quit last July (after being accused of being RLevse). Geometry guy 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Where do we find the SPI? Wasn't that the one that TCO wrongly accused of being Mattisse (which was goofy as all heck), bringing Risker down on his head? In other words, I belive someone has checkuser data on BarkingMoon, and can say where he geolocates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Quite a few people thought BarkingMoon might be Mattisse, even though the editing style was different (apologies for any embarrassment here).
There is relevant info at User talk:BarkingMoon#SPI and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mattisse/Archive#29_June_2011. Geometry guy 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, some posts at User talk were deleted: see e.g. [5]. Geometry guy 22:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

About a week after he left, Rlevse tried coming back under a different account name. It was short lived and he left after a day or two (I cannot remember if he self identified or was outed). I am wracking my brain but I cannot remember the name of that account. Raul654 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember that too.
Would you please link to the RFC noted above? I haven't signed in in awhile, and missed it. - jc37 21:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I guess i won't call it a "complete" waste of time, since reaffirming a process isn't necessarily a bad thing. Thanks for the link. - jc37 22:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, is Rlevse 12??? That's all I could think of when I saw PumpkinSky's posts. Dingus. --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well you did sniff him out sooner than the rest of us. Raul654 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I am sort of not surprised although it makes me wonder about the other disgruntled editors at the RFC...Modernist (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You're not the only one wondering about that. Raul654 (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
No, that was for being an idiot who has no idea how to communicate, not for being an sock of an ex-Arb. Now that I think of it, though...that email exchange we had about Malleus was full of him clarifying for me how he had no idea how to communicate. Coming form an arb, it was depressing as shit. --Moni3 (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I seem to get everywhere, even when I'm not there. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Like herpes. Or glitter. Same thing, really. --Moni3 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I say, a few hours ago, "Oh, I'm so sure all will be promptly, courteously, and correctly dealt with at ANI !!!" Yep. Ok, no action, and people removing the template from his talk even though it's confirmed. I've been ... ummmmm ... informed that Rlevse still has friends in powerful places. Not only has there been no block, there's not even a tag on his page. Yay ANI !!! So, what's the next step for getting this account blocked? I'm noticing how little the community gives a darn about the sustained disruption that has been visited upon FAC for months now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You sound surprised Sandy, but you shouldn't be. I'm quite convinced that there's a lot more to the Rlevse story than has yet come to light. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you recall who it was that accused me of aiding and abetting in the Grace Sherwood copyright violations by copyediting the article without checking the sources? And who it was that accused me of deliberately encouraging Rlevse to take the article to FAC knowing that it contained copyright violations that would inevitably bring him down? I do, a sitting arbitrator, and one of the drafting arbitrators for the ongoing civility enforcement case. Coincidence? Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I seem to recall it was an admin who has now left .. initials the opposite of my real name... but (quite honestly) that's going off my memory, which ain't what it used to be. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
E, don't think so. Mally, would that be the same one who said on your talk that it was all my fault? I also got e-mails questioning if I was involved in the WikiReview exposure of the Rlevse copyvio. It was quite ... disturbing ... that people in high places thought I was part of that. But I think that was innocent-- sometimes when the shit is flying thick, people may see shadows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It may be that I've confused Risker and Slim Virgin, and if I have I apologise to them both. But I really can't be bothered to go looking for diffs right now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth; yes, you're right. Grovelling apologies to Risker. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, Ealdgyth, I wish I knew your real initials backward--also for Christmas card purposes. [Your user page answered my question--duh.] Malleus, about DYK, you know I hang out there but what I do is review (and submit, of course, since I'm vain). I make no decisions, don't queue stuff, etc--I just bitch afterward when they screw up the commas. But I will tell you that I also wonder about oversight there, and I'm pissed, profoundly pissed, that a WP section that's already questionable from its past and its present is again fouled up. I've been looking at some of Pumpkin's edits and I'm one for two on copyvios. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
BTW, Raul, I'm not sure if we've been properly introduced before. My name is Drmies and I play around on your website sometimes. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Drmies. Welcome to my talk page :) Raul654 (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, I assume people removing the tag was mainly a misunderstanding since the tag Raul used read "has been blocked indefinitely" when the account hadn't in fact been -- hence "jumping to conclusions". Amalthea 01:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Amalthea, can you please write down Pumpkinsky's IP addresses somewhere where you won't lose them. I have a feeling you're going to need them sometime in the next few months. Raul654 (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Village Pump Policy on RTV[edit]

And now this:


You currently have Frederick Russell Burnham scheduled for 6 Feb, and Prince Louis of Battenberg on 9 Feb. Would it make sense to switch them, so Louis (Prince Philip's grandfather) is TFA on 6 Feb, which will be Elizabeth II's 60th anniversary on the throne? (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I don't see any problem with that. Raul654 (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving on: clerks[edit]

Raul, have you given any thought to the notion of having clerks to keep up with the tedious tasks at FAC, FAR, and TFAR? Unless you've already formed an opinion, should I launch a discussion at WT:FAC (or wait for you to set out your ideas first)? TFAR is still in trouble-- no one does the day-to-day keeping it in shape, checking blurbs, tallying, the tedious stuff, and I wonder if the page is still serving its purpose, needs redesign/rethinking, or just needs someone to consistently watch it (which it has never had-- every time I go over there, I have to correct blurbs, tally points, do cleanup). I could also come up with a list of things that could be "clerked" at FAC and FAR, but I'm not sure if you want to go that direction. We still have the biggest problem to deal with (declining editorship), so I continue to think the biggest priority should be in page redesign to make FAC less of a wall of text, and a Newsletter so we can centralize info, cheerlead, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In order - I'd like to get the RFC closed (Saturday), appoint some new delegates (Saturday/Sunday), and then maybe let everything sit for a couple weeks and give people a break from discussing changes to the place. After that, we can discuss clerks and declining reviewers/editors. Raul654 (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds wise! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, now I feel terrible that Ucucha will be the sole delegate for a while; perhaps Karanacs will cover for a few weeks longer, since my resignation is effective tomorrow? FYI, I just became aware of this; a most curious position that the RFC is in now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll have some suggestions on page redesign when we get to that. As kooky as the pt.wikipedia is, they have some interesting ways of organizing and displaying the FAC page. I'm not suggesting we integrate GA into the process like they have, or using a voting system like they do, but I fancy the "dashboard" idea for giving FAC visitors a concise picture. I am also willing to help manage the gap in coverage while you root around for new delegates. --Laser brain (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The delegates are all ready to be appointed. (I got my short list, asked them, and they said yes). I've simply been waiting for the RFC to be closed to make the announcement. But with (a) Sandy's resignation about to take effect, (b) the outcome of the RFC no longer in doubt, and (c) Moodriddengirl saying she might leave the RFC open another two weeks (one month from the Jan 20 start date), I'm strongly considering changing my mind and just going ahead with the new appointments anyway. At this point the RFC is like some zombie that is being kept alive by people (EK, Selina) who have never participated at FAC but who have an axe to grind with me personally. Raul654 (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be the most logical thing to do in a sensible world, since FAC has been stalled for more than a month now and it's time to get to work, but ... doing that could put those new delegates in a delicate position, since there are so many long knives out. Being delegate, one gets targeted often enough with unfair allegations and smears without these additional circumstances, and it would be unfortunate if they were hounded for being appointed before the RFC closed. That's why I was thinking you might contemplate an interim solution (Brianboulton temporary, ask Karanacs to stay on, Laserbrain covering for two weeks, etc, although depending on Ucucha's schedule, he might be OK with covering the next two weeks alone?) Not sure ... up to you ... just some thoughts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll wait another two or three days. If it's not closed by then - at which point the discussion and RFC will be open for five and three weeks, respectively - then I'll make the new appointments. Ucucha and I can make due at FAC until then. As for 'the knives being out', so to speak, I'm not worried. Raul654 (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I can cover for a while, but I'm likely going to be quite busy in the next few weeks as courses are starting up—I'll need to spend a lot of time creating websites, learning OCaml, writing essays about the U.S. Constitution, and studying fossils. Ucucha (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi Raul. I've asked a question on WP:AN here about this; your input is welcome there. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Splitting Park51[edit]

Hey, Raul, thanks for slowing me down when my inherent hastiness almost got me into a third batch of trouble. The article split seems to be going okay, but I don't assume that 3-to-1 indicates consensus. So far, no one has objected to 75% of Park51 into a spin-off article (currently called Ground Zero controversy. The only open issue is what to call the part I moved out:

  1. Park51 controversy - one vote
  2. Ground Zero mosque controversy - three votes

If the split gains and keeps consensus, I'd like some advice on how (and when!) to request a move. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, Ed.
I don't know why, with what is presumably high profile article, so few people are commenting on your proposed changes. Once the current brewhaha with Rlevse blows over, I'll see about getting some more eye-balls there. Raul654 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Um, do you believe the "real reason" mentioned at AN is? The Email Abuse ruling and policy is half a decade old and my reputation for pedantically enforcing copyright is equally long lived. Revdeleting it wouldn't prevent admins and arbcom from taking it into consideration when acting to further sanction Rlevse and Will did appreciate the respect of his copyright. MBisanz talk 13:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not one to breed conspiracy theories, but in this case it certainly looked like a way to save the arbitration committee from getting yet more egg on their faces where Rlevse is concerned, and that the use of copyright concerns was simply a pretext. Raul654 (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, do you understand how deleting those emails - which you yourself admit were highly relevant to the on-going discussions - so quickly (before almost anyone had a chance to read them), without leaving a summary or (at the very least) reference to it in the AN thread could be seen as suspicious? Particularly when the arbitration committee has also been less than forthcoming when it comes to these issues? Raul654 (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Um, I deleted them at 1:31, you posted to my talk page at 1:34. I happened to be sitting in a library reading a textbook when my cell phone went off and then I responded admonishing him, deleted it, and you showed up. Doing it quickly was relevant (think if it had been Will's SSN) and I managed to respond within 2 more minutes to your message. MBisanz talk 23:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, I deleted them at 1:31, you posted to my talk page at 1:34. . I happened to be sitting in a library reading a textbook when my cell phone went off and then I responded admonishing him, deleted it, and you showed up. - OK, but I'm not sure how that's relevant here.

Doing it quickly was relevant (think if it had been Will's SSN) -- That's a strawman argument, and an obvious one at that. There was absolutely nothing sensetive in those emails. No SSN, no threats, nothing at all. In fact, so they were so unsensetive that they've now been undeleted for all to see. If copyright was a concern, there's really no practical difference (liability-wise) between leaving it up a couple minutes and a couple hours. Both are vastly less time than it takes to even send a DMCA notice.

and I managed to respond within 2 more minutes to your message. - Yes, to your credit you have been responsive about the whole thing. But you still have not responded to my above point. Raul654 (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't leave a summary on ANI because I was still figuring out what to do and still trying to do my work in the library; that's why that is relevant. I knew when I get the text that they would need to be deleted and did that quickly. But I was thinking of what to do next. I could have sent a note to Arbcom, but from the content of the post, it appeared they already knew Will's allegations. I could have re-blocked Rlevse with some kind of talkpage lock, but he seemed to have gotten the point from my admonition and wasn't going to do it again. I could have summarized it at ANI, but, like I said, I was trying to do other work in my real life and knew I wouldn't have time to respond to the resulting 20 questions. I also thought of just leaving it deleted since there are a pile of people monitoring Rlevse and plenty of other admins, like you and Will, who would see the deletion, review the deleted diffs and act; just like you did. MBisanz talk 15:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
FYI, Raul, I have undeleted the e-mails. 28bytes (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Just a note to say that I'm sorry you were subjected to abuse from a user who should have known better, but chose to pretend to be new, in the FA RFC. That's dishonest and wrong, and I'm sorry you had to endure it. While I appreciate the right of dissent and criticism, it's cowardly for a user to lob grenades from beyond a cloak of anonymity. The work you do with the FA process is valuable, and makes Wikipedia a better resource. I empathize with your frustration about the entire situation. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.[edit]

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[6][7], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: (HTTPS).

Best Regards, Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance FA nom[edit]

Hi Raul, could you please take a look at something for me? About 5 weeks ago, I nominated the Franco-Mongol alliance article for FA. Based on my read of the nomination page, it's had a clear consensus to promote for weeks now, so I'm a bit confused as to why it's continuing to be delayed. Would you be able to help here? Thanks, --Elonka 18:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it got a source spotcheck only five days ago (I could have done it sooner for you, but you insisted that I stay away). Have you pinged in the editor who did the sourcecheck to see if s/he is now satisfied? And have you asked Ucucha (talk · contribs), since he is the delegate who hasn't promoted, and I am recused at your insistence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't promote it previously because the spotcheck was pending; I didn't promote it last time because I wanted the spotcheckers' response—I'm unconvinced that "sources exist in a different article" is satisfactory in an FA. Ucucha (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Ucucha, please review WP:V. Sources are not required for every fact in an article, only for those facts which could reasonably be challenged. Further, your stance here is completely different from what you said you were asking for two weeks ago, that you wanted to check to see that the sources were not paraphrased too closely.[8] Or in other words, it was a thinly veiled accusation of plagiarism, a fairly disgusting charge. I'm not a newbie editor here, I've written hundreds of articles on the project, many of which have gone through detailed review. If I were the kind of person who was going to plagiarize, don't you think it would have shown up by now? In any case, your request was successful in stalling the nom another two weeks waiting for a spotcheck, which, surprise surprise, showed nothing wrong. There was clearly no plagiarism, so now it feels like certain editors are looking for yet another excuse to torpedo the nom. It is ridiculous that an article which has already been through five years of work and multiple detailed reviews, should take this long to get an FA promotion. Face it, if I were one of the "FA clique", the article would have been promoted weeks ago. But since it's me, and I have wiki-enemies in the FA crew, what it's looking like is that certain delegates (including one who should be recused from this but keeps popping up anyway) are just doing everything possible to reject the nom. It's a sad comment on wiki-politics, that more energy is put into personal enmity, than what we're supposed to be here for, writing and improving articles. So please, can we end this? It's obvious that there is consensus to promote the article, so let's just do it, and move on. --Elonka 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Hi Elonka, I don't speak for Ucucha but I can say with certainty that every FAC nomination should be checked for close paraphrasing, etc. I don't care if it's a first-time editor or Jimmy Wales. It's not meant as an expression of distrust. In my experience, unintentional plagiarism occurs even with the most seasoned writers. I've just recently done such spot-checks for articles written by Casliber and Brianboulton, both seasoned editors with multiple FAs. Do you think I meant any disrespect? No, I'm just letting the delegates know that they have been checked as part of a normal process. If you imagine anyone is getting a hall pass here, they're definitely not getting it from me. --Laser brain (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Goodness.[9] First, WP:AGF is policy. Elonka, you might be unaware, but what Ucucha asked for is not only consistent, but is something that is requested at least once on every nominator at FAC. That is, a spotcheck of sources to be sure that 1) there is no close paraphrasing or copyvio issues (something we started doing after the Grace Sherwood plagiarism of Halloween 2010, and 2) sources are accurately represented. No one has accused you of plagiarzing; you aren't the only editor to edit the article. Yes, if you were a repeat nominator who had already been through several checks, the article might have already been promoted, but it has been a goal for a very long time to get at least one spotcheck on every nominator (a spotcheck on every nomination would be optimal, but we just don't have the resources). Again, have you pinged the reviewer to ask him to revisit? Lobbing charges at the delegate who is doing the same job on your nomination as is done on any other is not the way forward; all that is needed is to ping in the reviewer. And, by the way, no-- sources from another article are not adequate in this article. This article needs to be sourced. Please AGF and don't make unnecessary accusations at Ucucha. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

TFA for Tibet during the Ming Dynasty?[edit]

I was going to nominate Tibet during the Ming Dynasty for an undated TFA, on account of that there really hasn't been anything Tibet related in as far back as I went, however Ming Dynasty itself was the TFA on November 16. Would that impact the TFA? Sven Manguard Wha? 23:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Per TFAR:
Deduct points if a similar article was recently featured on the main page:
  • Within two weeks of requested date: −3 points
  • Within one month of requested date: −2 points
Hope that helps. Raul654 (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)