[1] ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL !! Thanks again for following me around and fixing things! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure which "sources" are referred to in your comment when restarting this FAC, "unclear if sources and image concerns have been resolved." Do you mean image sources, or the vague concern raised about sources for the article and use of primary sources? I've added a note confirming that all image sourcing concerns have now been met. The editor concerned about article sourcing didn't respond further after I'd checked and ensured that the article is properly sourced, is another statement to that effect required? Thanks for your help with this, dave souza, talk 20:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, will do as suggested. .dave souza, talk 22:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I cleared the sources early on in the FAC. I've put a diff on the new page. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, there has been a change in how the semi-automated peer reviews (SAPRs) are linked in peer reviews (now the link is to the SAPR script on the tool server allowing interested users to run SAPRs themselves if they want). This means there will no longer be an archive of SAPRs to use as the PR stat for WP:FAS. Since the stat used to be how many PRs were in the archive for that month, and will be going back to that for August and beyond, I was planning to go back and change the stats for the months using SAPRs to the PR archive stat instead. The two numbers are not identical - for one thing SAPRs are a measure of PRs opened in a month, while the archive is a measure of PRs closed in the same month. I figured it was better to be consistent for the Dec 2007 to July 2009 stats and make the switch in FAS, but wanted to check with you first. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and made the change - well I am about to save it. Am also making a note on the FAS talk page as some of the discrepancies are odd. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know best on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there.

I noticed that you have made changes to the dyslexia article in the not-too-distant past and would like to solicit your input.

I just started a new conversation on the Wikiproject dyslexia talk page about our attempt to provide a worldwide view in these articles. We could use as many people providing feedback as possible. Please read and respond, if you can.

Thanks!

Rosmoran (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, we at Wikivoices were thinking of doing a real-time review of an FAC candidate for an upcoming episode. The idea of the episode would be to demonstrate what all goes into a comprehensive review. We would like to have the nominator there as well. As this would result in a bunch of supports and/or opposes popping up simultaneously at the FAC page, we wanted to run this by you and Karanacs first. Awadewit (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem; we'll know what is generating the additional input and will be able to take that into account. On the other hand, the fact that a real-time review is occurring may mean that it won't be a typical review, so I'm not sure what we'll learn ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of ways in which it won't be typical, but that doesn't make it useless. People can learn the kinds of questions to ask, what the criteria mean, the difficulties reviewers encounter in phrasing their suggestions, etc. Awadewit (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a great teaching opportunity - thank you for suggesting it. Just make sure, please to let us know which nomination, as I don't follow wikivoices. Karanacs (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We plan on posting a link and explanation at the FAC to make it very clear. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy: I presume you're aware of this. Tony (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now has plan, infobox removed and replaced with interior image. I think all objections are now dealt with (although the FAC page is becoming a coffee house). Perhaps you'll take a look in and promote? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting on OTRS approval for lead image. Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving that one for Karanacs at any rate ... I'm too involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. We've got an email from the photographer releasing the license, what have OTRS got to do with it? Is this something daft to do with not publishing private emails on-wiki? WMF can't be sued for copyvio anyway - it's the contributors risk. If the uploader has the ok from the photographer, or Christine has, then we're fine aren't we?--Joopercoopers (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we can't rely on editors to accurately report what private emails say - that's why we use OTRS. :) See, editors could basically say anything - they could even be pretending to have such an email! Shocking, isn't? Awadewit (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a lawsuit the uploader would be the defendant not the wmf, so I'm still nonethewiser why that should be anything to do with OTRS. Uploaders might lie, but that's their own risk if they've done anything dubious from a copyright point of view. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easier said than done sometimes, 'innit? :) I've said my piece and will leave the rest to the people who can actually talk to Slim without getting irked, I'm afraid that's a personal failing of mine. Great nom statement at Steve's RfA, by the way (better than Andy's, IMO, but don't tell him that.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Oppose there is a real keeper !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated WP:SANDY and its talk page WT:SANDY for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I told you you should get a number for drunk dialing. TOnight would be perfect. Karaoke and something else. George Harrison is playing, I would totaly drunk dial your toll free number. My inane babbing would be something to keep for like...ever. This was incredibly hard to type. Thank god someone is keeping Wikipedia WP:SANDY free. It would be a shitbox with the WP:SANDY. Srs. --Moni3 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't feel my feet. --Moni3 (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carve your number on my wall, and maybe you will get a call from me (if I needed someone). --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This chap approves of underrated Beatles song references, on walls or otherwise. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone delete Sandy? Must've been an underaged admin. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What brought you to that conclusion? Any excuse to make a dig at several hundred people is an opportunity that cannot be missed! Majorly talk 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I miss Jeff. User:SandyGeorgia/Barnstars#Dear SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I miss Jeff too. And Willow. --Moni3 (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost for words. A year passed while I was on stupid vacation. And to think, I barely knew Jeff. ceranthor 21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park (season 1)/archive1 closed while Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Howie Morenz/archive2 wasn't? The first has 1 oppose and 1 support while the latter has 0 & 0 and is older! Nergaal (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because South Park has identifiable issues you can work on, bringing it back fresh for a new look and more success, while no one has yet substantially commented on Howie Morenz. It would be nice for the nominator if a reviewer gave some idea of what improvements are needed. Please remember that FAC is not a "vote" or a tally; it's about looking at what needs to be done to determine if there is consensus that the article can be promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But all the issues listed were solved, and only one user mentioned anything about copyediting—which is a very subjective standard. Nergaal (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Tony1 opposes over prose concerns, that's usually not something to be disregarded. He's just about the expert in that area. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb's right, and while you may have fixed the explicit examples Tiny1 raised, he did say it was a random sample, implying that there would be other issues that needed to be addressed through a thorough copy edit. Nev1 (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will drop you a note as a courtesy when the specific changes and concerns you pointed out are made and addressed (need coffee). I understand your position.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I do feel that no introduction to the background section is needed. Senator Downey is mentioned in the lede, so the reader knows who he is. But if you have a suggestion, just rough language, and it looks good, for sure I will weave it in. I will sit down with my books tonight and take care of everything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've spellchecked it, and made all the changes you wanted, plus putting in more references. Please feel free to check the article at any time. I think it's in really good shape.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Tony withdrew his oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you're an editor of the article and thought I'd ask for your and others responses to my Talk page comments.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia. This is about a worry that Steve was cajoled into accepting your RfA co-nomination—a step he apparently hadn't previously envisaged. I don't want to stir things up on the RfA page but I really want to understand the assumptions you're bringing to this situation. What makes you propose Admin candidates? Why Steve? Will this take him/her somewhere useful? Won't it detract from his superb contributions to articles? Isn't this a poisoned chalice? Why can't we find a better way to recognise the quality of his contributions than to nominate him for a mop that you yourself don't choose to hold? - Pointillist (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get that reasoning at all. --Moni3 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of editors who produced good content, became admins, and made sure that admin duties didn't get in the way of writing articles. There's Moni, YellowMonkey, JulianColton, and Casliber to name just a few. Nev1 (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Why can't we find a better way to recognise the quality of his contributions than to nominate him for a mop..." Adminship is not a reward for good contributions. BTW, I'd like to add Nev1 to the above list :) Majorly talk 23:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly is a reward, just that not everyone agrees which contributions are worthy of being rewarded. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a reward for something, but not necessarily writing excellent articles. --Moni3 (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Rlevse, Raul, and Nichalp are all bureaucrats who contributed to featured articles (excuse me if I missed any, this is off the top of my head!) YellowMonkey, Roger Davies, Casliber, et cetera, are/were also on ArbCom during FA contributions. ceranthor 23:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Dweller and The Rambling Man (the latter of whom was a former crat who resigned in arguably good standing). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Flattery will get you everywhere Majorly, but I don't use the tools that often anyway. While the tools may not be a reward, fear that it may get in the way of article work shouldn't be a reason not to go to RfA. If you can handle putting the effort in to develop articles properly, you should be mature enough to realise when articles are suffering at the expense of doing admin duties. Nev1 (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointillist, as the editor who asked Steve (this time), I can assure you he wasn't cajoled. I asked once, and several editors chimed in with some good-natured comments that indicate he has been asked in the past. That's usually a sign that the editor is in good standing with many people. We need more admins that are pleasant, hard-working, and thoughtful. Does it really even matter if they don't have a master plan for using the tools? It's worth it if he can once defuse a difficult situation or perform a routine task when asked. I'm afraid I don't understand your concern. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be difficult and of course if Steve wants to be an admin s/he get my vote. Nevertheless I am concerned that Editorial contributions at Steve's level are more valuable than what admins do and that Steve him/herself never asked for this role. Despite the posting by User:Laser_brain (Andy I always hate it when a user's signature is not the same as their user name) I still worry that this role was somehow being forced on Steve by Sandy Georgia. I feel this partly because when User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back wasn't selected for ArbCom I encouraged him/her to build an academic life outside Wikipedia, while SandyGeorgia encouraged him/her to stay. I'm also concerned—this is not fully formed—that there's a non-neutral desire for more admins because otherwise the "anyone can edit" model will fail. If there's any truth in that I'd want to reduce the number of admins in order to re-align communal assumptions about anonymous editing. My bottom line is that whenever someone nominates Leonardo da Vinci for cleaning up the Medici drains someone should question their motives! - Pointillist (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I take your meaning now. Well, I'm confident that Steve's access to the admin tools won't turn him away from his excellent content work. Otherwise, I would never ask him and risk damaging the project. Some admins love to do it full-time and they are needed to clear out backlogs and such, but I don't see Steve as that brand. As for my sig, I do apologize. I decided to make my real name known and didn't feel like going through the name change rigmarole. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Probably best if Steve responds at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Steve#Neutral now. - Pointillist (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, looks like I chose the wrong day for an early night! (Yes, midnight is early—I have a three-year-old after all.) I'll take another look through this and comment on the RfA page a bit later. All the best, Steve ^T • C 07:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, hope you're well. I've kept to out-of-the-way areas for most of the day, as I wanted to make sure it didn't look as if I considered the RfA pass anything more than some very useful tools given to a trusted editor. Dunno if I succeeded at that, but screw it, I didn't want to go through today without saying thanks to you and Andy for putting that trust in me; I'll make sure it isn't misplaced. All the best, Steve ^T • C 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it won't be misplaced, and the thanks go to you for being willing to go through it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Pointi,

Since I can't recall having previously made your acquaintance, I have deferred responding until I could cope with your messing with "the tender place where love is born" in your references to my relationship with an editor to whom everyone knows I am hopelessly devoted (although I'm possibly confused, and actually just hopelessly devoted to that green zip-down-the-front dress and the Golden Retriever). Your statements about His Corpulence are curious, as I, too, have encouraged him to further academic pursuits (but then, you're not reading my e-mail, are you?). I have it on good authority that His Obesity has only a few pounds on me:[2] just enough to make him big enough to handle all of me. I imagine that in his periods of absence from Wiki, he's engaged in pursuits more important than either Wiki or academics. I trust this helps clear things up for you? If you're still concerned about my noms or relationship with His Corpulence, my best recommendation for a re-alignment of priorities is to ignore Clarence Carter's list of questions and consider strokin' during breakfast-- add helpful quantities of strawberry,[3] mango,[4] banana,[5] and fiber to assure a clean colon.

Regarding the substance of your questions, I hope my record of RfA noms speaks for itself; to my knowledge, none of the editors I have nommed at RfA have given up article work and they have been conscientous, thorough and helpful admins. I hope my record speaks for itself wrt to the kinds of editors I support at RFA.

Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I found (via Google search) and fixed other references to mindsite, at Major depressive disorder (fix) and Polysubstance dependence (fix). I don't know of any other references. In Autism I dodged that bullet long ago by citing the CDC, which helpfully has a copy of that particular criteria set online. Wish they'd do the same for other diagnoses. Eubulides (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you give me your explanation for why you closed this FAC? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My take: After nearly three weeks, there was an oppose over the name, which spawned a long discussion, a near-oppose from Tony over the writing, and no consensus to promote. I imagine Sandy would say something like "reviewers are put off by long FAC pages. Please resolve the issues brought up by the reviewers at the previous FAC before starting a new one." Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, can you explain to me please. It'd be appreciated. Thank you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is one oppose for the name and a follow up that is also in agreement. This would instant fail the page on the grounds of instability until consensus can be determined on the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Deacon. As others have explained (correctly), the FAC had been up more than two weeks with no support, concerns about the prose, and a long discussion about the name that may have deterred other reviewers from engaging. A fresh start, after reviewing prose with Tony, is often the fastest route to featured status when a FAC becomes bogged down at the bottom of the page with no support. I encourage you not to view this as a "failed" FAC, rather a chance for a fresh start and success. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. My primary concern is whether or not it is worth my while putting any more work into it at all. The naming issue is one for WP:RM, and I'm not going to agree to take a stance on that matter contrary to my belief just to get a star (and regard attempts to force me to do so as border line blackmail). That matter is a community issue, and I should be free to argue the case. So, as Xandar (and perhaps others) may just as likely oppose again on that ground, there is no point doing any more work if such opposes are going to count. It is therefore necessary to hear your stance on this matter. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a community issue, and isn't the reason I closed it ... I closed it because of a lack of support, and Tony's ce concerns. Other issues, such as that one, depend on consensus (one oppose on an issue such as that doesn't determine outcome). Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of the month, Raul scheduled 17 days of TFA. Normally he doesn't do it very far in advance, I saw often only 3-4 days in advance in recent times. Do you know if he will be away until then? Did he announce it anywhere? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any means/precedent of the citizens appointing a delegate? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left my pitchfork and torch at the office and I haven't heard any justification for storming the Bastille anyway. What's the problem?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point now that Raul's back, but I believe the Pressing Need was due to Raul's having scheduled a TFA later this week for an event with an anniversary about to come up, and the need to remove it from the TFA queue. – iridescent 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about this - Sandy, could you remember to drop Samuel Johnson's early life off at the TFA area for his birthday? 300th and all. It would be nice to coincide with various world events on it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which date will be celebrated? The 7th or the 18th? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18th it appears. I would go with his hometown birthday celebration above the others. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, isn't this a case of a gazillion points, so it can only be added two weeks before? I'm not sure I'll remember this on Sept. 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20 days beyond the last scheduled date. Which will happen, at the latest, on August 30. Six points. I don't think there are more points there. Samuel Johnson may or may not be basic subject matter, but his early life isn't. Point deductions, can't evaluate that yet, because we're not into that time period yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With at least 4 points I feel confident it will make it through - there are probably enough votes as I doubt people would want a page devoted to a childhood on a 300th birthday (as opposed to a later page on a 300th anniversary of a death) to not go up. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to the template. A three point deduction is possible, if there's a similar article within fifteen days, but it doesn't seem to happen very much. I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Ottava is asking me to remember something several weeks away, I may lose sleep over it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember to remind you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. I was getting a bit stressed out, so I took a few days away from Wikipedia - went to Nambe Falls, started reading A great book, did some cooking, etc. I didn't announce it because I didn't expect it to go on for a week. I intended to resume editing last night, but Wikipedia was having weird technical issues that prevented me from editing. Anyway, I'll resume my regular editing later today or tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent book, but isn't it funny how many times the Carpathian mountains come up? Awadewit (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly no consensus for the current version though. Perhaps a straw poll? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait a bit for more opinion to gel ... I don't think a straw poll would yield anything conclusive yet. I also don't see the need for any change: FAs represent our best work, conform to guidelines (WP:ALT is one), and I'm not going to hold up an otherwise worthy FAC over MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not only whether an article would actually be held back over an MoS issue. It's the perception that it might be, and the requirement that FA writers feel that they have to add yet one more style issue. I think the situation has become quite demoralizing. Certainly I feel demoralized, and I can't imagine I'm alone in feeling that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering what's occurring at FAR, I'm sympathetic to the demoralization issue, but I don't think this discussion has run its course yet, and it doesn't seem to be an issue that bothers many people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to update your stats (I added one that you missed). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We crossed in the mail ... I was just thanking you. Busy day, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a q about how long a FAR save takes YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ugh ... I've got to stop weighing in over there and go read FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to build on the comments made before by Objectivity... Lots of revisions before, editing out highly contentious judgments and interpretations and reviews. I recently edited out an editors additions; he put the back and then added more of the same quality; 3rd paragraph of article. Could you look at my comments and the past comments. Seems the editors interpretations are poor...very tangential, not directly related to what he's trying to interpret, etc. 2nd and 3rd sentences. Also, he gives ISBN numbers that don't link to anything. Source cited should be verifiable? With text electronically accessible? Re the general criticism he gives, seems like a review kind if thing ... so I could find good reviews to add along as well. I thought the article as it was was good and factual. If people want reviews of the movie, then why not search for reviews elsewhere, rather than at an encyclopedia. Eg movie review sites, discussion boards, etc.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• About your edits, it appears to me you did not consider my 3-4 comments done over the last few days. I summarized them in a new section. You left the 6th Happiness editors comments with 0% revision. Could you read my comments, or if you have already, could you respond to the several points I made?
• At a very minimum, the editor 6th Happiness provides no source quotes, no one has any idea what text he is referring to (even in the 2 pages of text he cites), his interpretations seem very tendentious, his statements seem overly emotional and overly general and wide-sweeping, he seriously misunderstands what mother Singer did and thought, etc etc.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Being new to wiki I'm only trying to figure this out. Your not doing this exactly, but I recall some policy about "don't bite newcomers" (lol yet another WP:___ thing to find). But more so, I think it's very misleading of wiki to say "anyone can edit". This only fuels problems. Wiki procedures, rules, and the hidden classes of seniority and status among editors, is all complex, and time consuming to understand, and much of it is rather unfortunate I'd say. Maybe wiki should require an online wiki course before permitting "anyone can edit".I wonder how wiki get to the top of most search results...paying Google? Lol if their search results were lower, I wonder if 90% of the people here wouldn't be here. Wiki's popularity with the public stems from being at the top of search results, rather than vice versa, which is how it should be.--GzRRk 4 (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia,
I asked User:Eubulides if we could work together on the Bobby Newman article I created yesterday; but he is taking time off and I know it takes more then a few people to get things done.
I was wondering if you could help in the mean time; Bobby Newman, PhD, is a behavioral analyst, author, and physiologist known worldwide for his work. He works with children on the Autism spectrum through the process of ABA.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 15:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I deleted the talk page so it can be discussed.--ragesoss (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the FAC on Otto Julius Zobel but I am a bit in the dark why it failed. I am not making an argument that was a wrong decision, I would just like to get some understanding, because it is not clear from the discussion, at least to me. I believe all the points raised in the discussion were addressed in the article during the course of the FAC (except for what I think was an ill-informed comment on the copyright status of some of the images). Is it possible to get some sort of review? SpinningSpark 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, your talk page needs a disclaimer! SpinningSpark, the candidacy was archived because the article had received no supports (or opposes, btw) for all of its time at FAC. This is generally an indication that there are unresolved issues, were there any issues remaining at the FAC? ceranthor 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I answer the same question every time I archive, we probably need something standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something like, If your article was archived, and the FAC had no !votes, chances are that it had been on the FAC list for too long and needed some work. The FAC delegates look over the articles in detail before archiving or promoting them. ceranthor 19:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I would understand from those comments that when an editor makes a criticism which is addressed and then the criticism struck out, this is not taken as an implied support. But what about the user who opened with;

• Comments from Materialscientist. General impression is positive (that is support), but...

and later struck out the comments following "but" when they were addressed. Can you explain why you have not counted that as a support? Sorry for making you re-answer the same question yet again, but this is my first attempt at FAC, so I need to know. SpinningSpark 19:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you post a link to the FAC, I'll have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otto Julius Zobel/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FACs are not usually promoted on one support. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DaBomb! That FAC had been running for three weeks and was at the bottom of the page, without garnering consensus for support. Also, it had been listed on the Urgents template for quite a while. You might consult with all of the reviewers who weighed in, get as much feedback as you can over the next few weeks, and then bring it back for a fresh look. Often articles that get stalled at FAC will do fine the next time through. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. If I understand this correctly the situation is this; there is no specific issue with the article that has caused it to fail, but rather, there were insufficient editors willing to positively support it. I will take up your suggestion and try and get some feedback. SpinningSpark 20:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is correct. ceranthor 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a discussion over this change? I don't recall one, but am wary of reverting. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but with everything else going on at FAR, I'm not sure it's worth rocking the boat. At your discretion ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it be. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what everyone thinks, I honestly do not enjoy having to do this kind of thing. All it does is breed hurt feelings and alienates the person putting up such from others. I would rather someone else do this instead. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm ... who would "someone else" be? That is exactly why I query when I see so much support and no check on sourcing. I'm concerned that so many reviewers are leaving all of the sourcing work to Ealdgyth, and not checking for exactly the sorts of things you identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've raised concerns with pages over this sort of thing with over 20 people so far (across various processes) and there is way too much backlash for me to really continue. You should have seen the amount that I cleaned out of DYK over a few months. It wouldn't be a problem if more people did the reviewing so it wouldn't seem like just one person who is a jerk and out to ruin someone's day. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are facts: if people think others are jerks, it could be in the presentation. This kind of reviewing is necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that people think there are image and sourcing geeks out there who will magically do those reviews, which they fear to do anyway because they don't want to and don't understand image policy anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is tremendous retribution for even posting a suggestion on an article talk page. Facts are unpopular around here. —mattisse (Talk) 01:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it could be in the presentation. I've not had that experience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are limiting it just to FAC, of course, your experience could be affected by your status.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MY "status" for most of my time at FAC was a reviewer, just like Ottava. Granted, each time I've waded into GAN I have seen similar issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree, then, it is about presentation. Working well with the nominators, who have invested oodles of time in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really getting flack, Ottava, you can just leave the video game ones for me... I think unfortunately the contradiction of sources is just a slow buildup of accumulated misinformation; random people add what they know, not what's reflected in the source, and unless everything is quickly reverted it's hard to root out. I wouldn't say it's any way a pop culture issue, but it's certainly endemic... at least with GA sweeps I can let rip and delist and nobody complains. :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flack, schmack ... we should highlight this as the kind of reviewing that more should be doing. Makes me want to be a FAC reviewer again ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Makes me want to be a FAC reviewer again !": Just do it, then. Seriously. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did one recently (well, not recently ... maybe a few months back) as a sample ... but I had to recognize that it's hard on nominators when the FAC delegate picks over their article as an example. But when we're seeing multiple supports without source checks, that raises eyebrows, since WP:V is a pillar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ug I hate those colons. Anyhow, FAC always needs skilled reviewers. As you should know. People will get used to the idea of you reviewing. If someone complains, then never review that person again... you know the drill. Work until someone becomes a pain, then ignore that person. Lather, rinse, repeat. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's accurate to say "without source checks", because the "source check" is simply a judgement on the reliability of the sources, not that any of them actually say what it's claimed that they say. So I would, for instance, look very carefully at claims that seemed to me to be counterintuitive, but I would never stand up and say "Yep, sources OK". And in my opinion neither should anyone else. I think this move towards demanding single-purpose source, image, alt text, God know what else reviews, is a step in the wrong direction. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology. When I say source check, I mean a random check of sourcing, exactly as Ottava did and as I used to do ... reviewers have come to rely on Ealdgyth's check on reliability as a source check, rather than doing the work done by Ottava. Ealdgyth's work is one step only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I have checked every single link on articles I check, for content as well as whether it works, but it makes me very unpopular at FAC/FAR. Sigh. —mattisse (Talk) 11:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect I'm repeating myself for the third time: "As I said, it could be in the presentation". Checking sources is not what makes one "unpopular" at FAC or FAR, and while spreading of such memes may be welcome on other pages, they are not helpful on my talk page. If diligent and conscientous reviews made one unpopular, Awadewit, Karanacs, and many others would be unpopular. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as one who has written a bit, there is a temptation (which, mind you, I guard against in myself) to contextualize, to explain, under the cover of a reference. I call it "sloppy writing".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just caught another with only two reviews and at the bottom. I have a feeling this will be a long day. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Wiki: things cycle. When reviewers start to realize what they've not been doing (note the recent example on Persondata, which used to be checked at every FAC), the recent and alarming trend to ignore source checking will reverse itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the lack of thorough sourcing reviews is caused by a lack of time on the part of reviewers. A while back, I talked about wanting to do some plagarism spot-checks, but have never been able to get around to it. It takes so much time to review an entire article for writing glitches that it's easy for other important factors to get overlooked. Maybe this helps explain the increase in reviewer specialization. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect (not sure) that it's three factors: 1) some reviewers don't respect the importance of WP:V to FAs, 2) I used to do this work, and 3) some reviewers assume (incorrectly) that Ealdgyth's source clearance is enough. Ealdgyth is only checking that sources are generally reliable, and often, reviewers Support even when she has left concerns! The burden on Ealdgyth is too high, and other reviewers should look at the sorts of things Ottava highlighted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Giants, you don't have to go through every source. If you find a few things wrong, oppose and ask them to withdraw it for full vetting. It's not your job to pull all the sourcing up to standard. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's another problematic trend. Rather than spot checking and highlighting issues that warrant a close or withdraw, too many reviewers are engaging FAC as PR, pulling articles through. I have no problem ignoring Supports on articles that have no sourcing check or subsequent sourcing problems identified, but the mystery is those Supports even after Ealdgyth raises questions, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I made a comment recently with regard to sources that I think was too brief to have been noticed and have just elaborated on here [6]. I don't have the time to check thoroughly every source. I find Webpages, particularly when used for popular culture articles, with which I am often out of touch, very difficult to decide on - I prefer published paper sources. I often rely on other FAC reviewers, not just Ealdgyth, in judging the validity of sources. Just how long should reviewers hold back support? Should all supporting reviews come with a caveat? Graham Colm ^Talk 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends, but can be helpful ... for example, Tony often specifies that his support is for prose only, so if other issues are subsequently raised, I know his Support doesn't "count". It can be helpful if reviewers indicate what their support means ... perhaps many of the "fans" don't even look at sourcing ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree, in future, I will try to highlight which of the FA criteria I am addressing. But I would hate to give the impression (that I might have done ) that I am supporting a candidate without due regard to the reliability of sources. I hope that the FAC delegates know by now my strengths, and more importantly, my weaknesses as an FAC reviewer. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Incidentally, how is an oppose over length treated? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the long discussions in FAC archives over short FAs, which came to no consensus. The object is (currently) unactionable unless the nominator identifies missing info (comprehensive) or untapped sources or somehow relates the oppose to the criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an slightly related note, I'm home. Very tired after a very busy two weeks. Hopefully will get to FAC this weekend sometime. I shouldn't be gone much for a bit, and hopefully gone a bit less this fall... I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I had never known of that check.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D raised an interesting question over at the milhist coordinator talk page concerning whether the tightening of our A-class reviews over the past few monthes has resulting in an increase in milhist article quality at the time one of our articles arrives WP:FAC for its bronze star. I was wondering if you could provide an answer to that question, being as how you are usually pretty involved in FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, do you have a link? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The TPS does: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Has_the_FAC_strike_rate_improved.3F -MBK₀₀₄ 17:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not leaving a link, and thanks for the feedback. We've been pushing for improved ACR quality for a couple of monthes now; among other things, we've snarfed the FAC toolbox for our ACRs. I've been using the toolbox to hammer the articles undergoing milhist ACRs to ensure that the disambig links, external links, and alt text are all in order before moving on to FAC; others have been checking the prose more thoroughly as well. Glad to see its been paying off, you FAC guys/girls have it hard enough as is. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all caught up. Left one unresearched as there were citation needed tags and I am starting a new policy of not doing those because the sourcing will change. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem that I don't quite understand. While other FAs garner dozens of comments and !votes, mine tend to stale very quickly and eventually end a few weeks later due to threadbare activity. Point in case: Hawaii hotspot. Here the FA didn't even get its first comment for 5 days, and once it did it was too little too late. Pretty much the same thing happened with Loihi-twice. While I eventually got something to chew on it all eventually came too late and the FA closed. I've tried everything - notifying wikiprojects, spamming talk pages, blacklisting them on the Urgent FAs List - but no one shows up. I guess it's a unique problem I have, compared to the hectic buzz of the FA process. ResMar 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest with you, most reviewers tend to stay away from larger articles that don't interest them. If you try asking experienced reviewers who are friendly, you're likely to get quality reviews, and quickly. ceranthor 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) We have a reviewer shortage right now. Summer months are usually slower. You appear to be doing the right things to attract reviewers, and it may just require patience. Have you tried a peer review? If you can convince several reviewers to participate in a peer review that will help the article when it returns to FAC. Karanacs (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at this soon, but ResMar, if you don't supply links to both FACs, I'm less likely to get to it quickly :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it could be this and this. I could be wrong. I have been trying to go through all of the FACs for source reviews and other comments while simultaneously trying to help with the GAN backlog. I could not find a recent ac by Resident Mario listed, so I do not know if there was a recent close that he was concerned about. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm trying to make is that, if the links are there when my orange bar lights up, I'm more likely to look and answer right then, but when the link isn't there, I have to remember to come back to the section, so my response may be delayed. I do wish folks would supply all the links when posting to my busy talk page :)))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link out then. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I've been trying to damp down the flames discreetly. Your recent post, you know where, does not look at all discreet. --Philcha (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't. You blatantly violated WP:AGF on Malleus's talk page. You again show that you are unable to discern appropriate vs. inappropriate Wiki behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some external links but they were removed. And this comment on my Talk page, I don't understand really. Seems to conform to external link policy. I now see it was done by a bot, but thought I'd check with you. Feel free to check my own unique IP, I joined here because autism issues are being discussed among many of us.--Wanda Folan (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to invite you in particular to our recording, since you make promotion decisions. I thought you could help us explain the FA critieria. :) If you can come, please sign up here. Thanks. Awadewit(talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you withdraw the Barryville-Shohola Bridge article and topic ban me from FAC, because its becoming apparently obvious that I cannot get an article passed anymore and that any service to nominating something nowadays will never pass. :| - Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch, I will archive this for you. Since many of the comments and opposes on your recent nominations deal with the prose quality, I strongly suggest that you find a copyeditor to work with. Many of the prolific FA nominators have their articles copyedited by others (often several others) long before they make the nomination. Working with copyeditors also helps to improve one's own prose (it has helped me!). Don't be discouraged, just take the comments in a constructive manner and work to fix those types of issues before coming to FAC. Karanacs (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one copyedits for me anymore when I do ask. I feel that I am just not prolific anymore. Even after 22 different type of Featured Contributions. I haven't had an FA in 7 months and its pissing me off. I shouldn't be nominating stuff I just can't do anymore.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can copy edit it. Just drop me a line. By the way, I find it a little troubling with a claim that that is almost an accusation of plagiarism without any direct examples. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a topic ban at FAC; also, if you provide a link to the FAC, I'll have a look at the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barryville–Shohola Bridge/archive1.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) and Finetooth (talk · contribs) are accomplished editors in that area, and may be willing to fine-tune your articles before they come to FAC; it appears that most of the objections are prose-related. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch helped me on the PR.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you include a link, I'll look ... but Ruhrfisch helps on almost every PR, so I don't know if he went above and beyond. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and DaBomb have got to stop interfering with my efforts to get editors to understand that it's harder for me to check things out when they don't supply links :))) Mitch, it doesn't appear that you did everything possible to comply with Ruhrfisch's suggestions, and a one-person peer review is never adequate. Try following the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to bring in additional reviewers at PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most users don't have the time to list every problem they see with an article at a peer review. Ruhrfisch provided only a few examples to show that the article needed a copy-edit. I believe there are several accomplished editors at WPRoads who would be willing to help: User:Davemeistermoab, User:Juliancolton and User:Imzadi1979 to name a couple. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is then I can't do anything because as i stated - "I cannot understand what people think is bad grammar compared to mine" - an American's defect. And I know of accomplished editors from the project, I talk to them daily, and I trained the second one.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 20:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not very well if this is anything to go by: "which is owned dually by the states of...". Even a cursory glance shows that the article is in serious need of the attention of a good copyeditor.

PS. I fixed it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note

Not meaning to pick on Mitch here, as he's not really bad, but I've definitely noted a problem Wikipedia has of letting go of your prose. Not everyone can be everything on an FA, it's just not possible to be excellent at all parts needed to bring an article to FAC and pass. In my case, my failing is prose. I have decent prose, and can do well at GAN, but the standard is higher at FAC, and you have to be willing to let others (and yes, plural is better) take over your prose. It's very very hard to do so, though, because too many copyeditors can do damage to an article's sourcing by moving stuff around without taking care with the citations, or don't take care to preserve the meaning of the prose while working it over. But at least ONE copyedit by someone who isn't the primary author is pretty much required for an article to pass FAC, and really two or three is better, especially for something technical. It's not a reflection on the main author that this is needed, it's just a fact of life. Printed authors need it too! An example, look at Robert Jordan, and his sprawling Wheel of Time series. The first two were pretty good, well written (within limits) and not too difuse. But as they became bestsellers, it's obvious that his publisher and editor relaxed their restraining influences, and the series got less and less coherent and the writing suffered also. Editing and copyediting are a necessity, and we shouldn't expect our articles to not need them for FAC. There, I've rambled quite a bit.. sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only Wiki-hope is that since I start college in September, I have a composition class - maybe I'll be able to deal with this on that. Anyway, now that's brought up, I can only think of one article of mine that someone wrote over mine, but I did all the research, and he changed no facts. That article is Rhode Island Route 4, would it pass then, because its not my writing anymore, but all the research and original I devoted to it.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 23:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC is tough, and if it wasn't tough it would serve no purpose. Ealdgyth is quite right; we all need collaborators, those who can see things that we can't. No FA is the work of one person alone. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And my entire comment was ignored?Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 23:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you're talking about, and don't much care either. You've been given some good advice; it's your choice whether to take it or leave it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking the advice, which was the post above your first was about, and no one replied : | - Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 00:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Often, Mitch, collaborations on articles turn up the best results. ceranthor 17:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. In the absence of The Land from the Wiki I'm going to assume responsibility for the article Battleship and incorporate its well being into Operation Majestic Titan. If you would grant my friends and I a few months (say two or three) to put the article through PR and sort out the citations and such I am fairly certain we can bring the article up to current standards. Land did a good job with citations, and it appears that there are a number of references cited in the article itself, so it shouldn't be too hard to address the issues in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best to put a note on the talk page that you are working on it, lest an overly aggressive type decide to FAR it, since it appears on the cleanup list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly likely despite perceptions that I am a riotous vandal YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thanks for the suggestion. Can I bother you for a favor? If you get a moment can you leave some comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battleship so we can get a feel for what the FAR people are going to say if it comes to that? As you probably know, our project members aren't big on FAR participation, so any incite you could provide would be helpful. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, the FAR keep rate is much improved from what they have been in the past few months. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody believes anything I say, and think that I'm rampaging around vandalising and trashing everything (probably people give me these jobs as a poisoned chalice so I can take the blame or whatever as people think I'm a troll, and my opinions were never hidden), but whatever, I'll rant. Sandy went and posted warnings to the talk pages of articles with five different tags on them: Wikipedia:Featured_articles/Cleanup_listing. The number of variety of tags is not a good rank of FA-endangeredness. A lot of the articles high up on that list are well-cited, which is why the odd uncited sentence sticks out and is usually tagged for cites, whereas a lot of heavily citation-lacking articles like Fauna of Australia aren't, because there is no point in tagging almost every sentence. Bodyline has four problems listed, but only four sentences are unaccounted for. Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport and Rail transport in India were removed for having 75%+ home-made or non-independent sources, but neither have any tags. A lot of the weakest articles sent to FAR had little/no tags before they were nominated; I mean most unreferenced start-class articles (and thus FAs), nobody adds ^{[citation needed]} everywhere. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly likely to be the first one targeted. Most of the ones at FAR are the least cited ones, with about 30%+ completely uncited paragraphs. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YM, there are a number of faulty assumptions in this "rant", which I'm troubled to see that you have posted in many places, rendering it rather futile to try to clarify at this point. I'd just refer you to Ruiz's Four Agreements, particularly, don't assume and don't take anything personally. Other than that, I'm a bit surprised to see your classification of my notifications as a "warning". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy,

I noticed you had reverted my edits to the Laika story. I reverted them back. All the photos are relevant to the story, and are from WC, so they should be sound. I am an experienced editor, however you may be correct on thumbnail sizes. At any rate I do appreciate you checking to make sure edits are correct. Cheers from Halifax, NS. --RobNS 03:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being from WC does not mean they are sound; they are questions on all of them. I see another editor has already removed them. If you want to readd them, please get a regular FA reviewer of images to doublecheck them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NASA, as an American institution, did not have the ability to document a Soviet dog. Instead, the images are borrowed from the Russians. See: "The NASA website hosts a large number of images from the Soviet/Russian space agency, and other non-American space agencies. These are not necessarily in the public domain." The images are under Russian copyright. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair. I didn't realize there was a problem. In future, I'll make sure any images from WC are OK first before I include them. Sorry about that. Cheers.--RobNS 19:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a webmaster at NASA at the history.nasa.gov. You could email him and ask him about the copyright of the specific images. You could then direct him towards OTRS for a clarification so the images would be deemed acceptable for use on Wikipedia if they allow it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since my head is pounding today, can someone help me explain why using unreliable sources isn't a great idea? I'm so loopy from sinus pills I am not sure I'm making much sense. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be out for the afternoon and evening, so unless someone else has gotten to it first, I'll peek in late tonight. Glad to have you back on the job, Ealdgyth? How are the babies? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb got to it, thanks! Babies are good. We're mostly good. It was supposed to be a "lazy summer" but somehow that didn't seem to happen! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to come up with a special award for that Bomb; he's everywhere, all the time, fixing everything. Clone him! I'm glad the babies are good ... no comments about my summer :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to do something specific, you can and should ask me rather than vaguely and condescending pointing me to a policy because I angered you. Hyacinth (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked several times on talk to provide sources. And please don't assume I'm angered by such a small matter. A 3RR warning is standard for edit warring, and 3RR is not an invitation to revert three times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if, since Hyacinth is an administrator, he was angered also because you warned him with a 3RR template, Sandy. Just pointing that out, it's obvious from his talk page that something is wrong. :) ceranthor 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about the template (it never occurred to me that an editor who was edit warring to insert inaccurate, uncited text might be an admin or an experienced editor ... I should have checked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that sentiment entirely. It's not an everyday occurrence. ceranthor 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do find this highly troubling, particularly from such an experienced user with such a high edit count :) Perhaps a nice cup of tea is in order for everyone? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated list of diseases and conditions with unusual features for deletion, and, if available, your comments there would be appreciated. ---kilbad (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor is demanding the removal of any references or sourcing to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography because it is a subscription database. Help in discussing this would be appreciated, because I'm about to beat my head against the wall. I dug out discussions from WP:RSN, which have been dismisseed as "opinion". Also pointed out that WP:V doesn't say a thing about not using subscription databases, but this has no effect. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's straightened out, or shortly will be. The editor enquired at WP:RSN and received a few responses, and I think he'll give in at BB's article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed you. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone is paying attention, but I'm not sure why you find it so surprising (it was probably much more common in the past, and is still common now, but few bother to check). I cajoled and nagged like a busy bee to get this to happen (before I realized that very few people paid attention to my pride and joy, the Dispatches). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, what I found out after emailing you is that the work is from 2007. Filochit's work was from 2004. Please see my note explaining this more. I'm contacting some people who may have some experience in this matter to find out if that author merely ripped off Wikipedia or if there was a third source that both took from. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is often tricky to figure out who took from whom. For example, I used to track and report all of the instances of copyvio of Tourette syndrome, since I know I wrote every blooming word of that article myself, until they became so numerous that it was futile to keep up with them. MANY many sources lift text from Wiki, making it appear that we may have lifted from them. Many sites are even profiting from lifting text from the TS article. I've seen it hundreds of times now with the TS article, so it can be quite tricky to track down copyvios unless you're as fully involved with an article as I was with TS ... I know exactly which very unique phrases I wrote that I can google to determine who's lifting from Wiki. I hope this helps, and I'm very glad someone is bothering to check such issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can try out Brighterorange's script if you like. I've been using it since June of last year without a hitch :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh my goodness. I'm not as stupid as I look! I did it! Thanks, Fv! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start another round of comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie/archive2, can I cap my resolved comments using ((hidden)) or do you prefer them to be stricken? Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with caps is that, when they take over FAC, they cause FAC archives to exceed Wikipedia's template limit. That means that I have to manually edit out these caps every time I archive or promote, which is quite burdensome. The other problem is that, when newcomers see these caps, they think they should be used, so they quickly take over if I don't remove them as soon as I see them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I couldn't remember but noticed there wren't any in use at FAC. We still use them at FLC. Speaking of which, do you have any suggestions WRT my original question at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#With a lack of reviewers, what constitutes consensus?? Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I noticed that you didnot promote the "4 Minutes (Madonna song)" article. May I know the reason why? As I can see every concern that fellow editors had had been adressed and was even supported by User:Drewcifer3000. So I'm kinda baffled as to what went wrong? Would you please explain? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legolas, would you mind reading through the posts above? I'm tired of posting the answer to this already, poor Sandy. Otto Zobel's section could be useful. ceranthor 11:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnot answer the concern at all. There were supports in the article and issues which had been resolved. Tell me which article doesnot have issue? If this is the way FAC works then I'm not surprised why editors donot want to nominate articles for FA and would rather go with GA. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just don't. There is a complete shortage of reviewers, but if you helped to review some articles (excuse me if you have), that would help the reduce the backlog. The article sat for 21 days and received only one support. Now, please read the section above; the main reason editors don't want to work on FA's is because it is hard and a tedious task to accomplish. Thanks, ceranthor 11:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it had an unstruck concern from Tony1, who is apparently a respected FAC veteran. Best leave it for about 3 weeks then renominate it, but that cannot guarantee anyone will look at it. It's tough, but there's hardly anything like general agreement to promote it. Majorly talk 11:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: Tony1's concern regarding the prose was adressed by me and Drewcifer. Tony didnot reply back inspite of me asking him to look into the prose after correction. What's the point of such a comment then? He didnot earn my respect as an editor. And yes I can review articles at FA as I gained enough points with this review of 4 Minutes. However, failing an article on a reason like that I find it unacceptable. I will nominate the article again after a few days as there is hardly anything wrong with the article. If any reviwer has added a point or comment to the article, that doesnot mean that he/she opposes it. However I believe there is no point in continuing this discussion on this fellow's talk page. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you, but that's not how it works. If you nominate it again within a few days, someone will remove it and ask you to "fix concerns raised and come back in three weeks". It's not so much it wasn't opposed, or that it doesn't meet FA status, as it probably does, but it's the lack of support which ties the hands of those closing the FACs. They can't stay open forever. I have suggested FACs that lack support be posted to places like the content noticeboard instead of just the FAC talk page. It doesn't seem very fair, but that's how it is with FAC. It's the lack of reviewers that's the issue, and it's not really fair on the delegates to expect them to promote it with just one support. Majorly talk 12:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy has said before that she doesn't promote on two supports or less. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, if you want to take a look, here's the link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4 Minutes (Madonna song)/archive2. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legolas, I hope you've had a chance now to read through some of the other discussion on my page. When a FAC has been up for two or three weeks without receiving support, the quickest path to the bronze star is usually a fresh start in a few weeks. Additionally, because it's August, there may be more reviewers around in a few more weeks. Good luck next time through ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, a barnstar from you is high praise indeed, and I appreciate it. A lot. You deserve many, many barnstars for the work you've done over the years. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that barnstars are for the sides of barns :) But you deserve a special award for all of your helpful comments and edits everywhere.

DaBomb, may I trouble you to do me a huge favor? When I went to add your barnstar, I noiced that you have a thingamajiggie on your talk page that pops up when one edits your talk ... would you build one for me to help answer the frequent questions each time I archive? If you start by building it, I can tweak the wording. It should include the reminders at the top of my talk to please include all relevant links when making an inquiry here, a link to WP:FAC/ar, and these two sentences from Template:FAC-instructions:

• A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

• actionable objections have not been resolved;
• consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
• insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

• If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks.

That may help make things simpler for all of us, because although these items are in the FAC instructions, they don't seem to be noticed. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as I suggested above. Make it stylish, Bomb! ceranthor 17:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page color theme is lilac and green :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on this after lunch. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're a dear: thank you so much ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Karanacs may want one as well ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click on your new section button; what do you think? Any edits go to User talk:SandyGeorgia/Editnotice. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the image up to your imagination. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful, DaBomb ! (That was a very quick lunch :) Would you be able to make the peach background go away, is there a light lilac available, make the bolded letters green, and can you incorporate the image that is on top of my archive box (it has special significance to me)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's the color now? I still need to work out how the image fits in. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image should work now, but I haven't tested it in IE yet. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It works in IE 7. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all so much: I'm a very happy camper ! Let's see if it helps. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Do you sit around and look at everything that is posted to Wikipedia to see if it is legit? You do realize that this website is extremely unreliable and cannot even be cited as a source in colleges. You should find something better to do with your time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.196.111 (talk • contribs) 18:02, August 23, 2009

See here; thanks for the inquiry. Now please stop vandalizing Minnesota and Security. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can now nominate that article at TFA/R. There are three vacancies on the page and even high point articles are OK through late September. Told you I'd remember! Go for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder! No time today, maybe I can get to it late tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the spaces fill up, I'll be happy to pull the Chotiner nom, which is for two weeks later. Just replace it and comment to this diff.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to format properly and I am tring to give a major technical upgrade to the entry for Eduardo Mendoza Goiticoa. You seem to be an expert on this. Pls help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdadseadicha (talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i think the article is in much better shape! I have added more references and hope to work on it the next few days.Verdadseadicha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Sandy, if you (or any talk page watchers) know off the top of your head where it says to be uniform in naming people and to stick to last names is on the MoS (it is too cluttered for me to find it), could you please answer him. He made this change of all uses of "Cambridge" (last name) to a mixed use of naming. I pointed out that this was inappropriate and he wants a specific location as to where it says so. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[7] --Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is now claiming that since the guy was royalty first name is acceptable. Wtf. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, it appears that Karanac's notice isn't working [8][9]. ceranthor 10:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All's well that ends well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be that I'm going to replace giving out barnstars with giving out poems: you might like this. ceranthor 14:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you ... that's very nice of you ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a procedure to follow if an editor wants to give FA(C) credit to another editor as well as himself? JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom...? ceranthor 10:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just edit the field in the FAC to add the other editor. It's very informal. You might want to mention it inline in the FAC, too. No big deal either way though.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just add them in, but you might want to check with the other editor first as a courtesy, and if that editor objects and removes name, don't sweat it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, btu could you have a look at this? I found some major problems, but the page has devolved into one person claiming I've done this for sinister motives (and being shot down by everyone else) and another person (who abused sources ridiculously) trying to draw out discussions about how he was actually completely justified to write things not present in the source.

It's completely out of control, and I don't see how the hell we're going to rescue this article if it's going to be turned into a circus where anyone pointing out problems is the subject of a massive campaign of personal attacks on multiple fora (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive559#User:Nemonoman - they've continued apace since then, so it would've been nice to have had it dealt with then, but, you know how administrators on here can be at times.

Please do something? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 14:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If editors type volumes but don't respond to issues in the FAR phase, it will be dealt with in the FARC phase: FAR is a deliberative process, and filling up the page with verbose arguments going nowhere serves little purpose. Others will opine in FARC, and if there are still issues, they'll be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you undid ALL the article history info I left on the Talk:List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I article. I just wanted to let you know that I did read the instructions but it still built it incorrectly so perhaps someone needs to review the instructions so that the are clearer. Also, rather than eliminate the entire thing perhaps in the future it would be better to fix the problem rather than erase it completely. Know someone else will still have to go and add the article history when all it needed was a minor change to fix the problem. Just a recommendation. --Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am missing something, but it appears the problem is that you added an entry in articlehistory for a current event. Articlehistory is for past, completed events only. Maralia (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yep. And that's all I removed ... an incorrect, current event. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... at the TFA blurb for Samuel Johnson's early life. I think it's better, hopefully you do as well.[10] --Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SG,

If you've the time, I've made a lengthy point here. Hillpna seems to be taking the expert approach to editing, which is interpreting the sources in a way I see as inappropriate. I think s/he has a point that bioidentical hormones do exist as something rarely discussed by either scientists or BHRT advocates, but I don't think wikipedia is the place to have that discussion. If you have the time, I fear my previous optimism was perhaps misplaced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, I think more help is going to be needed here. This is the kind of situation that slowly drives one mad ... I can't read through reams of opinion from an editor who doesn't know how to apply WP:MEDRS. More eyes are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It saddens me to say it, but I'm very much afraid that you and Moni3 have been proven right. Mattisse's advisors/mentors have not stepped up to the plate as we ought to have done. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That has been the most disturbing part to me ... watching as her mentors let her dig herself in further and further. I tried (in vain) to get ArbCom to see that they were allowing her to appoint mentors who couldn't or wouldn't recognize the issues, and that would ultimately harm her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was clear even to me that too many were inclined to try to explain without really understanding what it was they were trying to make excuses for, which has allowed Mattisse's own misunderstandings to flourish into the fantasies they have become. Like everyone else who's been here for a while, I know things aren't always run fairly, and I see some editors—administrators in particular—routinely get away with far worse than I've been blocked for. But I also know there's very little I can do about that, except to try and minimise the opportunities I give to others to argue that I should be blocked, something that admittedly I'm not always 100% successful at. "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference." --Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, yep and yep. Most of those offering to mentor simply didn't have a long enough history with her to understand how deeply entrenched some of these issues are, or didn't take time to do their homework, so ultimately, they didn't serve her well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I offered to mentor but she chose others. Regardless, I have been trying to do what I can to limit the effects of any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although editors with the record that you and I have Ottava probably wouldn't be at the top of anyone's list of mentors, I actually think that we'd make a better fist of it than many, because we've been through the mill ourselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to enjoy any kind of triumph in being right per my spaz-o-matic episode that nearly got me blocked a couple weeks ago. The only thing that kept Mattisse from being blocked for 60 days was the collective will of the editors involved in that ArbCom--not Mattisse. I was among them. I helped write a basis her plan. I thought, however, that those who were volunteering could do the difficult aspect of their volunteer position and confront her when she started to do those things she does. I didn't argue for a harder line at the time of the ArbCom decision. That's my shortcoming and the result is that train wreck of a GAR, and the "Hey....hey....HEY DAMMIT!!!" I had to do to get some attention. --Moni3 (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I see the wisdom in ArbCom's choice ... they allowed her to choose her mentors, they allowed her to determine her plan, so it can be clearly observed where the failure was here, without claims of cabalism. ArbCom gave her/them every chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect I think that there were too many mentors. With nine or ten it's always going to be fairly easy to find one or two who take a softer view than the one saying "For Christ's sake just stop what you're doing and think!" Certainly I haven't found much sympathy for my position when I've said that kind of thing anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum

I believe in second chances. ArbCom proposed a ban. I do not like bans. A week or two block, sure. Ban, no. I am willing to step in the way of a ban for Mattisse or for anyone else who has shown an ability to work on content. However, some people like to use their time back in ill ways. I don't know. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add something on here, for perspective, because I don't recall if you (Malleus) were following my talk page back in the days of "we admins".[11] I know very well what it is to be legitimately targeted and attacked by a group of admins-- better than many editors. However, unlike Mattisse (who seems constitutionally unable to "bury the hatchet"), I dropped it, dug in, did my work, made myself useful, saw the futility in fighting a pack, and saved the diffs until the day they were needed. Had FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs), at any point, simply retracted his unfair accusations about Marskell and Vickers and Tony1-- three editors who do not hide behind anonymity on Wiki-- I would have erased those diffs and forgotten the incident. He didn't; that eventually took care of itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Sandy, I wasn't aware of any of that. Although it may seem to some that I've been here forever, I'd only just started editing wikipedia seriously a couple of months before that blew up; I very much doubt I even knew that FA existed then. Doesn't look like a particularly pleasant experience, so much respect for getting through it in the way that you have. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected you weren't aware or around then. I posted it to point out that 1) Wiki is a much nicer place these days compared to when cabals did rule, and 2) I don't have a lot of patience for editors alleging cabalism when I've truly been on the receiving end of the real thing, and I had to let it go. Just perspective: Wiki and ArbCom do eventually catch up on these things. But FM could have avoided it by apologizing and changing his ways, which he didn't, so when other editors took him to task, I only had to add on my evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry to butt in) While I agree that Pilcha and others are going out of their way to enable Mattisse and excuse her every bad behavior, all of the blame should go on Mattisse. Don't you think this was the perfect time for her to actually use her mentors? "Hey Mentor, I'm thinking about creating 3 new sockpuppets so that I can go on a POINT spree against Giano and his friends, what do you think about that?" Surely no one in their right mind would have said "Sure...go ahead, that sounds like a great idea!" Tex (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not what I'd said if I'd been asked anyway. More like "What the %*&*^% &(&%&*$ are you thinking of you %&$^$"^$ (^(&)()!" I'm sure that you can fill in the blanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That made me laugh. That is bad, because my ribs are badly hurting right now. Regardless, ha! How dare you want better standards! Rigorous schmigorous! You will chase away our contributors by demanding quality! For shame! SHAME! Ottava Rima (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember those good old days with affection, and that post in particular. FM undermined himself by such an unfounded and sweeping attack on widely respected editors like Sandy and Tim Vickers. On the other hand, I didn't think the point of burying the hatchet was to dig it up again later. Geometry guy 21:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I hope you guys are all enjoying agreeing with each other. I disagree. There was never a "right" answer, and none of you had it, despite your very, very frequent assertions to the contrary. The goal was never to defend M., nor to punish her, but to help her to see the reality of Wikipedia—and then either live with it, or leave it. This is—by its nature— a very long-term project. I reject all of the analyses that assert otherwise. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was noble of you guys to try to help her. I do think it's a worthwhile thought experiment to discuss lessons learned and how things could have been handled differently, but maybe it's too soon for that right now. MastCell ^Talk 06:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The logic of the argument is that in future, if Mattisse returns, appropriate mentors would be those with whom she has had a run in and a history, like Malleous. Such mentors could take a blunt, tough, no nonsense approach to transgressions, freeing Mattisse to do the things she's good at. It would take an awful lot of good faith on both sides though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People have been striving to make that proposal the conventional wisdom for a while now.... My point about "long term" was that I always expected there would be backsliding... three steps forward, two steps back (repeat). Ling.Nut (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backsliding yes, but not recidivism. I reject utterly your assertion above that everyone believed the goal was to defend Mattisse, or to punish her. That was certainly never my belief anyway, but neither I nor any other of her advisor/mentors can affect her behaviour other than by pointing out potential problems when asked, drawn to our attention, or that we happen to notice independently. On the occasions that I have offered my advice to Mattisse it has by-and-large not been well received, and ignored. Is that my fault? Because it seems to me that there is a move afoot here to (once again) place the blame firmly on anyone other than Mattisse. What are we supposed to be? Magicians? Mind readers? Does anyone seriously believe that if Mattisse had gone to any of her mentors and asked whether they thought it would be a good idea to create a few sockpuppets they would have said "Yeah, why not, sounds like fun"? Mattisse must begin to take responsibility for the consequences of her own actions, and everyone else must stop making excuses for her. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm. First, I have never and will never make excuses for her or anyone else... Second, such either/or "take responsibility" ultimatums don't work well with people who see the world as one peopled by persecutors and folks out to reject them. As I said, it is a process of recalibrating one's perceptions.. It cannot be a straight path. You expect outbursts. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not unreasonable to demand all users to take responsibility for their actions, from the teenagers who are begging to be admins to any 80-year-olds who happen to grace our pages. This should not be differentiated for admins, arbs, or regular editors. This is not grade school where adults have to gently guide children to understand what taking responsibility means (while parents negate any lessons later in the evening). If users consistently see that particular editors are against them and are unable to see reason, Wikipedia does not have to adjust to bend around their perceptions. Wikipedia did not put policies in place to be abused. The community did not place article talk pages and article review processes in place to be used for personal vendettas. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

none of you had it, despite your very, very frequent assertions to the contrary. The goal was never to defend M., nor to punish her, but to help her to see the reality of Wikipedia. This is a most curious assertion, and I'm simply going to overlook your perception that everyone except you believed certain things about "defending" or "punishing", because I don't know where you get such ideas. Focusing on your assertion that the goal was to "help her see the reality of Wikipedia", I'm wondering how her mentors expected to accomplish that by 1) ignoring breaches of her plan even on her own talk page, 2) failing to explain misconceptions she held that were frequently expressed on her own talk page, and 3) browbeating anyone who pointed out that y'all weren't doing what you signed on to do and weren't helping her. Specifically, considering her concerns about alleged "cabalism", why have you all insisted that communication go underground and backchannel, rather than putting concerns right on her talk page where they more logically belong and where she can see and discuss those concerns in the open? Have you all taught her *anything* about the reality of Wikipedia? I put my concerns on her talk page, where they belong, and her response has been to allege, basically, that now Moni and I are out to get her. Honestly, if you "mentors" have done anything to "help" her, it ain't showing. You all missed every chance to point where she was breaching her Plan and to help her learn, so IMNSHO, if she ends up back at ArbCom, you should stand up and accept your part in the failure to do what you signed on to do. Better, most of you should resign and encourage her to get mentors who will do the job. (And, in case it's not clear, yes, I am angry that some of you blindly and naively, without doing your homework, signed on to do a job that you haven't done, and she, along with FAR, has paid the price.) In case you don't know how mentorship works, review my history with AnnieTigerChucky,[12] who went from multiple blocks to now submitting articles to GAN and FAC. I worked with an admin to hold her hand for MONTHS, through several blocks, where she was forced to learn. Y'all aren't even following Mattisse, much less holding her hand or making sure she learns, even when via necessary blocks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never agreed to follow Mattisse around anywhere, as I made very clear right from the start. And I have certainly never insisted that "communication go underground and backchannel". In fact I don't think I've ever had any communications with Mattisse off-wiki, about anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, exempt yourself from any of my criticism of the mentors. You have been the only one to do any kind of job or be of help. None of the rest of us signed on to follow her around either, but when she alleges stalking on her own talk page because I see her violating her plan on almost every page that I must routinely follow as FA delegate, and none of her mentors investigates or warns her, they are failing her and Wiki content review processes. I'm still hoping someone will begin to address the gratuitous and often mistaken tagging of articles at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It saddens me to see this blow up in the way it did, but I am absolutely not surprised. The behavior exhibited recently is the same as what people have been complaining about for years. The Arbcom hearing didn't really change anything, snd the level of disruption appears to be outweighing the level of good contributions recently. I expect Mattisse to be back in 2 weeks, and I further expect that she'll be back at Arbcom soon after. Karanacs (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse needed the same kind of mentorship ATC had; swift and short blocks the first time she violated her Plan so the situation wouldn't escalate, accompanied by detailed explanations from someone willing to hold her hand through the process of learning where she so often gets it wrong. This is how we mentored ATC. Mattisse got neither. It angers me that ArbCom's good intentions were doomed because they allowed for mentors who couldn't or wouldn't see reality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Malleus has a point about too many mentors. If one of them (let's say Malleus) takes a hard line with Mattisse while 2 or 3 others enable her, then human nature dictates that she'll ignore Malleus and listen to the other 2. Also, part of the issue has to do with expectations and responsibilities. I think most of Mattisse's mentors conceived of themselves as sounding boards whom Mattisse could turn to when she felt stressed - in other words, it was up to Mattisse to identify problematic situations and seek out their help or advice. An alternate school of thought is that the mentors should watch Mattisse and step in proactively when they observed anything untoward. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, IMO, part of the reason they misunderstood their role is that most of them never acknowledged there were problems to begin with. If they had acknowledged the problems, they would have understood that expecting her to recognize when there was a problem and come to them was unrealistic, and they would have known they needed to be more proactive. That this problem would happen was apparent when so many of those signing on to mentor refused to acknowledge the severity of ArbCom's findings. And I'm steamed about this because "mentors" should not have signed on if they weren't prepared to understand the task at hand, and were only going to sit by while Mattisse dug herself in further, getting little guidance from her "mentors". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask the purpose of this extended discussion regarding the failure of the mentor method of solving the ArbCom dispute? Is it to improve Mattisse's mentorship when she returns from her 2-week block in the inevitable break from retirement? Is it to figure out why it happened so future ArbCom cases don't fail so spectacularly? Or perhaps just a venting of frustration? I have no faith that a mentoring system anywhere near similar to what was in place will be effective in any way in the future. I note requests for Mattisse to return after her block on her talk page. What then? How will those who are encouraging her to return assist in protecting Wikipedia when she exhibits further behavior to settle her personal scores? What will be in place? --Moni3 (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, it is educational, in the sense that well-meaning mentors can do more harm than good, and when ArbCom makes serious findings about an editor, those should be taken seriously before mentors sign on for a task they don't acknowledge or understand. ArbCom did its job: the mentors didn't. ArbCom has to have a backup plan if similar occurs in the future. In terms of venting, yes, I'm angry about the attempts by some of her mentors to run this thing backchannel, which would only further Mattisse's concerns about cabalism ... it should ALL be upfront, on her talk page, but when I do that, I become a target of her misunderstanding, and not one of her "mentors" clears it up. They aren't helping her ... it's very frustrating to watch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ArbCom did specify a backup plan, in that a new case or clarification could be opened which they would hear. Mattisse has stated she will not return if the block is not lifted. Despite her track record, I am choosing to take that pledge seriously - so I see this as a post-mortem on why the mentorship didn't work, and what lessons can be drawn for the next time mentorship is proposed as an "out" for an editor facing sanctions.

If Mattisse were to return, particularly in light of her commentary after the block (which I find in many ways more problematic than the sockpuppetry), then regardless of what anyone else does, I will bring this situation to ArbCom. It's not healthy or tenable, and I can't believe it's what they had in mind when they closed the last case. I have a personal opinion on the proper course of action at this point, which is probably not overly difficult to discern. Regardless, if Mattisse returns to editing, something else needs to be in place, and it needs to be constructed by taking advantage of the hindsight and experience gained from this round of mentorship. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it utterly plain in all of my contributions to this process and I will make it utterly plain again. Mattisse's plan was, has been, and remains (if she returns) her responsibility alone. She wrote it, Arbcom approved it, and it is up to her to live up to it, or not (as in this case), and suffer the consequences accordingly. Apparently some editors here have a different idea, sometimes based on completely different experiences, that her mentors are some sort of combination of a police force and social work group who follow her around, steering her clear of trouble and smacking her when she breaches her plan. In contrast, I have always, and continue, to view this mentorship as a resource for Mattisse to draw on when she needs it to help her stick to her plan. She did nothing of the sort in this case, yet within hours of her being blocked, editors who ought to know better start posting "I told you so's", how badly wrong it all went, how the mentors have not been doing their job, tarring them all with one brush in the process (and then making occasional exceptions for Malleus, as if to prove sweeping generalizations are not being made).

Sorry folks, I edit Wikipedia in my leisure time, and I have no desire to spend it stalking someone else's contributions. If anyone (e.g. Mattisse) wants my help, they can come to me, and I'm usually happy to do so. From reading this thread, one would think that Mattisse's sockpuppetry had catastrophically undermined the encyclopedia. I imagine Bishonen is laughing his head off. No damage there, then. Indeed, the handful of edits by Mattisse's socks did no damage to anyone except herself and she's done herself further damage by letting the outcome feed into her persecution complex.

The most damaging fall-out to the encyclopedia are threads like this, where editors who normally hold each other in great mutual respect try to unpick what went wrong and point fingers of blame over an issue that is a trifle compared with the many more important things that need to be done to improve this encyclopedia.

Enough. Geometry guy 21:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. This entire issue deserves some discourse. There are practical issues here that should have been resolved at ArbCom and obviously were not. They continue to be unresolved. I also edit Wikipedia in my leisure time and particularly enjoy the company of editors whose top priorities appear to be those of the entire project: collaboration and good quality. I don't edit Wikipedia to stay up at night trying to think of how I can possibly reason with an unreasonable editor.

While I agree that it's fairly pointless at this stage to lay blame on individuals in particular, there is value in devising a way to handle Mattisse's disruption in the future and allowing future ArbCom decisions to learn from the failures of this one. Months from now we can calmly look back on this thread and pick out why we employed it: there were too many assumptions about what the roles were supposed to be. There was not enough clarity. There did not seem to be any mutual understanding between those who brought the ArbCom case and those who volunteered to be Mattisse's mentors. I think also the time constraints ArbCom put on the case were a factor.

While I imagine it is unpleasant to face the confusion and accusations, your input into this could be worthwhile. Forbidding people from talking about it is the wrong way to go. If you don't wish to read about it, avoid it until you can discuss it. That's your personal choice. But you have no leverage to insist others are not allowed to do so. It's what people do in the wake of disappointment. Call it drama or processing. --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not forbidding anything. Only Sandy can do that on her talk page. My own view is that discussion will be more fruitful once there is some distance from events. You make many sensible comments, but productive discussion is much more likely in a week or two's time. By all means process, but why the rush? Geometry guy 22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I am unclear as to what will be done once her 2-week block is up. If we let this die and neglect to address that right now, we're going to return to this theme. Of course, she could completely surprise me and enjoy her retirement in peace, but it's quite clear to me that she has no intention of reforming and her animosity is as strong as it ever was. I suppose my part could be I simply refuse to nominate anything again for GA or FA and work on my inner happiness at producing what I can, avoiding review processes in that she may one day disrupt something else. I don't think that's why GA and FA were created, however, and it lets the articles I work on wallow in stagnation.

Different people as well process in different speeds. My lily-white family processes troublesome issues at a snail's pace. Any attempt to recognize the proverbial elephant in the room is met with tense smiles and offers to go get drinks and flee the vicinity. Others have a massive row and end it minutes later in hugs and tears. Wikipedia time is lightning fast, and our attention is notoriously short. Forsaking this discussion now neglects to capture the essence of frustration. What it may lack in productivity right now, specifically for me, is made up in clarity of thought. I know exactly why I am frustrated and my memory is notoriously (and blissfully) brief. In two weeks I'll be in the middle of something else, some article or review and will be grasping to recall what I felt today. I will still participate, using this as a reference as to what I was thinking.

There's no need to be abusive towards anyone who participated in the ArbCom decision or the mentoring (despite the apex of my frustration 2 weeks ago). There is great need to be pragmatic and productive. It was a cock-up. So let's fix it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, some of us disagree with Gguy about 1) the need for this debate, 2) the role of those who agree to mentor, and 3) the significance of disruption to content review processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and I'm one of those. This whole mess has been a cock-up right from the start, and I see nothing to be lost by discussing what went wrong here in an attempt to prevent anything like it happening again. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything like what happening again? Geometry guy 22:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An ill-defined mentorship left to the community, instead of ArbCom sanctions, which may end up in the person sanctioned, and the areas of the Wiki affected, being ill-served. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess it was TLDR. After letting someone else respond first, you are now confident enough to respond on behalf of Malleus, great, go for it! I apologize for the intrusion and hope that in a week's time we will all have a broader perspective. Bye for now, and good luck. Geometry guy 22:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tense? I'm not responding on behalf of Malleus; I'm responding for me (it is my talk page, right?) "Letting someone else respond first"? I took a break from FAC and saw the discussion here. Relax. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just disengaging. I noted above that it is your talk page and apologize if my assumption that you had not read all of the above was incorrect. Geometry guy 23:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of clarity, SandyG elaborated on my view very well; that's exactly what I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There are important things to discuss. What are ArbCom for if they cannot set the parameters of a workable solution rather than a trap for heffalumps? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, seriously, enough with the free-hand assumptions and imaginings. "I imagine Bishonen is laughing his head off. No damage there, then." Geometry Guy, I can't live up to your imagination, being neither a he nor laughing. If you envy me the amusing experience of having Mattisse spit bile and venom at me in her spiteful efforts to point Jimbo Wales in my direction, immediately after I RFAR'd him, you're welcome to try it yourself next time. And for the supporters who rushed up to assure the world that CallMeNow's attacks were merely "trivial" —"juvenile", or "limited and innocuous"—I consider such a defense of Mattisse to be disrespectful. Towards me. Wikipedia is a toxic personality, like User:Bishonen" (she's quoting Jimbo.) "User:Bishonen is allowed to have sockpuppets to harass Jimmy Wales, such as User:Toxic Avenger and User:Little Toxic Personality." Innocuous? No, it wasn't. Mattisse had good reason to seek anonymity. Incidentally, I haven't seen anybody suggest she apologize to me. Am I supposed to be laughing too hard? The assumption when the idea of apologies is mooted seems to be that the injured party who deserves an apology is either nobody in particular—the empty air—or the blocking admin. Curious idea. Bishonen | talk 23:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• I really can't disagree with that. The emphasis here has been too much on how Mattisse's mentors let her down, but in truth she did that all by herself. The more important issue is how those mentors—of which I was one—let others like you down Bishonen, by not stepping in when they ought to have done. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hammer. Bishonen | talk 23:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Has anyone figured out that, under all that bluff and bluster, Malleus is a real sweetheart. (That'll piss him off.) The worst attack ever lodged on me was on Mattisse's talk page and No One Said A Word. A most curious phenomenon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll be hearing from my lawyers in the morning Sandy. To be serious though, I guess part of the problem is the assumption that editors like you and Bishonen have been around long enough to be to immune to the hurts that have become a daily part of life here. I haven't been around anything like as long as either of you, but I certainly haven't found the daily insults any easier to deal with as time's gone on. Quite the reverse actually. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ask those two fellows in the next section for my address, but I'll warn you now: my lawyer's gun is bigger than your lawyer's gun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated in multiple places that Mattisse's behaviour was utterly unacceptable. However, Bishonen, I apologize if I misread the sitation, and you were more personally affected than I had appreciated from my review of the edit histories. Geometry guy 00:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have to consider the possibility that other editors are actually people, not just convenient targets for abuse, no matter how well they may or may not appear to handle that abuse. Even the toughest of us may eventually be worn down by repeated claims that we're a cancer on the project, and that kind of abuse simply has to stop, and stop now. The admin corps is obsessed by naughty words and imagined "personal attacks", but it fails to address the root of the problem, which is that real abuse is tolerated, and even encouraged. You are are an administrator G-guy, but what are you doing about that? Nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well understood and well stated. (How about Moni, for example?) But it's not only the editors; it's content review processes as well. FAC took a huge hit with the repeated allegations of cabalism, and I'm concerned about FAR lately. The most insulting thing about the FAC cabalism allegations was them being unleashed on GrahamColm. Malleus, how many times have you and I e-mailed, ever? That same number applies to GrahamColm. That bites. Gguy, thanks for coming back to the discussion, and thanks for the kind words. I know I've been very strident in my statements about the mentors ... and you've taken it like a man. I guess it's no secret I'm mostly troubled by Philcha. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your conciliatory remarks, Sandy. I hope I do understand your concerns, and also that you can see from what has been said (and not said) on the thread on my talk page that our views (and those of others) are not so far apart. I also share your concerns that good editors such as Moni3 have been disheartened by recent events. Geometry guy 01:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth GG I can assure you that being on Mattisses hit list and knowing that ones efforts to engage in review processes will be met with unchallenged spite, bile and unwarranted accusations is an unpleasant and wearisome experience. I have several Psych. GA's and one psych FA and I was planning a number more (not AT which is a bit peripheral) but I stopped, as have others in the psych. world because there's no point and its too unpleasant. That doesn't make us shrinking violets who can't cope with a bit of conflict. It's the pointlessness of engaging with essentially corrupt review procedures when you are one of Mattisses targets. And Mattisse is very well supported. Its not a question of blame, rather of understanding.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been there. Geometry guy 22:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floating a proposal

OK, biting the bullet. I guess it's clear that I believe there was a process failure here. Mattisse's block, if served for two weeks, expires Sept. 11. Would everyone be willing to take a new approach, and not re-open a new Arb for at least two weeks after that (Sept. 25)? And instead, get a system where she is really warned and blocked the second she violates her Plan, in the event she does? I don't believe she has been well served here, so I'm wondering if re-opening the Arb is the best course. Feel free to shoot me down if I'm wrong: I'm a hopeless Pollyanna. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom came up with 6 complaints compiled by the editors who started the ArbCom case. Is your idea to include these? Should sockpuppetry be added? Anything else?

I had Mattisse's concerns at heart during the ArbCom case. It has become clear that she squandered that opportunity, so what serves her well is no longer my priority. For continual abuses of fellow editors, any system must have in place a final consequence. Who decides what consists of the final straw? ArbCom? Another group of admins who have the ability to indef block? --Moni3 (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to better explain my concerns:

1. Yes, while the blows hurt us just as they hurt any other editor, the truth is, editors like Bish, you and me can deal with those better than others. We need not be in a hurry: we need to get the best result.

2. I'd like to see a mentorship more like ATC's, where the combo of swift admin blocks backed by patient explanation of where she went wrong turned her into a productive editor. I've seen neither swift action, nor explanations of her frequent misunderstandings for Mattisse.

3. I put a wee bit of blame on ArbCom for accepting such an ill-defined plan ... the shortcomings were apparent to all of us who knew that Mattisse's issues occur over her grudge-bearing, but no one got on top of that, and a few of the mentors never saw it.

4. I always believed the biggest chance missed by ArbCom was that the mentors blocked the idea of a short break that was floated by NYB (which he did *not* call a block) for Mattisse. Some editors are more able than others to deal with the addictive potential of Wiki, and I'm holding out hope that she will gain perspective if the two-week block is served.

Beyond that, I say get some admins on board who will do whatever needs to be done. If she continues as she always has, the Arb gets re-opened on Sep 25, and the conclusion is likely foregone. But maybe the time off will result in change, and if it doesn't, swift admin action should prevent too much damage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• An Arb case would only serve to set a permanent ban on Mattisse. As you can see, there is the possibility of 2 week blocks. I would hope that people would see that the whole dispute was not clean for either side, so that a ban would not be justified (except for the socking, which is very problematic but not worth a ban at the moment). I would hope that everyone involved will look at the situation - do you want her banned or do you not want her banned. I don't care about the reasons, but if you don't want Mattisse banned they please keep an open mind on how to help improve her. It is bad enough that someone like Peter Damian decided to use up the last of any ability to stay here based on socking and going after people. I want people to think if this is really a trend we need. This is a serious situation and both sides need to recognize that there is a fat of someone's Wiki-existence on the line with all of the ramifications, potential backlash, and other problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own view for what it's worth is that any remaining mentors need to be administrators with the power to block. I have found my own voice to be ignored as I have no authority, and I have no intention of continuing to waste my time in that way. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there has to be a mechanism for calling their attention: the current Plan was too ill-defined, and some mentors were trying to run everything backchannel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mentors must be people who understand the problem. People who can, for example, see that Mattisses list of "Situations in which I tended to become stressed (per Ling.Nut's request)" in her plan is in fact a list of not-very covert attacks on members of her plague list. People who can see that when she GARs articles by her plague list within hours of their being passed it is not because she wants only to improve the encyclopaedia, whether her criticisms have substance or not. I am not of the "Mattisse should be banned" school. Few are. I just want some mechanism to make her leave her persecutees alone so editors can crawl back out again and enjoy editing.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there was that some of the editors weighing in at the ArbCom case did not understand or acknowledge how the grudge bearing was affecting content review processes, and their input prevented the implementation of a realistic plan. I suspect that the new news about the targetting of Bishonen via sockpuppets may have opened some eyes? I do hope editors entering Delist declarations at FAR will now more closely examine some of the article citation tagging. I don't know how we go about effecting change to the ineffective Plan that was put in place, or finding an admin with the patience to explain to Mattisse where she frequently misunderstands. I was disappointed that her mentors haven't encouraged her to avoid articles of editors at FAR with whom she has had frequent disputes. On the really good news front, I'm encouraged to see that this mess has not ended up at ANI or Arb enforcement; in those drama dens, the kind of reasoned discussion we've had here is less likely, as editors who have little understanding of the long-standing issues are more likely to weigh in and continue the drama-laden cock-up. I still hope there will be a way to re-work the Plan to something more effective and realistic, but I'm not sure how that can be done within the context of ArbCom's continuing oversight of the case. I 'spose someone should just ask the Arbs if they are willing to open some process whereby the Plan can be re-worked? We don't know their thinking, and they have retained jurisdiction in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am hard-pressed to believe that Mattisse misunderstands what she is going on around here. If that is the case, I am unable to reconcile her lack of such understanding with the fact that she is well attuned to the inner workings of Wikipedia, having gone through checkuser processes, three RfCs, an ArbCom case, more than 50,000 edits, countless GA reviews and a record of participation at FAC. In my own experience, I was simply not able to address her criticisms of the MBI article at GAR because they did not adhere to GA criteria: she was arguing for deletion, neglecting any understanding of core Wikipedia policies of Notability, Verifiability, and Reliable sources. I was simply dumbstruck that someone with such a long history of GA review could make such fundamental errors in discerning between GA and AfD criteria.

Obviously, I cannot account for why she claims ignorance. Should she return, I no longer believe that other editors should work for her. She has to work for herself, displaying an attitude of contrition and recognizing that she should work to get the trust of the community back. Personally, had I felt similarly that I was being tormented and abused by editors, I would have left many months ago. It seems only the logical thing to do: I consider it an issue of self-respect. For her own health, I think she should stay retired. Upon a return, should she methodically and resolutely begin to display the same dogged issues that arose in her ArbCom, it seems only just as logical that she is not interested in--or not able to--behave within the standards of what is acceptable on Wikipedia. I would not oppose a ban. Only so much of our volunteer resources can be spared to attempt to solve this issue again. Where is the point of diminishing returns? --Moni3 (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuredly she is well versed in the Ways of Wiki. But whether she genuinely believes herself to be persecuted we none of us can know. I suppose in reality the chances of Mattisse being prepared to accept as a mentor anyone who does see her behaviour for what it is, is pretty slim given that she saw the mentors as there to protect her from others, thus, presumably, giving her a free hand. If there was no body of protectors but a set of simple rules to keep (such as venues for editing and certain other editors), it would be up to Mattisse. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several important points made above, and I welcome efforts to find a way around this conundrum. It is very difficult to find a workable solution that isn't tantamount to a ban. In this respect, let me point to the danger of entering into fantasy mentor land. When the mentor role is advisory, a resource for Mattisse to call on, it is appropriate and desirable for the mentors to include editors (like myself) with whom Mattisse has had past conflicts and those (like Malleus) who will not mince their words when she is on a destructive path. If a more active mentoring role is needed then we need to find mentors who

1. are admins willing actively to enforce Mattisse's plan by block if necessary;
2. have the time and inclination to patrol her activities with this in mind;
3. have no conflict of interest when it comes to making a block.

Where are such mentors going to come from? For instance I fail both 1 and 2. My RfA was based on a platform in which I stated that I would not use the block tool, and a statement to that effect remains on my user page; while I am happy to do what I can to help Mattisse get on better with the rest of the encyclopedia, I have always made it clear that I am only interested in doing so in an advisory capacity. If she screws up, either by not seeking advice (as in this case) or by not listening to advice, then she is likely heading for a block (as in this case), but not by me.

I don't wish only to accentuate the difficulties, though, so let me make one small positive proposal. If Mattisse decides to return to editing after her block, I would support a topic ban on all psychology related articles, for instance as an Arbcom motion. This may come as a surprise to some editors, as I have generally found Mattisse's comments on such articles to be informed and helpful with regard to content issues, and have taken them into account at GAR. However, that is only half the story. Having now seen several independent examples, it seems to me that, partly because of her expertise, her efforts to make her point lead to an emotional engagement that results in widespread devastation. If this one thing were removed from the equation, I imagine many of the conflicts that editors here have had with Mattisse would not be repeated. Geometry guy 20:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've pegged that one accurately. Mattisse gets into the worst trouble in two scenarios: psych articles, and editors with whom she has had previous conflict. I was intentionally trying to be as low-key as I could during the ArbCom, so didn't spell this out clearly enough, but those two sanctions might have been good prevention (no more FARs or GARs on editors she has had conflict with in the past, and no more psych reviews). But, like you, I'm torn: she was (correctly) the only reviewer to point out the excessive reliance on primary sources at Major depressive disorder, but then she became emotionally involved and derailed the FAC, as she did Reactive attachment disorder with incorrect interpretations of policy and guidelines.[13] By the way, an uninvolved admin who worked very well with the ATC issue was VirtualSteve ... I barely know him, so don't know if he's still active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that our views are close enough (adding confirmation to the belief I expressed yesterday) that we are both reluctant about a psychology topic ban. However, with appropriate controls in place, it may be better for the encyclopedia to have a topic-banned Mattisse than a completely banned Mattisse. Concerning editors with whom she has had previous conflict, my understanding is that the problem is when she believes the other editor is emotionally involved in the article/issue. She and I had conflict because she thought I was emotionally involved over Scientology in Germany, when in fact I was just stating my view on the implications of NPOV for the article. Since I have no personal view on the Scientology debate, it was easy for me to deal with that. Had I been emotionally involved, she and I could have had significant ongoing problems.

However, it is my understanding that she is well aware of this issue with her behaviour and has been telling herself (and her mentors, through her plan) that she should avoid situations involving certain editors. She clearly hasn't always succeeded, but in the failures, she seems to have been drawn in for other reasons. I find it hard to imagine (e.g.) an Arbcom motion that would handle such a subtle issue. Geometry guy 21:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having slept upon it, and after catching up on the thread below (which further demonstrates the difficulties associated with a complete reworking of Mattisse's plan), I continue to believe that a psychology topic ban is worthy of consideration, despite my (our) reservations about it. Geometry guy 11:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something about psych articles causes Mattisse to show misapplications of Wikipedia policies, as if she's owning the entire suite of articles. It's not entirely limited to psych. She fairly insisted a term not be linked in The Age of Reason because the linked article was poorly written and cited. That is pretty much how I get to articles that need improvement, and I guess most folks begin their Wikipedia careers. And her oppose to Samuel Johnson's early life at TFAR was just as perplexing, claiming no one really knows or cares about Johnson. If that is not why Wikipedia exists and FAs go on the main page then someone please point out to me what is the true purpose of this site.

But I tried to explain these misunderstandings to her, and that just got her dander up ... and as far as I can tell, none of her mentors realized her faulty understanding and how that impacts content review, or attempted to help her understand ! If mentorship is to be part of the solution, it needs to be *proactive* and based on acknowledgement of the issues ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My recurring point is that not only would someone have to follow her edits, but they would have to explain the most basic issues of policy that for editors with over 1,000 edits are taken for granted as implied and understood. It truly is a matter of economics: find someone with the time and energy to devote to this. Yet why should it fall on another editor? Where is the personal responsibility to adhere to community expectations? I am expected to behave myself and read up on policies where I don't know what is going on. When I make mistakes, others point them out to me. I learn or I stop making bad edits. Should this actually be explained to Mattisse? How basic really should this guidance be? I sound like I'm trying to throw wrenches in any plan to get started, but rather I'm trying to understand what a new plan might entail. --Moni3 (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floating a second proposal

Based on Gguy's observations above, what do others think of something along these lines ?

1. Get an admin on board; based on the previous Arb findings, set up a series of escalating block provisions in case issues recur.

2. Specify a page where concerns can be lodged; the current Plan left it unclear how and where concerns should be lodged, and a few of the mentors appeared to beat back anyone who had concerns. For example, her Oppose of Johnson at TFA/R really raises eyebrows, and a neutral party should have been able to talk her through that.

3. In exchange for shortening the overall length of her block by five days, and to avoid another ArbCom (as a show of good faith, and J.delanoy would have to agree), Mattisse agrees not to review at GAN or FAC or submit to FAR or GAR psych articles or articles of editors with whom she has had previous conflict or targetted in the past (Fainites, Casliber, Moni3, Giano/Bish/George/Filiocht articles ... ??). I don't like the idea of a significant shortening of her block, because I really believe the forced time off could be helpful for her, but a few days would show good faith.

4. In order not to lose her input on psych article FACs and FARs, she is allowed to lodge her concerns on the associated talk pages of the FAC or FAR-- that should prevent the type of derailing that occurs when she gets emotionally involved? (Don't know how to fix that with GAR, as they occur on talk pages.)

I'm just thinking aloud ... again, feel free to shoot me down if I'm too Pollyanna. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without expressing a view at present, I would note that GAR's either occur on a talk subpage or a separate reassessment page. This is compatible with requiring the expression of concerns only on the article talk page or (for community GARs) the reassessment talk page. Geometry guy 21:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear if we're saying the same thing. Every FAC has its own page, with an associated FAC talk page. She wouldn't directly edit the FAC page, only the associated FAC talk page. Are we saying the same thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are. Every community GAR has its own page, with an associated talk page. Individual GARs do not have a separate talk page, but the article talk page is a good substitute. Geometry guy 22:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And shouldn't this whole discussion be moved <somewhere> to assure we're getting everyone's input? Eventually? I don't know when or where, because ArbCom retained jurisdiction and we don't want another debacle, but the discussion needs to widen at some point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not move it to a subpage of Mattisses Plan - or is that part of Mattisses userpages (which would sem a bit rude in the circumstances).Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYB has encouraged her to stop responding on her talk for a few days, so that would seem a bit ... off ... I was thinking a subpage of the Arb case, but don't want to re-open the Arb can of worms yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "concerns" page is a good idea if this is going to work at all. It is totally impractical to expect another editor to monitor all the edits of someone as prolific as Mattisse. As for the list, many on the plague list come into that category.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to find the "plague list"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll find it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To that list, I'd add Dinesh (even though he gave up and left, maybe he can be enticed back) and G/B/G/F (Geogre and Filiocht seem to get lumped with Bish and Giano). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps people could apply to be added to the list, based on evidence.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can't find the diff at the moment, Mattisse did say at the Arbcom proceedings that she was not willing to work with someone with the power to block her - that she would rather retire. The current plan was the limit of what she would agree to do. Karanacs (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps she will see that the socking changes her circumstances, and that a new Plan is an attempt to avoid a less desirable outcome in a re-opened Arb case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt it, but at the end of the day, that's a matter for Mattisse. If a Plan is fair, reasonable and workable then it is there for Mattisse to accept or not. The last plan, unwittingly, set her up to fail. True it was her own plan but a plan set up by others should not set her up to fail and should be as crystal clear as possible.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really clear on the procedural issues here, but I suspect that if most of us can come to some sort of agreement, we would eventually propose it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Then, considering her block, there would have to be some way for Mattisse to weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rather assumed something had to happen in the sense that when or before the block expires, someone will take it back to ArbCom on the basis that she is or may be back. At that point the choices are a tightened, enforcable plan or a worse sanction given the multiple breaches (if accepted). I assume Mattisse would have her say. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen anyone clearly articulate the goals of such a proposal. That is particularly interesting. I suppose they must be simply shared knowledge that I am not sharing in.... Let me publicly propose a goal. I propose that we put together a system that drives Mattise off Wikipedia for well and for good, certainly within six months, probably within three, and perhaps even immediately (with any luck). I propose further more that we go through some not-too-elaborate contortions to put up a front that we are not trying to do so, in order to cover our butts. All in favor say "Aye!" Ling.Nut (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what's going on either, but sarcasm does not assist with any mutual understanding. If you disagree with something, then say it. In my view, this is not a plan for Mattisse. It's a plan for Wikipedia's editors to deal with the times that Mattisse becomes unreasonable. --Moni3 (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's goin on, Moni, is a hanging party discussed as a not-hanging-party. Perhaps... perhaps everyone is right. mattisse certainly did backslide. Perhaps there never was any hope that she could drop her unhealthy perceptions that she had enemies etc. But I tried. And I am not a hypocrite. So I lose, in terms of Wikipedia, but win in terms of character. Pyrrhic victory. Ling.Nut (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a hanging party, Mattisse brought the rope, tied it herself, perched on a ladder and kicked it. I suppose you can claim integrity of character, but those who are participating here all participated in the ArbCom decision that failed so poorly. I think we all failed to communicate effectively and face harsh truths. This is a community fail. You missed our processing yesterday. No one is laying the blame on you. The first plan was written and formed to assist Mattisse. It was flawed from the beginning. Now it's time to construct something that is for the community, not for an individual. --Moni3 (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) That's fine, but let's skip the laborious pretense and just fucking ban her now. That would reflect integrity, indeed. Ling.Nut (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your input, I suppose it has been noted. --Moni3 (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. You're pretending that there's such a thing as "input". Ling.Nut (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gracious, Ling. What is it you want? Speak up and be plain. --Moni3 (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put an end to world poverty? Bring peace to the Middle East? It's about time that Ling.Nut and several others got real. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're way out of control here, Ling.nut, and your sarcasm and refusal to see the extreme efforts to which some of us are extending ourselves to help Mattisse will only harm her, the many editors who have given up because of her, and content review processes. Please try to be more constructive and open-minded. Your approach hasn't worked, and it's more than "backsliding": the behaviors never stopped. That's all I'm saying for today, because I'm tired of being slapped by you. I have no need or reason to continue trying to help here, if this is the best you can come up with: change your approach, or assume the consequences of a failed mentorship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, August 30, 2009

What I want is immaterial, or more accurately perhaps, I see that I have no ability or political capital to want anything. This is entirely schoolyard politics, and it's all over but folding the chairs and turning out the lights... Essentially, we have a troubled editor ... who makes many valuable contributions, and gained a large political following in the process... who takes the slightest miff or whatever and perceives it as an attack. She then launches a counter-attack which is, in her opinion, proportional to the original affront, but in fact it is not. It is excessive. So we have a gang of editors who wanna boot her butt off Wikipedia. The attempt to help her was in fact making progress, but she backslid. Ding! call it a "failed mentorship". One strike and you're out. The mentor system will be replaced by people who pretend to be trying to help, but are in fact chivvying her until she fucks up again (which she will, of course) and then she can really really be banned without question. End of story. I say let's stop pretending. Either keep the current system, perhaps somewhat modified, or ban her right now. Ling.Nut (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that you're talking rubbish, and haven't really been watching what's been happening over the last few weeks. The situation is pretty much back to square one, and it's been plain it was heading in that direction for some time. What have you tried to do about that? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake, I don't want to help Mattisse and I am not pretending to. She needs to help herself. I want her to adhere to the same expectations imposed on other editors. The current system allows her mentors to sit and watch when she goes off the deep end. The editors who are subject to her disorganized vitriol are to be told to avoid her. What suffers? Content and review processes. If she can participate to improve content and adhere to policy then she should do so. Seriously...I need folks to understand this. It's not about Mattisse. It's not about me, or you. It's about the reason we come here: to improve content and collaborate. Any system that is about her and does not have a priority higher than individuals will fail. --Moni3 (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I was gonna say more, but I'll skip the more personal responses. the world keeps turning. :-) Mattise continually fights against feeling of powerlessness and/or persecution, and does so in a manner that is socially unacceptable. In order to help her, the entire community (or the significant majority thereof, and certainly everyone who has nay political capital to speak of) would have to embark on a rather long-term plan to do so. There is no desire to do so. I won't speculate on the motivations for this lack, aside from saying that they are not monolithic, and the degree to which they merit respect varies more than a little. But... there is nothing that can be done. Make your plans. As I said, I have no political capital left. G-guy, though rather harshly and undeservingly insulted, does. Perhaps he can help make sure the plans are not too hostile. That's all. Gotta go for today, and still really need to quit Wikipedia. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ling, I agree with you. Unfortunately for Mattisse and other troubled editors, if they are truly misunderstanding and/or reacting in very inappropriate ways, then it is ultimately their responsibility to adapt to the expected behaviors/social norms. I believe that the community has bent over backwards in the past few years to accomodate Mattisse, yet there has been no significant, long-term change in her behavior. At what point do we say enough is enough? I'm not here to provide behavior modification therapy to anyone; I'm here to write an encyclopedia, and I don't want to have to continually work around people who refuse to or cannot figure out how to behave. Karanacs (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically agree with Karanacs. You are pretty much wrong about motivations though Ling. Mattisse has done more than some who get banned. I thought the last plan was likely to fail but do not for a moment suggest those involved intended that result. However, Mattisse sought out her "enemies" rather than the other way round. This can't go on but it is unfair to suggest that solutions coming from a different angle, designed to keep Mattisse away from problematic areas/editors, are cynical plots to destroy Mattisse, because you think they won't work. If you think any such plans would do more harm than good, then say so. If you have a better solution lets hear it. You have said elsewhere that the whole point of this is to get Mattisse to stop throwing poo. If that's a long process, is it any wonder that the targets of the poo want at least a tin hat if not a shelter, if not for it to stop altogether? And just how exactly does the encyclopaedia fully benefit from what the poo-targets can contribute if they can't go about their legitimate business?Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"When is enough enough" is a question for each individual to answer. As I said above, the consensus here on this individual page (which is an extremely non-random, even self-selected sample) would not seem to be in favor of more patience. As for motivations, that is again a question for each individual. As I said above, I am certain that motivations differ. I doubt that further elaboration would be productive. As for the creation of a new approach (in whatever form), I leave that in the hands of the folks here, who will later run it before ArbCom, who will certainly modify it in some way. I hope that the hostility level and chivvying nature will be low. Specifically, this idea of "those whom mattisse has targeted should be her mentors" is about the battiest idea I have ever heard in my 40+ years of living. Would you willingly agree to let someone who is either hostile to you (and many on this page are hostile to M., please set aside those halos) or is at best perceived to be hostile by you be your... umm... guardian or whatever? Your nanny? Realistically, where are the odds of success in that? well, if you define success as "getting M. banned within 6 months, perhaps even within 3" then the odds are very favorable. If you define "success" as a happy outcome with M. continuing as an editor on Wikipedia, the odds converge to zero. Please. Use common sense. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who has suggested a plan that includes "those she targets as her mentors"? And as a matter of fact - Malleous was one who had been on the receiving end of some of Mattisses behaviours and he made one of the more coherent and effective mentors. Unfortunately Mattisse had 9 to choose from. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my case at least, your perception is accurate. I have no patience left for Mattisse's problematic behavior, misunderstandings of policy, and quite frankly, bizarre perceptions and paranoia. In your "throwing poo" analogy, she has quite effectively forced her fears to come to fruition by causing a group of editors--for want of a better phrase--to go after her. Those of us smeared with her poo are fairly well fed up. I just want to write articles and get solid feedback on them. I don't want to participate in her alternate realities.

As I remember it, the ArbCom decision was being devised without Mattisse in one of my sandboxes when you insisted we stop without her input and agreement. I thought that was fairly pointless, but I respect you and let it go. The system that replaced it failed. I think it failed because it did not take into account the valid frustrations of editors who have not deserved her negative attentions. If you cannot see that, we are really addressing quite divergent issues and we need to have the proverbial "Come to Jesus" moment. I have argued with you before that there is no logical basis for praise and support when she posts good or neutral things, and nothing happens when she begins to behave badly. No rational person can agree that this works, and certainly I do not see how anyone watching her behavior within the past several weeks can see that it has worked for her.

So be creative. Come up with something different. Geometry guy and Sandy are bandying about a topic ban on psych articles. What about an admin or two who have no experience with her who will listen to her supporters and those on her "Torture" list equally? If you want to help Mattisse then come up with a better plan that takes our concerns into account. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bed

in the midst of a flurry of unnecessary drama,my wife is calling me to bed. really. You asked for concrete suggestions: I suggest that Sandy, Malleus and perhaps others have the good conscience to recuse themselves from any leadership roles or active input in the ArbCom that I am sure will happen soon, as they are not neutral, but rather hostile parties. G'night. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been watching this back-and-forth since I stumbled upon it from Brad's page. I've looked pretty deeply into the issue, and am convinced that this idea is not a good one. If everyone ever attacked by Mattisse recuses themselves from commenting at the Arbcom, it would simply be an echo chamber for Mattisse to comment on the various ways those people have "attacked" her. While there are always two sides to a story, and normally plenty of blame to go around, Mattisse is the issue here. She contributes well on the content side. None would deny this. She also has a chilling effect on those who would contribute at the Featured and Good Article processes. Her anger and paranoia are a large problem, and asking those who have a problem with her to "recuse themselves from leadership roles or active input" in any forthcoming Arbcom case is unwise in the extreme. UnitAnode 15:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please regain a sense of reality and common sense, Ling, and read and respond to what is written on the page, not what you imagine. I've participated in a successful mentorship (have you?), this one failed precisely because so many of us were silent and didn't take an active role in the ArbCom, and my attempts to model this mentorship after one that I know worked have been met by you with outrageous assumptions about the good intentions of all involved here, and completely unsubstantiated claims that we're trying to get Mattisse banned. Asking me not to participate in an ArbCom, when I largely stood down during the last one, shows again that you don't see where or why the problems occurred. Is anyone less neutral than you and Philcha here, who have never addressed Mattisse's violations of her Plan, and sat by and watched as she dug herself into trouble? Worry not, Ling.Nut. I have no intentions of standing in your way or doing anything else to try to forestall the many editors who have expressed a willingness to bring a new Arb against Mattisse. You shot down my efforts to prevent that well enough. I don't need this; let the chips fall where they may, and if she ends up banned, be a man and accept the responsibility, because you wouldn't discuss when others floated proposals to avoid that eventuality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ling, I acquiesced when you insisted we step back and stop working on a plan that would include the editors Mattisse has harmed in the past. I will not do it again. It would be very foolish to expect changes, and quite frankly, counterproductive to the reason the ArbCom motion was started in the first place if the editors who have been subject to her irrational behavior are again silenced. --Moni3 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, on the other hand, will do exactly what I did the last time though (mostly stand down, while expressing concern that an unworkable Plan was being put in place). I don't need this. Ling and Philcha own it now; let them accept the consequences, after having beaten down anyone who might try to help. I do request that any re-working of the Plan include a provision for where editors can express concerns, and being repeatedly told to send them back-channel to mentors is *not* the correct answer. There needs to be a public venue for pointing out when/if issues repeat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Ling you're not suggesting poo-targets shouldn't even provide evidence? All I want to be able to do is take part in psych articles and review processes again and I'm not alone. If Mattisses friends think they can find a way to achieve that without Mattisse being banned, then good. Fine by me. But seeing the poo-targets as inevitably ill-motivated and ineligible to comment on a solution is absurd. I've kept away from it all since way before the ArbCom. I don't see why I should keep away from it forever, nor anybody else. Over to you. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For myself I'm perfectly happy not to take "a leadership role" in Mattisse's ongoing mentoring should she return, or indeed any other role, as I'm completely fed up with this nonsensical waste of time. I'm not hostile to Mattisse and I'm not intent on getting her banned, as Ling.Nut has repeatedly outrageously suggested, although I am hostile to the kind of psycho-babble I'm seeing here from Ling.Nut. Rather it's for pretty much the same reasons that SandyG, Moni, and several others have outlined here. The present system hasn't worked, and I have felt myself powerless to do anything to prevent what I could see was a downward spiral in Mattisse's behaviour over the past month or so at least; powerless largely because of the wishy-washy attitudes of Ling.Nut and his ilk. This isn't a job for me, and I never wanted to be one of the mentors anyway. I simply agreed to help where I could with advice when asked, but that advice has been ignored and now I'm being abused because an obviously ineffective system of mentoring (ineffective in this particular case anyway, I reserve judgement on whether such a system might work in other cases) has failed. Who needs it? Let's see if Ling.Nut can do any better, and if he is going to be big enough to admit his error if his way doesn't work out. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I want is a provision for expressing concern to neutral parties (not non-neutral mentors, and not back-channel) when/if content review processes are disrupted. I need to focus on my "job" as FA delegate, not perennial dramafests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would be helpful, and was something I had in mind at the last RfArb, but Mattisse morphed it into User:Mattisse/Monitoring in her plan, which has proven to be of little use. I also greatly dislike back-channelling, and would support the creation of a suitable page for raising concerns. Geometry guy 16:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you're not aware that I was requested several weeks ago to ignore Mattisse and e-mail diffs to you. I've just reviewed Mattisse's entire Plan, and fail to see why ArbCom left it in her hands. There is no provision for neutral enforcability or reporting, because the Monitoring page was morphed to something only for mentors, and it hasn't even been used. The Plan might have worked if the mentorship had been more neutral and proactive, but ArbCom allowed Mattisse to accept only mentors acceptable to her, who wouldn't block, or who defined upfront a limited role. Who was looking out for those on the "torment" list, and who was watching the content review processes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was made aware of this post-factum and did not object to the idea that editors might email concerns if they found this preferable to an on-wiki discussion. No one did email as a consequence, which is fine by me. One of the reasons I dislike unnecessary off-wiki correspondence is that I regard all such correspondence as completely confidential, and hence no use in improving the encyclopedia in a collaborative spirit. I am even unhappy to make generic statements like this about emails I have received; suffice to say that I receive very very few, and long may it remain that way as far as I am concerned. If anyone wants to contact me, I encourage them to use my user talk page. Geometry guy 20:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... or who couldn't block. Unlike G-guy I'd have been quite prepared to issue blocks when necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also quite emphatically expressed my frustration with what I consider to be Mattisse's unreasonable behavior to one of her mentors in an email exchange that lasted several days. I was also told to avoid her, although how that could have worked I do not know. I did not invite her to become involved in the MBI GAR, and I was contacted by her mentor when I fairly blew up on her talk page regarding their inaction. I finally stopped responding to the email exchange when it became clear that the mentor had no intention of trying to confront her although he appeared to agree with my points. It was quite disheartening. --Moni3 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem was that many of her mentors saw Mattisse as merely responding inappropriately to provocations by others rather than seeking out her bete noirs to hassle them as was in fact happening. With hindsight it can be seen the Plan was doomed to fail for both victims and Mattisse. Hence the proposals for clear, easily enforced rules. I respect Moni3 for her determination to be allowed to carry out her work rather than keeping her head down like I did.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To play devil's advocate, I think it's naive to believe that any online "mentoring" plan, regardless of its permutations, can change the entrenched behavioral patterns and coping mechanisms at play here. It's unhealthy for Mattisse to be here. It's unhealthy for her, as it would be for anyone to spend a great deal of time in an environment where one is convinced that a powerful cabal is conspiring toward one's personal destruction. It's also unhealthy for the rest of Wikipedia to play host to these sorts of dynamics. This isn't a good fit, and I think that more tweaks to the mentoring/probation are just prolonging the agony for everyone involved. That said, I am not one of those directly impacted by Mattisse's behavior, so I feel I have less standing to press my viewpoint on the issue. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason dictates that you are right. Feeling wants Mattisse to have a last chance to obey rules like the rest of us. I suspect that ArbComs and admins ought to act on the basis of reason. I find the whole situation hugely unpleasant from every aspect and the disruptive fallout for years should not be underestimated. Look at how distressing this page is. I'm going to go away and edit now.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the translations of the plates in the gallery of The Disasters of War are taken from the Spanish article via Bablefish, so I'm not confident of them. A check from an editor proficient in Spanish would go a long way to easing my worries. Not urgent, but if you have time, sometime. Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on those later tonight. For a killer song. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy is proficient in Spanish? Oooooo. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the part about cursing like a sailor :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Spanish, language of onions! Bishonen | talk 20:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Many layers? Or it makes us cry? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with crying, because of Spanish soap operas' general cheesiness. ceranthor 20:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you =0 killer songs; the dashing Outriggr came to the rescue, or so he says/said. I think. Hmm, I'm not sure what I m saying now, should I believe what he tells me. Do I need you help or not, still; dunno? Where is my stick; is that my room?<confused>Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Riggr family hasn't shown its face; unless that song materializes before I finish reading FAC, I'll have to leave the Spanish to Ottava and The Adorable One! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need a song? Maybe I can beat Ceoil to the punch. Now re translations, shouldn't we take them from the sources? Outriggr (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If translations are available from reliable soures, yes ... if not, we're on our own. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i think this can put to bed and filed under o do i feel like The Mother Of The World. Ceoil (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we discussed this "mother" business once already ? I'll have you know I was carded today, and when I gave the youngster a funny look, he informed me had to card anyone under 30. So there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we put the mother business to bed. Er... Outriggr (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is more the fighting children, as opposed to a mother figure. Fk sake Outriggr, you've ruined christmas, again. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Men will be boys"! Where does this stand now? Are you going to look for reliably-sourced translations, do you want me to do that, or should I work on them myself? (Tomorrow ... today was a very full day.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a gallery of 12 images; likely by the time the page is finish, it will be 24. I'm not sure citing the translations is necessary. A look from you would be appreciated, but no hurry. Ceoil (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be tempted to give the homebrew translations a miss for a few of these; they have to compromise the spirit of the original, and you'll lose the subtleties and ambiguities in the Spanish titles. Whether they would impart anything that can't better explained in a description is an editorial judgement. If there are accepted English titles it would be better to use these: clumsy as they might be, they aren't our clumsiness.Yomangani^talk 18:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I took my first quick glance, I noticed that the subtleties would be lost with Enterrar y callar, which surely had double meaning, but if we add that without a source, it would be OR? I'm glad you also see the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhalps translating 200 year old venacular Spanish in to English isn't as clear cut as I'd assumed. I'm guessing Goya was delibeatily playful and clever with his titles, and we are never going to be able to capture that. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For example, enterrar literally means "bury", but "coverup" can also be implied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a link is necessary, as you don't need to revisit the FAC. I just wanna' let you know that Nev1 is already going to check the article out, hopefully by the end of tomorrow, so that works out perfectly. Thanks for your help, as always, Sandy. ceranthor 01:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC) '[reply]

Thanks ... I've got all the ones that are almost there watched anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, Nev copyedited the article. Do you think the prose has improved to your satisfaction? ceranthor 22:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia,
I looked at WP:FAC/ar, but did the Bot add everything and do I need to put any tags up on the discussion page for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie yet?
If the Bot didn't put a tag that the article has been approved by FAC and by User:Raul654. Does that meant it wont be; also is their a certain amount of time to help the following fix up before the discussion is closed?
Because I don't think I fixed everything that User:Matthewedwards had requested to fix, because his time is limited because he put up a template that said: he is moving and doesn't have an internet connection.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ATC! Thanks for raising your questions here, and I'm sorry I've been too busy lately to help out on your other articles. You don't need to add anything anywhere. The course of action now is to continue working on everything that remained unresolved in the previous FAC, and re-submit it (in a few weeks or more), once you've satisfid Matthewedwards. That FAC is already closed, but you should nonetheless continue working on those unresolved items, and stay in touch with Matthewedwards via the article's talk page. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx SandyGeorgia,

I will stay in touch with Matthewedwards, also will their be a template on the discussion page saying that is was a former Featured Article Candidate?

Thanx!

ATC ^{. Talk} 19:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't be listed in the main ((articlehistory)) template as a former Featured Article Candidate, because the fact that it is a GA takes precedence. If you click the "Show" button on that template for the full information in articlehistory, you will find the FAC listed there, but the main entry shows its current status correctly as GA. See the top of Talk:The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie. I hope this helps; if not, please ask me any further questions! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you made a recent edit on The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie article with WP:Layout. I don't see the change you made. Could you explain the changes you made, so I am aware. And I will ask you more questions if needed. Also did you ever consider to be an administrator? I think you would great at that. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 03:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ATC! What I did there was to move the "See also" section above the "References" section, per the Order of optional appendices explained at Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard appendices and footers. Thanks for the inquiry about adminship, but it's not something I've ever been interested in. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx... :) ATC ^{. Talk} 19:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]