YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk | contribs) |
YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 261: | Line 261: | ||
:::::It is up to him, not you, to justify and/or explain what he meant by "political power". ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
:::::It is up to him, not you, to justify and/or explain what he meant by "political power". ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::Well SOCK is one of the evenly applied policies, which says something about Wikipedia, but yes, people who sock still can get treated differently if they are powerful enough. See the AC mailing list's contents for example, which you can't see. Basically all admins who sock get a quiet interview, and although most are desysopped, some are not blocked. Secondly, with regards to complaints about being checkusered, if you know a CU for instance, people will be less likely to CU you if you are powerful, because there is a chance that the CU taking place will be reported, and the CUed person can complain noisily about being scanned. Obviously a nobody with no idea or no supporters couldn't make a dent complaining about a CU, but if you have a lot you can say that the CUer abusively checked someone. With the way WP works, a lot of people don't look at the data, so if you make a lot of noise, you will score a few mudhits, regardless of the merit of the position. Most CUs are arbs etc and engage in "small target politics" to rise up the food chain, and are wary of challenging anybody of any political relevance else they will get a few opposes on their next election. When I was on AC, if a fight involved some powerful person and could have political ramifications, eg people known for bloc voting, often there would be 500+ mailing list posts about it. Whereas with a fight between small people, if they don't like the slow service or what they get, they wouldn't be able to make a dent at the ballot box and wouldn't have the ability to make meaningful protests that would dent the image of the arb, many of these AC cases get less than 5 posts, and these are usually vote nags, and in any case, these AC cases are usually just pile-ons. In reality, the AC has little/won't wield power, they usually just rule in favour of the power structure, and in the case of a few hapless nobodies, in some arbitrary way. Quite a few times in the latter case, a lot of interrelates AC cases contradicted each other and all sorts. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket</font>]]'') 04:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) |
::::::Well SOCK is one of the evenly applied policies, which says something about Wikipedia, but yes, people who sock still can get treated differently if they are powerful enough. See the AC mailing list's contents for example, which you can't see. Basically all admins who sock get a quiet interview, and although most are desysopped, some are not blocked. Secondly, with regards to complaints about being checkusered, if you know a CU for instance, people will be less likely to CU you if you are powerful, because there is a chance that the CU taking place will be reported, and the CUed person can complain noisily about being scanned. Obviously a nobody with no idea or no supporters couldn't make a dent complaining about a CU, but if you have a lot you can say that the CUer abusively checked someone. With the way WP works, a lot of people don't look at the data, so if you make a lot of noise, you will score a few mudhits, regardless of the merit of the position. Most CUs are arbs etc and engage in "small target politics" to rise up the food chain, and are wary of challenging anybody of any political relevance else they will get a few opposes on their next election. When I was on AC, if a fight involved some powerful person and could have political ramifications, eg people known for bloc voting, often there would be 500+ mailing list posts about it. Whereas with a fight between small people, if they don't like the slow service or what they get, they wouldn't be able to make a dent at the ballot box and wouldn't have the ability to make meaningful protests that would dent the image of the arb, many of these AC cases get less than 5 posts, and these are usually vote nags, and in any case, these AC cases are usually just pile-ons. In reality, the AC has little/won't wield power, they usually just rule in favour of the power structure, and in the case of a few hapless nobodies, in some arbitrary way. Quite a few times in the latter case, a lot of interrelates AC cases contradicted each other and all sorts. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket</font>]]'') 04:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::A person on Wikipedia gets power by gathering likeminded people from the same ethnic/religious group etc to guard articles, make sure that peopel from opposing groups don't pass RFA etc etc....or they just team up politically to vote themselves up the food chain, and sometimes chew up opponents...and they engage in vigourous action to get what they want.... Most of these people have no formal rank higher than admin, and if they ran for crat, CU, Arb etc, they would get hammered, usually with less than 50%....whereas successful candidates usually just sit on the fence and don't interfere to stop or perpetuate POV pushing or criticise anyone of any relevance, else they will get opposed....The warlords aren't going to cede meaningful power that was gained by hard-fought battles on a daily basis to a person who gets high rankings on an election by sitting around making circumlocutory and tautological speeches all day for free. If some nominally high-ranking official wants to lay a glove on a warlord, they can expect a violent fight and angry demonstrations, something they haven't typically engaged in during the past. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket</font>]]'') 04:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I was asked privately by an SPI clerk to look at the sock, and when I checked the underlying IP, I saw Mattisse listed there. To be frank, I was shocked, and I didn't know what to make of it. Since I am not an incredibly experienced checkuser, I asked another checkuser to review my results. Given the implications if I was wrong, I didn't want to say anything before I was certain, and once I ''was'' certain, I just acted. I was aware that this would create a "kafka-esque" atmosphere, but given that the alternative included an (in my own view, due to my relative inexperience as a checkuser) unacceptably high possibility of me making a false accusation of sockpuppetry against an established editor, I decided that not saying anything was the lesser of two evils. In any case, I cannot say anything publicly about my evidence, so essentially the '''only''' alternative I had to doing what I did (blocking Mattisse myself) would be to post somewhere, "Mattisse is socking. These are the socks.", in which case any reviewing admin would have no choice but to (I hate to say it this way...) take my word for it that I am telling the truth. This is, for all practical purposes, the same situation we have now, the only difference being that I made the block myself. [[User:J.delanoy|<font color="green">J'''.'''delanoy</font>]][[User Talk:J.delanoy|<sup><font color="red">gabs</font></sup>]][[Special:Contributions/J.delanoy|<font color="blue"><sub>adds</sub></font>]] 23:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
:::I was asked privately by an SPI clerk to look at the sock, and when I checked the underlying IP, I saw Mattisse listed there. To be frank, I was shocked, and I didn't know what to make of it. Since I am not an incredibly experienced checkuser, I asked another checkuser to review my results. Given the implications if I was wrong, I didn't want to say anything before I was certain, and once I ''was'' certain, I just acted. I was aware that this would create a "kafka-esque" atmosphere, but given that the alternative included an (in my own view, due to my relative inexperience as a checkuser) unacceptably high possibility of me making a false accusation of sockpuppetry against an established editor, I decided that not saying anything was the lesser of two evils. In any case, I cannot say anything publicly about my evidence, so essentially the '''only''' alternative I had to doing what I did (blocking Mattisse myself) would be to post somewhere, "Mattisse is socking. These are the socks.", in which case any reviewing admin would have no choice but to (I hate to say it this way...) take my word for it that I am telling the truth. This is, for all practical purposes, the same situation we have now, the only difference being that I made the block myself. [[User:J.delanoy|<font color="green">J'''.'''delanoy</font>]][[User Talk:J.delanoy|<sup><font color="red">gabs</font></sup>]][[Special:Contributions/J.delanoy|<font color="blue"><sub>adds</sub></font>]] 23:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:24, 31 August 2009
Welcome to my (rather minimalist) user and user talk page: please leave comments, questions, complaints, or just general chat below. I can't promise to reply, but if I do I will reply here: if I take a while I will drop a note on your talk page. Please provide direct links to issues you raise. I like to help out and have experience with templates, but my wikitime is limited. I have access to admin tools, but I don't use them to deal with vandalism or editor conduct (although I am willing to help with both of these issues sans tools).
"Official" abbreviations of my username include G'guy, G-guy and (recently!) Gguy. I promise I will only be mildly irritated by approximations relating to horses, but if you need an RfA conom, beware :-)
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
When I used the word "recommend", it means people should follow the MoS. Yes, it's huge, but technically speaking every article should follow each MoS guideline whenever applicable. Telling people that following other aspects of MoS is not required may generate a illusion that they don't need to care about them, which is counter-productive. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- GA's value as a generator of good-quality content is debatable; its potential value as a one-stop clearinghouse of education for n00bs is beyond doubt. Creeping standards at GA are reaching the point of diminishing returns. I recently tried for a GA and was smacked down by a reviewer living up quite nearly to FA standards. Counterproductive? Very!! FA serves that purpose (or it should do so; it doesn't, thanks to waves of mediocre editors who only want the bronze star, and who therefore
- bring articles up to the barest nub of FA standards, using paint-by-numbers "template" approach, and
- recruit fan-club votes).
- GA really needs to rebrand itself as a place of education, rather than as guardians of quality. It cannot perform the latter function, due to its one-reviewer system.
- BTW, using those obnoxious {{done}} templates encourages newcomers to do so as well. They have no redeeming virtues, clutter up pages, are a waste of time, space and bandwidth, are an eyesore, etc etc etc, and are extremely Geocities-ish. But use them if you like. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're the very epitome of reasonableness, Ling :) My take on GA has always been that it encourages and rewards a minimum standard of article-writing practice. The generation of good content is a happy by-product... when it happens :P Actually, I think this is a good thing; GA's most important role as I see it is in educating writers by setting a minimum credible encyclopedic standard for sourcing and neutrality (the only two of our five pillars that relate to actual article-writing). The minutiae of the MoS are very much secondary, and but for encouraging compliance with our house-style, unimportant. I too am an opponent of creeping standards, and I've come to the view that all reviewers everywhere should spread themselves as widely as possible (across WikiProject Stub- to A-Class, GA, and FAC). It's only by getting the big picture that I think it's possible to make a judgement about standards in individual reviews. EyeSerenetalk 13:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I admit that there is a wide spectrum of review standards, ranging from 2-sentence review (cough cough) to those that "won't stop till you drop". Oh btw, geocities is shutting down :( OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nice to see interesting discussion happening here. Back to the original impetus though, it isn't actually technically accurate that all articles should follow all applicable MoS pages. Like all guidelines, MoS pages are subject to common sense and exceptions, and the number one prerogative is improving the encyclopedia. There is widespread disagreement on whether the minutiae of the MoS are a benefit or a hazard. (As Rick Deckard would say, "if they are a benefit, it is not my problem".) They can, as other editors have noted above, be a distraction from the main aim of providing reliably sourced articles presented from the neutral point of view. I'd happily list an article with space em-dashes, so long as it meets the GA criteria. I would not list an a beautifully formatted article with dubious sources, or misrepresented viewpoints.
- More importantly, however, the GA criteria should only concern what is required and (implicitly or explicitly) what is not required for an article to meet them. Recommendations to do other things confuse the issue: are they part of the criteria or not? They can be summarized by saying "Other improvements to articles are also welcome". It is up to editors to decide what other improvements there might be and whether they wish to make them. Geometry guy 21:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- The first of the five pillars includes: "Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate." How can this be assessed without a fairly strict referencing policy? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but that is WP:V (policy), not part of the MoS (style guidelines). Geometry guy 22:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- The first of the five pillars includes: "Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate." How can this be assessed without a fairly strict referencing policy? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe the issue here is what we can and should take to be axiomatic. Is it really necessary for instance, taking a very simple example, to provide a citation to support the assertion that in Euclidean geometry a straight line is the shortest distance between two points? Is that really contentious? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not a specific one, but per WP:SCG, I would expect an article making that claim to include a citation somewhere (preferably in the same section or paragraph) that made it clear to the reader that such material was common knowledge, with an indication of one or two standard references to consult. Geometry guy 22:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe the issue here is what we can and should take to be axiomatic. Is it really necessary for instance, taking a very simple example, to provide a citation to support the assertion that in Euclidean geometry a straight line is the shortest distance between two points? Is that really contentious? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, policy is the wrong word. But shouldn't it be in the Good article criteria, somewhere, that referencing is how to ensure no OR, interpretations or unverifiable material? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and it is: that is why criterion 2 deals with these issues together. Geometry guy 22:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think that you, Philcha and Malleus each have different opinions of what makes a Good article. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Truly meaningful consensus is grounded in a variety of opinions with much in common and mutual respect for any differences. Geometry guy 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone who reviews GANs has a (radically) different opinion of what makes a Good Article. ;-) But I do agree with G-guy that OR and V are explicitly referenced in WIAGA, and thus are absolute requirements for GA. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- That was my view also, but that puts me in the camp of requiring a fair number of references and inline citations, a position which some are saying is too tough. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's saying that it's "too tough" asking for references and inline citations, well certainly I'm not anyway. My view is rather that some reviewers demand inline citations for things which really ought to be considered general knowledge, or are covered by a mention somewhere in the text to a standard reference on the subject, instead of demanding that each sentence is attributed to a specific page in that standard text. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm close in view to Malleus on this. Also I am wary of any sort of bean-counting. It isn't the number of references or inlines that matters, but that the material in the article is reliably and appropriately sourced according to the topic, and inline citations are provided wherever the nature of the material demands that the reader be directed to a specific source. Geometry guy 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's saying that it's "too tough" asking for references and inline citations, well certainly I'm not anyway. My view is rather that some reviewers demand inline citations for things which really ought to be considered general knowledge, or are covered by a mention somewhere in the text to a standard reference on the subject, instead of demanding that each sentence is attributed to a specific page in that standard text. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- That was my view also, but that puts me in the camp of requiring a fair number of references and inline citations, a position which some are saying is too tough. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think that you, Philcha and Malleus each have different opinions of what makes a Good article. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
(undent) And that leads us to the question, "What is common knowledge?". And that leads us to the (amicable, usually/hopefully) rift between the folks carrying slide rules and the folks who aren't, since the latter don't know. Besides, I've never thought cite-mania was the problem, although I am less cite-manic now than I was a couple years ago. The main problem (if you don't count vandals/nationalists, which are unrelated) is all-unknowing mediocre scholarship and mediocre writing, esp. when its proponents reach a critical mass that we call "consensus," and then become the ones setting the explicit standards and implicit manner of "best practice." See for example my remarks above about (sometimes multiple per nominator – or that's the goal, anyhow) paint-by-numbers FAs. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I like the idea of GA "rebranding" itself. That is so au courant. But probably important. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- You should get used to the idea that nothing I suggest will ever happen. I already have. I wish I could remember the quote from.. I think The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where Marvin the Paranoid Android says something like "broken dreams are good for the soul". etc. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I share Ling.Nut's concern about mediocre scholarship - I see too many referencing issues in GA candidates - and I'm equally concerned about the danger that the "Randy from Boise" types will become dominant across WP.
- I wish I'd thought of the phrase "paint-by-numbers FAs". There's nothing wrong with using a similar layout for similar topics, provided you're alert for differences that require a different approach. However FAC seldom looks closely enough at the content to spot issues in coverage or structure. The typical FA review seems to be: someone checks that the sources used meet WP:RS (a misconceived guideline that barely works in academic topics and is useless in non-academic ones); someone checks MOS compliance (I'll dissect that some day); someone checks for image copyright issues; job done. Perhaps one of our problems is "by the numbers FA reviews". --Philcha (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I'm chock full of piquant phrases. :-) I agree with the prob of FA reviews by the numbers. The things that are missing are things that cannot be done "by the numbers". The two biggest such probs are:
- No one actually hunts down all the listed references to see if they are accurate (insert my oft-repeated horror story here). I've done it several times, and quite honestly, it can be very, very tiring.
- There's no way to quantify "mediocre writing". You point out one or two examples, they fix those, then they scream all bloody murder when you refuse to recant your Oppose.
- Both of these probs could be filed under "just too much trouble, from the reviewer's point of view"... by extension, one could say that the real problem is that no one screams when FAs suck, but many people scream when there's a backlog. And so that, my friends, is the real reason why there Surely Is No Hope (see my search for the Hitch Hike's quote, above). Ling.Nut (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting and thought-provoking as always Ling, though I think that to single out the reviewer is to overlook the other half of the equation; the article writer. There are writers that do the minimum required to get 'supports' at FAC, perhaps because they see getting FA status as an end rather than a means. However, there are also plenty of writers (many of whom I've been fortunate enough to have worked with) whose goal is to produce the best article they possibly can; FA then becomes simply a way to acknowledge that effort ...which is why I see constantly-updated MoS requirements as counterproductive, but that's another debate. This is perhaps coming back to the educational value of GA. If writers can be inculcated with the notion that content and sourcing is everything at an early stage in the writing process, reviewers can have confidence in what they're looking at. I see the problem being at the bottom of the pyramid rather than the top - I've sometimes wondered what the effect would be if we went through Wkipedia and deleted every article that's inadequately sourced. EyeSerenetalk 08:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- For my thoughts regarding writers, see my user page. ;-) But yes, since we all agree that GAs main value is educational, why doesn't someone who has pull over there start the drum beat for this meme? Rebrand GA as an educational resource, rather than a quality check? I had something in my user page essay about training writers; I deleted it since I thought it was impossible. I might just go restore it now. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Was it Ling.Nut who described GA reviews as training editors, one GA at a time? Whover it was, I agree - that's why I engage in more dialogue with reviewees than most. But we have to be clear what the educational activity's aims and measure of success are - IMO, producting good quality articles. --Philcha (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- For my thoughts regarding writers, see my user page. ;-) But yes, since we all agree that GAs main value is educational, why doesn't someone who has pull over there start the drum beat for this meme? Rebrand GA as an educational resource, rather than a quality check? I had something in my user page essay about training writers; I deleted it since I thought it was impossible. I might just go restore it now. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting and thought-provoking as always Ling, though I think that to single out the reviewer is to overlook the other half of the equation; the article writer. There are writers that do the minimum required to get 'supports' at FAC, perhaps because they see getting FA status as an end rather than a means. However, there are also plenty of writers (many of whom I've been fortunate enough to have worked with) whose goal is to produce the best article they possibly can; FA then becomes simply a way to acknowledge that effort ...which is why I see constantly-updated MoS requirements as counterproductive, but that's another debate. This is perhaps coming back to the educational value of GA. If writers can be inculcated with the notion that content and sourcing is everything at an early stage in the writing process, reviewers can have confidence in what they're looking at. I see the problem being at the bottom of the pyramid rather than the top - I've sometimes wondered what the effect would be if we went through Wkipedia and deleted every article that's inadequately sourced. EyeSerenetalk 08:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I'm chock full of piquant phrases. :-) I agree with the prob of FA reviews by the numbers. The things that are missing are things that cannot be done "by the numbers". The two biggest such probs are:
Section break
I agree very much with many thoughts here on the direction, purpose, and possible rebranding of GA. In the past (and still to some extent) GA looks towards high quality articles, experienced editors and FA for its direction. This is evident from the history of the process, the main pages of the process, and many of its guidelines. Instead, and I believe this may capture some consensus in the comments here, it should focus its attention on the other end of the spectrum: the crap articles and the inexperienced editors.
The goal of GA is to improve the encyclopedia, obviously. On the surface (i.e., "primarily" in the sense of Malleus), this is done by evaluating articles against basic criteria and encouraging article improvement in the process. However when an inexperienced nominator meets an experienced reviewer, there is a very significant side benefit: the nominator learns something about what makes a good Wikipedia article, and how to write them. Ideally, such a nominator, once experienced, will go on to review articles and hence inform new editors. It is really important to maximize this aspect, be it secondary or not, as this is the only way that GA can tackle the 2 million crap articles problem: a corpus of reviewers/experienced editors of constant size will take forever, whereas if their numbers are growing, progress will accelerate.
I have and will continue to do my best to encourage GA to move further in this direction. That means, to my mind, focussing on the issues that really matter for article quality, and otherwise keeping the process as simple as possible. What really matters?
- Is it readable?
- Are there reliable sources which support the material?
- Does the material adequately cover the topic defined by the article title?
- Are differing viewpoints presented from the neutral point of view?
- Can we be sure that what we read today will correspond closely to what another reader will find tomorrow?
- Is it free of copyright violations?
These are essentially the GA criteria, except that they also encourage images. Logically, the encouragement of images should be part of criterion 1, while criterion 6 should cover copyright violations and plagiarism with both prose and other media. In terms of education however, the most important criteria in my experience are 2 and 4: checking the sources and the fair representation of viewpoints. This is where GA really needs to improve its game, and that is hard. Geometry guy 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- (Addendum) I'd like a single adjective to capture each of these six issues, so that we can say a good article is (e.g.) "Readable, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable and free". Geometry guy 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- <Very Long Reply> If we explicitly embrace Wikipedia as a point of entry into enculturation as a scholar [no groans, please; note the word "entry" — think of bright young ten- or twelve-year olds reading Decline in amphibian populations or Late Heavy Bombardment, or attempting to read (dig definitely intended, see my user page) Lightning ], and GA as a point of entry into enculturation as a Wikipedian, then we simultaneously enhance the intrinsic value of both Wikipedia as an educational resource, and GA as a component process. But what does it mean to "explicitly embrace" GA as a part of "enculturation"? I think it means three things:
- the "old heads" or "old hands" (i.e., the folks who would comment here) band together to push the idea as a group, in order to give it initial impetus and social acceptability, and continue to do so over time, in order to support its creation and establishment;
- the "young turks" also embrace/accept the idea (at least to some degree, perhaps, in connection with #3, below), and
- some form of realia/signage grows around the concept, in order to offer symbolic capital that functions as an embodiment of these cultural values.
- And what does all that gobbledygook in #3 mean? It means the creation of images, awards, linguistic resources such as terminology and slogans (see G-Guy's six terms) and one or more subpage(s)... perhaps/probably in association with the GA Wikiproject, etc...
- Please bear in mind, all of this relates to the idea of rebranding GA as a place of education... as the more needful (IMO) of its two main goals... but the new goal needs to benefit from all of the above... why is this more needful? We already have processes in place for content review/quality assurance (more than four, including GA)... we have none for the values outlined above. </Very Long Reply> Ling.Nut (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- <Very Long Reply> If we explicitly embrace Wikipedia as a point of entry into enculturation as a scholar [no groans, please; note the word "entry" — think of bright young ten- or twelve-year olds reading Decline in amphibian populations or Late Heavy Bombardment, or attempting to read (dig definitely intended, see my user page) Lightning ], and GA as a point of entry into enculturation as a Wikipedian, then we simultaneously enhance the intrinsic value of both Wikipedia as an educational resource, and GA as a component process. But what does it mean to "explicitly embrace" GA as a part of "enculturation"? I think it means three things:
- I have to admit that I'm slowly being persuaded of this argument for "rebranding". Fixing up articles one syllable at a time will clearly get us nowhere fast, and we'll always be playing catch-up, but if the GA ideals can spread throughout wikipedia like a virus ...
- For this to work though I think that GAs need to be of a consistent quality, as they'll be acting at least in part as teaching aids and examples of good practice ... back to GA Sweeps. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- The completion of GA sweeps will be a wonderful opportunity to refocus our energies. While it is fashionable (and often appropriate) to scoff at "rebranding" and "mission statements", a brand and a mission can have a viral quality. Here and at WT:GAC I have expressed the view that each individual GA criterion should have a clearly defined mission. It is much easier for GA to have a sense of purpose if the criteria do. Geometry guy 21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- For this to work though I think that GAs need to be of a consistent quality, as they'll be acting at least in part as teaching aids and examples of good practice ... back to GA Sweeps. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Editors do learn from GA. If you copy edit the same person's articles several times, you find that they incorporate what they learned from the last time and get better. —mattisse (Talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is amazing what schools don't teach these days (yes I am getting old, I know, don't rub it in). I know of one editor who couldn't write for toffee when I first encountered him at GAR, yet seems to be doing a reasonable job now. Spread the word! Geometry guy 22:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- One important thing about GA for me though, however it's rebranded is the idea I keep repeating of "good enough", which is where I may be at odds with reviewers like Philcha, and perhaps even Mattisse, who undoubtedly carry out excellent reviews, but to a standard significantly higher (IMO) that the GA criteria require. Not trying to start a fight, it's just an observation; maybe it's me who's out of step. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- My impression is that I'm closer to you on this, Malleus, than I am to Philcha and Mattisse, much as I respect them both (and vive la difference etc.!) Another editor I would mention is Awadewit, both because she is an excellent GA reviewer, and because her standards are higher than most reviewers. In my view it is not a problem that some reviewers have significantly higher standards (nor even that some reviewers have significantly lower standards!). However, the criteria should be grounded on a consensus interpretation of the standards that is neither too high nor too low. My every contribution to the GA process has been informed by this need. Geometry guy 23:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I still haven't forgiven Awadewit for rejecting one of my immaculate DYKs, on the basis that it didn't meet some "hidden rules" that she'd developed, so the problem isn't limited to GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I sympathise with your frustration, but am disappointed by your inability to forgive :-) The problem you highlight, however, is significant: criteria (e.g. for GA, DYK) should have a clear focus so that their meaning is clear. There will still be disagreements, but they will be fewer. Geometry guy 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I ought perhaps to have appended my comment with </joke>. But forgiveness is for God, not for mere mortals like me. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the word "immaculate" indicated the conception of your post :-), but I stand by my response and believe the issue is important for GA. Geometry guy 00:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think of myself as a "demanding" reviewer. I do a lot of fixing up articles myself, explaining as I go, but I rarely ask editors to do something they are not capable of doing. In fact, Malleus, you brought at least one of my passes immediately to GAR. —mattisse (Talk) 00:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we're just demanding in different ways. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly (ec). One issue can be that different reviewers focus on different issues. For instance, I strongly believe that the main GA issues are reliable sources and neutral point of view, and am fairly intolerant of articles that fall short in these respects, but more tolerant of articles with other failings. I also believe that both Majoreditor and myself (who have both been consistent contributors to GAR) have a thing about weak or redundant prose. Here I try to reign in my personal pet peeves (or fix the problem myself), but it isn't always easy! Geometry guy 00:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we're just demanding in different ways. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I ought perhaps to have appended my comment with </joke>. But forgiveness is for God, not for mere mortals like me. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I sympathise with your frustration, but am disappointed by your inability to forgive :-) The problem you highlight, however, is significant: criteria (e.g. for GA, DYK) should have a clear focus so that their meaning is clear. There will still be disagreements, but they will be fewer. Geometry guy 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I still haven't forgiven Awadewit for rejecting one of my immaculate DYKs, on the basis that it didn't meet some "hidden rules" that she'd developed, so the problem isn't limited to GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- My impression is that I'm closer to you on this, Malleus, than I am to Philcha and Mattisse, much as I respect them both (and vive la difference etc.!) Another editor I would mention is Awadewit, both because she is an excellent GA reviewer, and because her standards are higher than most reviewers. In my view it is not a problem that some reviewers have significantly higher standards (nor even that some reviewers have significantly lower standards!). However, the criteria should be grounded on a consensus interpretation of the standards that is neither too high nor too low. My every contribution to the GA process has been informed by this need. Geometry guy 23:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- One important thing about GA for me though, however it's rebranded is the idea I keep repeating of "good enough", which is where I may be at odds with reviewers like Philcha, and perhaps even Mattisse, who undoubtedly carry out excellent reviews, but to a standard significantly higher (IMO) that the GA criteria require. Not trying to start a fight, it's just an observation; maybe it's me who's out of step. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is amazing what schools don't teach these days (yes I am getting old, I know, don't rub it in). I know of one editor who couldn't write for toffee when I first encountered him at GAR, yet seems to be doing a reasonable job now. Spread the word! Geometry guy 22:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Editors do learn from GA. If you copy edit the same person's articles several times, you find that they incorporate what they learned from the last time and get better. —mattisse (Talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Another section break
(undent, I decline to fetishize the lowly colon) The topic of relatively strong or relatively weak standards is of course related to rebranding GA as an explicitly dual-mission (Malleus, note the word "dual") Wikipedia process, but it is not precisely on topic... Solely for the sake of brevity as I express my views, I refer everyone again to my userpage for my views on writers and Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs an explicit education process; one that has momentum, has a critical mass of participants, has its own "mission statement(s)" an award system and so on and so forth. Wikipedia's writers need to improve. Moreover, as I said before, it is a public service: "Wikipedia as a point of entry into enculturation as a scholar". The goal is to simultaneously enhance the intrinsic value of both Wikipedia as an educational resource, and GA as a component process. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe GA has a role to play in encouraging such education, and indeed that it is failing its primary mission to address the C.A.P. (crap articles problem) if it does not educate editors as well as improve articles. Anecdotal evidence has been supplied (e.g. by Mattisse) that GA has an educational impact, but we need this dual aspect to inform the direction of GA. We can only proceed in baby steps, however, and even these can be difficult to take. My attempt to take some of these ideas to WT:WIAGA met with some reasonable concerns. How exactly do we rebrand and refocus, when the status quo is the easy option? Geometry guy 01:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- You may have noticed (and perhaps, felt bemused by) my use of the terminology of sociology in my posts. This is entirely a task of social engineering. Lara and I secretly plotted the Sweeps ages ago; she then took it upon herself to play the role of lead social engineer (aided by one or two notable lieutenants) while I completely bowed out. I will bow out again here; I need to work on getting some publications under my belt to get my career on safer ground. But I will say this: take the reservations you mentioned early and use them to inform whatever strategy you adopt. But bear in mind that the social aspect is more important. It needs the imprimatur of highly respected GA dwellers. ;-) It also needs a significant degree of unity (though not, of course, perfect unanimity). It needs a system of rewards etc. It needs some clear narrative for folks to get behind. Etc. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I did not know the Machiavellian scheming behind GA Sweeps until now :-) Your point about rewards is important, however. At the moment both GA and FA skew contributions to the encyclopedia by their rewards: for instance WP:WBFAN encourages work on articles on peripheral subjects, as they are self-contained, have few sources and so are easier to research and write about. Does anyone have any ideas on how to change that culture through GA? Geometry guy 20:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Neither did I, I feel used. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've felt used for years :-) The question is really whether the use is a towards a good end. Improving the encyclopedia certainly is. I have been somewhat ambivalent about sweeps, but am essentially convinced that it is a necessary process to place GA on a more solid foundation after its complex and confused beginnings. However, that story goes back before my wikitime. Geometry guy 21:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- On the subject of rewards, what kind of reward could there possibly be other than the feeling of a job well done? If someone wants to go down the road of improving articles in a restricted field like roads or tropical typhoons then why not? Personally I prefer to jump around and try my hand at different things, but often a gad-fly like myself gets criticised for not creating enough new articles—I think I'm on about 20 or so—and I'm really not bothered about numbers of FA/GAs, more what those FA/GAs are actually about. A reward from my point of view would therefore be the absence of punishment. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Different editors have different motivations. Ideally every editor should be motivated purely by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. Even if that were true, there are multiple different interpretations as to what that means. I agree it is not a problem that we have many editors working in restricted fields: the question is how to encourage more work on other articles. Geometry guy 21:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC) PS. I believe you and I see eye to eye on any issue involving bean counting!
- I find it difficult to imagine any reward that wikipedia could possibly offer, and who are we to decide which areas editors ought to be funneled into anyway? Wikipedia's strength has always been in its "small" articles, topics not covered in other encyclopedias, like one of my favourites. Information on "big topics" is available anywhere, but where would you find a better account of an 18th-century fraud than here? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree that we should not be deciding what areas editors are funneled into. At the moment, our reward culture has exactly that negative feature in that it directs editors towards particular types of articles, and we have to find ways to reverse that trend, so that editors are encouraged to contribute across the board according to their own aspirations for making Wikipedia better.
- I completely disagree that Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia of the eclectic, of those peculiar things that other encyclopedias fail to cover in depth. Wikipedia's scope is defined by Pillar One, and that includes both the eclectic and the mainstream. If you want to focus on just the eclectic, your vision is different from mine and the founder(s) of this project, but your work is welcome nonetheless. Geometry guy 23:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're disagreeing with something I didn't say. I wouldn't consider this or this to be other than mainstream, for instance, but your mileage may vary. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is likely (as is often the case when we seem to disagree)! "Mainstream" is just the wrong word anyway: I simply didn't want to discourage work on "big topics" because such material is available anywhere: Wikipedia should cover it too. Geometry guy 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just like I've been saying, you guys disagree. —mattisse (Talk) 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- On the contrary, a disagreement is often a misunderstanding, or a poor choice of words. That's a good lesson for all of Wikipedia. Geometry guy 00:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Actually no, I don't think we do. It's just we express ourselves differently, probably mixed with a dash of US/UK misunderstandings. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (Except for the minor issue that we are both British and based in the UK :) Geometry guy 00:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, who would have guessed. Colour me pink and call me Algernon. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Lol. And half my family come from Oldham. Still I'm an OED rather than Chambers person (-ize) and have been known to use US spellings (favor, color) on talk pages to avoid distracting/confusing some less (erm) internationally aware Wikipedians. So, as always on Wikipedia, presume with care, but don't kick yourself too hard for imagining me to be a (non-)native :-). Geometry guy 01:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think this in group British stuff is why I don't feel comfortable at GA. And why I don't have more to contribute. —mattisse (Talk) 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't much of an in-group if no one is sure who is in it! I am very much an internationalist wikipedian, and don't consider my Britishness at all relevant to GA. The whole point of en.wiki is that it is one community for the entire English language, without national boundaries. Geometry guy 01:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think this in group British stuff is why I don't feel comfortable at GA. And why I don't have more to contribute. —mattisse (Talk) 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Lol. And half my family come from Oldham. Still I'm an OED rather than Chambers person (-ize) and have been known to use US spellings (favor, color) on talk pages to avoid distracting/confusing some less (erm) internationally aware Wikipedians. So, as always on Wikipedia, presume with care, but don't kick yourself too hard for imagining me to be a (non-)native :-). Geometry guy 01:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, who would have guessed. Colour me pink and call me Algernon. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (Except for the minor issue that we are both British and based in the UK :) Geometry guy 00:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just like I've been saying, you guys disagree. —mattisse (Talk) 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is likely (as is often the case when we seem to disagree)! "Mainstream" is just the wrong word anyway: I simply didn't want to discourage work on "big topics" because such material is available anywhere: Wikipedia should cover it too. Geometry guy 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're disagreeing with something I didn't say. I wouldn't consider this or this to be other than mainstream, for instance, but your mileage may vary. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I find it difficult to imagine any reward that wikipedia could possibly offer, and who are we to decide which areas editors ought to be funneled into anyway? Wikipedia's strength has always been in its "small" articles, topics not covered in other encyclopedias, like one of my favourites. Information on "big topics" is available anywhere, but where would you find a better account of an 18th-century fraud than here? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Different editors have different motivations. Ideally every editor should be motivated purely by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. Even if that were true, there are multiple different interpretations as to what that means. I agree it is not a problem that we have many editors working in restricted fields: the question is how to encourage more work on other articles. Geometry guy 21:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC) PS. I believe you and I see eye to eye on any issue involving bean counting!
- Neither did I, I feel used. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I did not know the Machiavellian scheming behind GA Sweeps until now :-) Your point about rewards is important, however. At the moment both GA and FA skew contributions to the encyclopedia by their rewards: for instance WP:WBFAN encourages work on articles on peripheral subjects, as they are self-contained, have few sources and so are easier to research and write about. Does anyone have any ideas on how to change that culture through GA? Geometry guy 20:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- You may have noticed (and perhaps, felt bemused by) my use of the terminology of sociology in my posts. This is entirely a task of social engineering. Lara and I secretly plotted the Sweeps ages ago; she then took it upon herself to play the role of lead social engineer (aided by one or two notable lieutenants) while I completely bowed out. I will bow out again here; I need to work on getting some publications under my belt to get my career on safer ground. But I will say this: take the reservations you mentioned early and use them to inform whatever strategy you adopt. But bear in mind that the social aspect is more important. It needs the imprimatur of highly respected GA dwellers. ;-) It also needs a significant degree of unity (though not, of course, perfect unanimity). It needs a system of rewards etc. It needs some clear narrative for folks to get behind. Etc. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yet another section break
(undent, free the indentured colons of Wikipedia) As for Britness, I used to have a redlink category on my user page "Wikipedians who talk to themselves in a fake British accent when drunk". The sad thing is, it's totally true. I principally blame The Beatles, but also Led Zeppelin, Monty Python's Flying Circus and movies like A Clockwork Orange (film) and even A Bridge Too Far (film)... Boddingtons and Guiness are my two favorite beers (the latter Irish, I know)... And now for something completely different...back to GA... can we agree on some broad points? How do we define an educational mission for GA? Ling.Nut (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't the educational part of the mission simply to make editors capable of producing GA-standard articles with minimal guidance? So WP:WIAGA remains central, and the educational part is in how you communicate with editors - explaining the reason for various polices and guidelines (those that actually make sense and are important), offering examples they can look at, discussing alternative approaches, etc. --Philcha (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- oh yeah, this requires zero-point-zero changes to WIAGA. The point is to make the educational aspect explicit and in fact to create initiatives to foreground it and foster it... by whatever means... Ling.Nut (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- As noted above I believe WIAGA has a role, by making it clear what are the bear minimum requirements for a decent article. The changes I have proposed are with this in mind. Each criterion should have a clear message for editors in order to be educational and viral. Geometry guy 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- oh yeah, this requires zero-point-zero changes to WIAGA. The point is to make the educational aspect explicit and in fact to create initiatives to foreground it and foster it... by whatever means... Ling.Nut (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hilbert space for GA?
Is it yet time to reconsider listing Hilbert space for GA? If not, what remains to be done? Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Two citation tags need to be fixed.Look for other such templates as well.- Refs missing or extra (if confused, also check the date):
Halmos 1950; Halmos 1951; Lebesgue 1904; B.M. Levitan 2001; Hazewinkel, Michiel, Encyclopaedia of Mathematics;Reed & Simon 1983; Schmidt 1907; Колмогоров, А. Н.; Фомин, С. В. (1989); Zimmer, Robert (1990). - Potential wikilinks (use common sense to determine whether or not they should be linked) include:
- three-dimensional space
- abstract concept
- Cartesian coordinates
- physical systems
- scalar multiplication
- seminal work
- theory of groups
- areas of mathematics
- spectral methods
- differential equations
- Fredholm kernel
- continuously differentiable
- partial derivatives
- numerical solution
- physical experiment
- Spectral analysis
- distance function
- up to isomorphism
- finite-dimensional
- if and only if
- complex plane
- negative frequency
- direct summand
- limit point
- Pythagorean identity
- finite index
- non-negative
- normed space
- convex subset
- vector subspace
- non-zero vector
- linear functions
- continuous linear functional
- bounded sequence
- complex space
- differential operator
- compact support
- In addition — Quite frankly, G-guy, I don't think a non-mathemetician can make heads or tails of all the wiggly lines and googly stuff. Which is fine, perhaps, but I'm suggesting you review it yourself. I know you're all about being above any suspicion etc etc and so on, but frankly, no one is gonna accuse you of fanboy support if you pass it.
- Ling.Nut (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I can vouch for the accuracy of the mathematics and say what is common knowledge within mathematics and what needs citation (be it common knowledge or opinion), but I've reviewed the article in depth once, and it needs another reviewer. I think there is still work to do on the article, but am willing to help. I suggest therefore that it be renominated at GAN. I believe there are several GA reviewers who are mathematically tolerant/literate without being familiar with Hilbert spaces. Such a reviewer will help to ensure (more than I can) that the article is as accessible as it can be for the nonspecialist. If unreasonable demands are made, I'm happy to mediate, and GAR is available as a remedy in any case. (Of course if the latter leads to a COI, I will recuse closing the discussion.) Geometry guy 23:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hiya G-Guy. There's been a lot of discussion lately of what to do about the problem of hard feelings caused from the perception that changes to policy don't get a fair hearing. I'm interested in any feedback you want to give on my proposal. (Watching). - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I'm working on an essay that might summarize the positions in a snappier way, I'll link when it's finished. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've watchlisted the page and will comment if I have time and believe I can help. I'm initially a little concerned that ideas like this will infect smaller issues with the stagnation and inertia that has troubled bigger ones. Here I'm thinking of things like flagged revisions and date delinking (crazy that the latter became a big issue, but it did); less contentious issues have been generally been dealt with in a more lightweight and flexible way. Don't forget that nobody reads the guidelines anyway. Geometry guy 23:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- An essay and a plan: User:Dank/Essays#Consensus on policy pages. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've watchlisted the page and will comment if I have time and believe I can help. I'm initially a little concerned that ideas like this will infect smaller issues with the stagnation and inertia that has troubled bigger ones. Here I'm thinking of things like flagged revisions and date delinking (crazy that the latter became a big issue, but it did); less contentious issues have been generally been dealt with in a more lightweight and flexible way. Don't forget that nobody reads the guidelines anyway. Geometry guy 23:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Priority ratings on mathematics articles
While I browse through mathematics articles, I often come across priority ratings. While I do not think that they should be taken seriously, I do sometimes feel a trifle indignant about particular ratings. For instance, until I changed it, Manifold was rated "Top priority" but Banach manifold was rated "Low priority". This seems somewhat contradictory, because after all, all Euclidean manifolds are Banach manifolds.
Similarly, the article Annihilator (ring theory) appears to have a low priority rating but in my opinion, it is important in the theory of modules, serves to define the Jacobson radical, and also aids in proving the Jacobson density theorem - all of these concepts are quite important in the structure theory of rings.
The other aspect of these ratings, is that they seem to order mathematical concepts in terms of importance. Althought this is Wikipedia, and there must be uniformity, I think that this should not be done for articles relating to research interests. For instance, there are particular fields of research interest, but the corresponding priority is low, whereas some other fields are given "High priority". I think that all fields within mathematics are equally important, and certainly very important to those who research them.
Although I know that you have given many of these ratings, I also know that you have a very good reason for all of them. You are also probably the most approachable administrator on this issue. Could you please tell me how these ratings are decided, or what their purpose is? I have tried reading the appropriate policy articles, but they do not give any information apart from the obvious. Thanks, --PST 02:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have time to respond at length just now, but you could take a look at WP:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Importance, which discusses the issue. The root cause of your occasional indignation may be that "priority" isn't intended to mean what you think it means. However, I'm sure there are also cases where the priority has been misjudged (by myself or others); then it should be adjusted accordingly. Geometry guy 09:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse blocked for two weeks
- See User talk:Mattisse. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- This looks to me like J.delanoy has been overzealous, to put it mildly:
- Is Checkuser infallible? That seems unlikely considering that spam and phishing filters turn up the odd false positive?
- Assuming that the users cited at "Blocked directly for two weeks" really are socks of Mattisse:
- IMO Mattisse would have been imprudent to say the least.
- However a 2-week block with no warning is miles over the top - most persistent vandalisers of articles never get such long blocks, and only after a whole series of shorter blocks, interspersed with repeated warnings.
- Alleged sock User:Big Toxic Personality has no contribs - unless some have been deleted, which I can't check as I'm not an admin. If the prosecution relies on deleted contribs, it should disclose the fact.
- Alleged sock VividMe's contribs appear limited to minor quality control issues, mostly tagging lack of citations and similar issues - unless some have been deleted, which I can't check as I'm not an admin.
- Alleged sock User:CallMeNow is the one that needs investigation:
- User:Daedalus969 erased content and indef blocked at User talk:CallMeNow - but User:Daedalus969 does not disclose that it is an admin. After the block, User:Chillum posted criticism of User:CallMeNow at User talk:CallMeNow - kicking someone when they're down.
- CallMeNow's contribs appear restricted to comments on User:Bishonen's prolific use of socks. I have not seen anything uncivil in User:CallMeNow's language in these comments. Again, some comments may have been deleted, which I can't check as I'm not an admin.
- IMO WP needs a clearer and more restrictive policy on use of socks - e.g. forbidden except by special dispensation. CallMeNow refers to the recent case of Geogre, who seems to have used socks to proliferate his own opinions on contentious issues. Bishonen makes a joke of (?)her proliferation of socks.
- The block on Mattisse was issued at 3:17 on 28 Aug 2009. A prior discussion on Bishonen's Talk page looks like an organised hunt for the alleged socking - by users who are either non-admins or undisclosed admins.
- In short this block looks like both lynch law and protection of some bad practices that should be severely curbed. My own inclination would be to raise an RfC on this, covering both the block and the use of socks in general - my biggest concern would be where to host such an RfC. --Philcha (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was a direct hit. Sure some people are allowed to sock, but Mattisse does not have the political power to do so. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 07:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- This looks to me like J.delanoy has been overzealous, to put it mildly:
Though Mattisse was unwise to have done what she has done, the response to block her for two weeks without discussion with her does seem inappropriate. But are we really to arm ourselves and split into warring tribes over this? One of the things that Mattisse herself dislikes about Wikipedia is that people do withdraw into camps to defend each other. Mattisse's actions were wrong - she was engaging in personal issues that had nothing to do with encyclopedia building. Mattisse has been bitten hard by a guard dog, and we are wondering if the bite was too harsh. But Mattisse should not have been in the backyard in the first place. A RFC will create drama with pro and anti Mattisse people slinging mud at each other. A quiet word to the person doing the block asking for a rationale for the two week block might be the best course of action. Less drama. More polite. And more in keeping with the way that Mattisse would want Wikipedia to be: that we are all here for the same thing - to build an encyclopedia. SilkTork *YES! 10:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Re SilkTork's "A quiet word to the person doing the block asking for a rationale for the two week block ..." (10:27, 28 August 2009):
- Who's going to have the quiet word, and where is the explanation to be given and linked to?
- "A quiet word" will not change the underlying double standards:
- Matisse got a 2-week without warning, while vandals who delete or deface content are treated with kid gloves.
- Geogre was de-sysopped but not blocked after operating for years socks that he used to stack discussions. Mattisse got a 2-week without warning after posting complaining about Bishonen's undisclosed use of socks. IMO stacking discussions is much more harmful than complaining about undisclosed use of socks. -Philcha (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Having seen this, then an indef block on that account was appropriate - it was clearly an account created to attack Bishonen, and we don't need such accounts. The account is then discovered to have been created by Mattisse. So Mattisse needs to be advised that the account has been discovered, and that her actions are inappropriate. Under the terms of User:Mattisse/Plan which was approved by ArbCom, Mattisse accepts the notion of a short ban for "unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making." The wording, however, is "Short blocks after a warning", and the policy in such a situation is that "The main account also may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator." As such it could be argued that this block is not required by policy, goes against the spirit of the ArbCom decision, is unhelpful, and creates more upset and drama than needed. However, it has to be accepted that Mattisse has let herself (and us) down here. I want Mattisse back on Wikipedia, and back sooner rather than later. She is an enormous asset to the project, and I personally like and respect her. But she also has to accept that she needs to leave these personal issues alone, and NOT engage in unseemly conduct. If she feels that someone else is behaving inappropriately, she needs to comment in a sober and respectful manner in the right place and under her own account name.
- Has the blocking admin been a bit harsh in the circumstances? Yes.
- Is the blocking admin's action permitted and defensible within guidelines? Yes.
- Should Mattisse be made aware that her actions were inappropriate? Yes.
- Will challenging the blocking admin's action be wikilawering and quibbling? Yes
- Will I raise the matter with the admin anyway? Yes
SilkTork *YES! 11:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- <sigh>. She has a long history of socking, even though she refused to acknowledge the past CU evidence. I reviewed every one of her past CU-verified accounts, and they were assuredly her. Why don't her mentors wake up and smell the roses and do something to help her, rather than encouraging her to continue these behaviors? To continue socking while under ArbCom sanction and against an editor she has targetted seems worthy of the long block. More importantly, it is apparent that Mattisse desperately needs time off to re-evaluate her priorities and perspective on Wiki, so why don't you all send the right message ? Ask her to take time off and stop feeding her talk page; she needs it. Y'all are doing her no favors by allowing her issues to continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Creating 3 socks in a day or two and using one of them to criticise the conduct of another editor was very stupid.
- However Mattisse gets a 2 week block for a few niggles, while Geogre was de-sysopped but not blocked at all for systematic abuse of socks to stack discussions. This case is just an other example that WP's disciplinary actions are in no way even-handed. --Philcha (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Correct, they aren't even-handed, and that, too, has worked to Mattisse's benefit. In spite of serious findings against her in the ArbCom, she was allowed to tailor a program for addressing her behaviors, when another editor might have been topic banned. Sanctions are tailored to try to benefit the Project, and although Mattisse has breached almost every condition of her ArbCom Plan, she has been able to continue editing because others hoped to effect some change in her behavior via this approach. Once again, her mentors will do her no favors by sending mixed messages and justifications for behaviors that will land her in trouble again: exactly that (that someone always defends her, and she interprets those mixed messages as justification to continue) is what has always gotten her into trouble. I know, because I was once one of those editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that mixed messages can only cause trouble - for most editors, not just Mattisse. However WP collectively has sent mixed messages by numerous instances of unequal treatment. The only consistent message appears to be "have the best collection of powerful friends". --Philcha (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- That may or may not be true (I happen to think that Mattisse has received more benefit from uneven application of sanctions than any other editor would be allowed), once again, by refusing to acknowledge the ongoing issues and the seriousness of the ArbCom findings against her, you harm her case more than help her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, if the block had been a day or two, I'd have emailed Mattisse to say that she'd been bloody stupid, and should consult her mentors before initiating any action that might be considered hostile. If the block were promptly reduced to a few days, I'd send a similar email. However the comparison between the current treatment of Mattisse and Geogre highlights only one possible message, "have the best collection of powerful friends". --Philcha (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I continue to believe that, whether or not that is true, by continuing such arguments you confuse Mattisse and harm her more than help her. For example, I saw months ago that she was confused, thinking that warnings had to be issued before blocks, not understanding that discussion could be a warning. Apparently, not one of her mentors cleared that up with her? I see things that confuse her all the time, but with the exception of Malleus, no one has been willing to educate her and call a spade a spade. Your line of reasoning and manner of mentorship has not helped her. I was hoping it would, because I backed off of mentoring her after she wouldn't acknowledge previous socking and launched a blatant personal attack within days of agreeing to me to stop such behvior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, if the block had been a day or two, I'd have emailed Mattisse to say that she'd been bloody stupid, and should consult her mentors before initiating any action that might be considered hostile. If the block were promptly reduced to a few days, I'd send a similar email. However the comparison between the current treatment of Mattisse and Geogre highlights only one possible message, "have the best collection of powerful friends". --Philcha (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- That may or may not be true (I happen to think that Mattisse has received more benefit from uneven application of sanctions than any other editor would be allowed), once again, by refusing to acknowledge the ongoing issues and the seriousness of the ArbCom findings against her, you harm her case more than help her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that mixed messages can only cause trouble - for most editors, not just Mattisse. However WP collectively has sent mixed messages by numerous instances of unequal treatment. The only consistent message appears to be "have the best collection of powerful friends". --Philcha (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Correct, they aren't even-handed, and that, too, has worked to Mattisse's benefit. In spite of serious findings against her in the ArbCom, she was allowed to tailor a program for addressing her behaviors, when another editor might have been topic banned. Sanctions are tailored to try to benefit the Project, and although Mattisse has breached almost every condition of her ArbCom Plan, she has been able to continue editing because others hoped to effect some change in her behavior via this approach. Once again, her mentors will do her no favors by sending mixed messages and justifications for behaviors that will land her in trouble again: exactly that (that someone always defends her, and she interprets those mixed messages as justification to continue) is what has always gotten her into trouble. I know, because I was once one of those editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- <sigh>. She has a long history of socking, even though she refused to acknowledge the past CU evidence. I reviewed every one of her past CU-verified accounts, and they were assuredly her. Why don't her mentors wake up and smell the roses and do something to help her, rather than encouraging her to continue these behaviors? To continue socking while under ArbCom sanction and against an editor she has targetted seems worthy of the long block. More importantly, it is apparent that Mattisse desperately needs time off to re-evaluate her priorities and perspective on Wiki, so why don't you all send the right message ? Ask her to take time off and stop feeding her talk page; she needs it. Y'all are doing her no favors by allowing her issues to continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mattisse was given every opportunity to reform and prove that she is here to add to content. The very people who accused her in her ArbCom case, me among them, were quite gentle about giving her a second chance as soon as she understood the gravity of her offenses. While she seemed to understand and was suitably contrite at the time, within the past few weeks she has displayed behavior as disruptive as before her ArbCom case. As frustrated as I am at having to fight the same battles I did months ago, I am nonetheless impressed with the balls it takes for her to create sockpuppets after being accused of doing just that several years ago, recently having an ArbCom case brought against her for such aggressive behavior that simultaneously intoned being victimized, denying that she did it, then trying to defend it! I can only surmise that in her muddled mind she felt that she would be supported as she has been within the past few weeks. If it works then she has made a mockery of ArbCom and fools out of us all. I should have, I guess, argued strenuously for more severe sanctions. I had hope that she would assist in her own improvement. I no longer do. --Moni3 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I was asked on my talk page to post here. I cannot comment on what other people do or have done in situations similar to this, only on my own actions. If I found any established user was doing what Mattisse did, I would have responded in the same way. My normal procedure when dealing with people (common vandals) who use undeclared alternate accounts to make edits like this is to indef-block both puppets and master. Since Mattisse is not a common sockpuppeteer, s/he has been a member of the site for quite some time, I went with two weeks rather than indefinite. Once again, if, instead of Mattisse, I had found any other user (meaning ANY contributor, including admins/arbitrators/etc.) doing the same thing, I would have responded in exactly the same way.
I have never warned a sockpuppeteer before blocking him/her and his/her socks, and I see no reason why I should have done so in this case. Especially in this case, since Mattisse is an established editor, so presumably s/he already knows about WP:SOCK. Sockpuppetry is not one of the issues covered by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Planning_to_address_issues, most likely because the Arbitration Committee did not even consider the possibility that Mattisse would do something like this. Regardless of why, my point is, I do not believe that my actions with regard to Mattisse are subject to that ruling, and thus the guidelines here, specifically "Short blocks after a warning" [emphasis added] do not apply.
Having said all that (and far more than I originally intended to), if Mattisse wishes to appeal the block on his/her talk page, s/he is of course free to do so. If Mattisse chooses to do this, and another admin thinks that my actions were unwarranted or too harsh, that admin is free to undo or shorten my block. I will say for the record, though, that I entertain no shadow of any doubt that the accounts I listed are being controlled by the same person who is controlling User:Mattisse. Consequently, in absence of further developments, such as an unblock request from Mattisse, I do not plan to shorten or undo my block. J.delanoygabsadds 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- What Mattisse did was incredibly foolish. Furthermore, as has become clear, she knew better. From her early experiences on Wikipedia, she knows that sockpuppetry can be abused, and the very purpose of her recent sock accounts seems to have been an attempt to expose a double standard concerning sockpuppetry. This is contrary to WP:POINT: clever use of irony, stupid use of the editing privilege. I went through the history this morning and found exactly the diff that J.delanoy highlights above, which unambiguously asserts that another user is "toxic", a clear personal attack. A block was surely justified, and I see no point in arguing over its length.
- Mattisse's plan is meant to govern her onwiki behaviour, not everyone else's: when a block is made with a warning, she is to accept it and try to learn from it; this does not prevent blocks without a warning, but in such circumstances, it is difficult to stop her getting upset, threatening to leave etc. In this case a warning might have led to an earlier confession of a pointy joke, but I'm not convinced that it would have done, and I say this without any criticism of J.delanoy's action.
- I do, however, have three concerns.
- In going through the histories this morning, I found it extremely hard to figure out what had happened. For example, did someone ask J.delanoy to perform a check-user; if so, whom, and where? It took time to work out which of the editors commenting were check-users who had checked the result themselves. On-wiki transparency is very important, Otherwise we head towards a Kafka-esque situation where deliberations happen behind closed doors and (metaphorically speaking) an editor can unexpectedly be taken to a quarry and stabbed to death with a knife. Arbcom has made determined efforts towards transparency; I encourage check-users to do the same.
- I thought about commenting this morning but decided I didn't have enough information or distance from events to make an objective evaluation. I encourage other editors to do likewise, and have been disappointed to find such a long thread here so soon, with some comments clearly reflecting an a priori position for which this event is a postiori justification.
- Admins and check-users have a particular responsibility to provide a lead in their behaviour. I hope that J.delanoy will comment on the transparency issue. However, I was also disheartened to read (check-user and admin) YellowMonkey's comment that
- Sure some people are allowed to sock, but Mattisse does not have the political power to do so.
- He may have meant "political capital", but even that doesn't sit well with the ethos of Wikipedia. If he doesn't wish to retract this statement, I have some questions. Where in the five pillars is political power part of what we do here? Where on Wikipedia do we decide who has political power and who doesn't? Where in WP:SOCK does it state that political power is a consideration when deciding who can use sock accounts and who can't? Lastly, where in WP:BLOCK does it state that political power is a factor in considering blocks and their length? Geometry guy 20:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood YMs comment, he wasnt advocating treating editors diferently based on "polital capital", quite the opposite. 189.105.18.168 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is up to him, not you, to justify and/or explain what he meant by "political power". Geometry guy 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well SOCK is one of the evenly applied policies, which says something about Wikipedia, but yes, people who sock still can get treated differently if they are powerful enough. See the AC mailing list's contents for example, which you can't see. Basically all admins who sock get a quiet interview, and although most are desysopped, some are not blocked. Secondly, with regards to complaints about being checkusered, if you know a CU for instance, people will be less likely to CU you if you are powerful, because there is a chance that the CU taking place will be reported, and the CUed person can complain noisily about being scanned. Obviously a nobody with no idea or no supporters couldn't make a dent complaining about a CU, but if you have a lot you can say that the CUer abusively checked someone. With the way WP works, a lot of people don't look at the data, so if you make a lot of noise, you will score a few mudhits, regardless of the merit of the position. Most CUs are arbs etc and engage in "small target politics" to rise up the food chain, and are wary of challenging anybody of any political relevance else they will get a few opposes on their next election. When I was on AC, if a fight involved some powerful person and could have political ramifications, eg people known for bloc voting, often there would be 500+ mailing list posts about it. Whereas with a fight between small people, if they don't like the slow service or what they get, they wouldn't be able to make a dent at the ballot box and wouldn't have the ability to make meaningful protests that would dent the image of the arb, many of these AC cases get less than 5 posts, and these are usually vote nags, and in any case, these AC cases are usually just pile-ons. In reality, the AC has little/won't wield power, they usually just rule in favour of the power structure, and in the case of a few hapless nobodies, in some arbitrary way. Quite a few times in the latter case, a lot of interrelates AC cases contradicted each other and all sorts. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- A person on Wikipedia gets power by gathering likeminded people from the same ethnic/religious group etc to guard articles, make sure that peopel from opposing groups don't pass RFA etc etc....or they just team up politically to vote themselves up the food chain, and sometimes chew up opponents...and they engage in vigourous action to get what they want.... Most of these people have no formal rank higher than admin, and if they ran for crat, CU, Arb etc, they would get hammered, usually with less than 50%....whereas successful candidates usually just sit on the fence and don't interfere to stop or perpetuate POV pushing or criticise anyone of any relevance, else they will get opposed....The warlords aren't going to cede meaningful power that was gained by hard-fought battles on a daily basis to a person who gets high rankings on an election by sitting around making circumlocutory and tautological speeches all day for free. If some nominally high-ranking official wants to lay a glove on a warlord, they can expect a violent fight and angry demonstrations, something they haven't typically engaged in during the past. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well SOCK is one of the evenly applied policies, which says something about Wikipedia, but yes, people who sock still can get treated differently if they are powerful enough. See the AC mailing list's contents for example, which you can't see. Basically all admins who sock get a quiet interview, and although most are desysopped, some are not blocked. Secondly, with regards to complaints about being checkusered, if you know a CU for instance, people will be less likely to CU you if you are powerful, because there is a chance that the CU taking place will be reported, and the CUed person can complain noisily about being scanned. Obviously a nobody with no idea or no supporters couldn't make a dent complaining about a CU, but if you have a lot you can say that the CUer abusively checked someone. With the way WP works, a lot of people don't look at the data, so if you make a lot of noise, you will score a few mudhits, regardless of the merit of the position. Most CUs are arbs etc and engage in "small target politics" to rise up the food chain, and are wary of challenging anybody of any political relevance else they will get a few opposes on their next election. When I was on AC, if a fight involved some powerful person and could have political ramifications, eg people known for bloc voting, often there would be 500+ mailing list posts about it. Whereas with a fight between small people, if they don't like the slow service or what they get, they wouldn't be able to make a dent at the ballot box and wouldn't have the ability to make meaningful protests that would dent the image of the arb, many of these AC cases get less than 5 posts, and these are usually vote nags, and in any case, these AC cases are usually just pile-ons. In reality, the AC has little/won't wield power, they usually just rule in favour of the power structure, and in the case of a few hapless nobodies, in some arbitrary way. Quite a few times in the latter case, a lot of interrelates AC cases contradicted each other and all sorts. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is up to him, not you, to justify and/or explain what he meant by "political power". Geometry guy 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood YMs comment, he wasnt advocating treating editors diferently based on "polital capital", quite the opposite. 189.105.18.168 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was asked privately by an SPI clerk to look at the sock, and when I checked the underlying IP, I saw Mattisse listed there. To be frank, I was shocked, and I didn't know what to make of it. Since I am not an incredibly experienced checkuser, I asked another checkuser to review my results. Given the implications if I was wrong, I didn't want to say anything before I was certain, and once I was certain, I just acted. I was aware that this would create a "kafka-esque" atmosphere, but given that the alternative included an (in my own view, due to my relative inexperience as a checkuser) unacceptably high possibility of me making a false accusation of sockpuppetry against an established editor, I decided that not saying anything was the lesser of two evils. In any case, I cannot say anything publicly about my evidence, so essentially the only alternative I had to doing what I did (blocking Mattisse myself) would be to post somewhere, "Mattisse is socking. These are the socks.", in which case any reviewing admin would have no choice but to (I hate to say it this way...) take my word for it that I am telling the truth. This is, for all practical purposes, the same situation we have now, the only difference being that I made the block myself. J.delanoygabsadds 23:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying and for your candour. Your decision in this case has proven to be correct, so no apology is needed. The issues I raise here are not intended to call editors to account, but to encourage improvement of practice and process. I'm concerned that you felt it was better to block than to raise the issue, when, as you say, there was an "unacceptably high possibility" that you were making a "false accusation... against an established editor". As an inexperienced check-user, what do you think could be improved to make it easier for you to do your job and feel under less pressure? You don't have to reply here, but I believe it is an important question, just as I believe the transparency issue is. Geometry guy 23:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was asked privately by an SPI clerk to look at the sock, and when I checked the underlying IP, I saw Mattisse listed there. To be frank, I was shocked, and I didn't know what to make of it. Since I am not an incredibly experienced checkuser, I asked another checkuser to review my results. Given the implications if I was wrong, I didn't want to say anything before I was certain, and once I was certain, I just acted. I was aware that this would create a "kafka-esque" atmosphere, but given that the alternative included an (in my own view, due to my relative inexperience as a checkuser) unacceptably high possibility of me making a false accusation of sockpuppetry against an established editor, I decided that not saying anything was the lesser of two evils. In any case, I cannot say anything publicly about my evidence, so essentially the only alternative I had to doing what I did (blocking Mattisse myself) would be to post somewhere, "Mattisse is socking. These are the socks.", in which case any reviewing admin would have no choice but to (I hate to say it this way...) take my word for it that I am telling the truth. This is, for all practical purposes, the same situation we have now, the only difference being that I made the block myself. J.delanoygabsadds 23:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Echoing J.delanoy, checks are routinely performed without reference to a formal case at SPI. This has always been the case, and in fact according to statistics posted somewhere there have been periods where offline checks exceeded checks requested online - if I remember correctly, by a considerable margin. Checkusers (of which, just to be clear, I am not) are free to check accounts that are obvious bad-hand accounts of experienced users, and to issue blocks based on their findings, even if the sockmaster is not initially known or suspected. Seeing CallMeNow's contribs, if someone else hadn't asked a CU for a check I would have asked myself. It was inevitable, given the high profile nature of the edits. Nathan T 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I too was, to say the least, surprised at Mattisse's evidently misguided (to put it mildly) deployment of sockpuppets, and I don't see the lack of a prior warning as particularly troublesome, as any experienced editor ought to know what the consequences are likely to be. My concern is simply over the length of the ban, given the several other high profile cases where there has been no ban whatsoever imposed. It does give the impression of a two-tier system of justice. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I said before, I cannot speak for the actions of others, but I will assure you that if I ever encounter something like this again with any established editor, my response will not be different. As to the length of the block, other admins are welcome to review it, but I do not plan to consider doing so unless Mattisse is willing to say that she (?) will not do this again, and at least to accept that no one forced her to do what she did. J.delanoygabsadds 23:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- And you would be right to respond in a consistent way. As I said above I have no intention to dispute your block, or its length. I stand by my comments above concerning the checkuser process. How would you make it more transparent and less stressful for checkusers? Geometry guy 00:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, I was scared to block Mattisse, even with two other checkusers confirming my results. I expected to be eaten alive. That should give you some idea of what I expected to get if I made an accusation publicly and turned out to be wrong. As to what can be done to remedy this situation, I don't know. The only thing that sticks out to me would be silencing all criticism of blocks, which is obviously unacceptable. I don't think there is any way to remedy this, as by its very nature, the checkuser tool is secretive, so no matter what I did with regard to this, I would still be put through the mill. *sigh* J.delanoygabsadds 00:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your candour, and my sympathy for the stress this situation put you under. I look forward to YellowMonkey responding with the same candour once his timezone comes online. Geometry guy 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, I was scared to block Mattisse, even with two other checkusers confirming my results. I expected to be eaten alive. That should give you some idea of what I expected to get if I made an accusation publicly and turned out to be wrong. As to what can be done to remedy this situation, I don't know. The only thing that sticks out to me would be silencing all criticism of blocks, which is obviously unacceptable. I don't think there is any way to remedy this, as by its very nature, the checkuser tool is secretive, so no matter what I did with regard to this, I would still be put through the mill. *sigh* J.delanoygabsadds 00:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- And you would be right to respond in a consistent way. As I said above I have no intention to dispute your block, or its length. I stand by my comments above concerning the checkuser process. How would you make it more transparent and less stressful for checkusers? Geometry guy 00:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I said before, I cannot speak for the actions of others, but I will assure you that if I ever encounter something like this again with any established editor, my response will not be different. As to the length of the block, other admins are welcome to review it, but I do not plan to consider doing so unless Mattisse is willing to say that she (?) will not do this again, and at least to accept that no one forced her to do what she did. J.delanoygabsadds 23:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I too was, to say the least, surprised at Mattisse's evidently misguided (to put it mildly) deployment of sockpuppets, and I don't see the lack of a prior warning as particularly troublesome, as any experienced editor ought to know what the consequences are likely to be. My concern is simply over the length of the ban, given the several other high profile cases where there has been no ban whatsoever imposed. It does give the impression of a two-tier system of justice. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- No block length could have been perfect; it would always be "the wrong length" (as "the wrong version"). Talk of cabals is counterproductive to say the very, very least. we all know that Wikipedia is decentralized, and punitive measures are left to admin discretion, within a discretionary range... why are we still amazed by this? And most of all, mentors should not defend or advocate for Mattisse. The whole point of ArbCom was this: "Mattisse, stop throwing poo. That's all we're asking. Just stop." The goal of mentorship is neither to defend nor punish M., it is to help her stop. Not punish. Not defend. get both of those out of your minds. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
3rd opinion on History of Sesame Street
Hi G. Will you be able to help out? Mattisse provided a second opinion on History of Sesame Street. She agreed with my quibbles. However, the nominator is challenging Mattisse's findings and is asking for another opinion. My concerns are:
- The tone and detail of the first paragraph of the lead, and the Beginnings section I feel may be too anecdotal and trivial, and so not pass 3 (b) (this would also mean not passing 1 (a) and (b)).
- The article relies heavily on 3 or 4 books which are not available online. When earlier checking out two online sources the sources did not support what had been written in the article - this has now been corrected in one case, and switched to one of the off-line sources in the other.
- The last quibble is to do with broad coverage. The main article has a Sesame_Street#Broadcast_history section. I wonder if the History article should have the same; and if it should cover more than just the history of Sesame Street in America - that there should be greater detail on Sesame Street around the world, and Sesame Street in different presentation formats. The nominator feels that the article is fine as it is because Sesame Street is an American show and gives the example of History of The Simpsons.
I am unsure. If I was certain one way or the other I would make the decision. Thanks. SilkTork *YES! 10:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)