User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 22

Wikipedia:Good article criteria

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. OhanaUnited^{Talk 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

1. bring articles up to the barest nub of FA standards, using paint-by-numbers "template" approach, and
2. 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)

Someone even more opiniated than me! Wonders will never cease :-) --Philcha (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions? <blink, blink>. What opinions? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:00, 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. EyeSerene^talk 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 :( OhanaUnited^{Talk 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)

That's what I call a sense of perspective! --Philcha (talk) 21:55, 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)

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)

Yeah, I ought to have been clearer, I meant a specific citation. I have a couple of stats/math articles in mind myself as it happens, so it'll be interesting to see how they go if I ever get around to them. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 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)

(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:

1. 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.
2. 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. EyeSerene^talk 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)

I very much disagree with the notion that GA's primary aim is educational, although that's a worth secondary goal. The primary purpose has to be to improve the crap that is the typical wikipedia article. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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?

1. Is it readable?
2. Are there reliable sources which support the material?
3. Does the material adequately cover the topic defined by the article title?
4. Are differing viewpoints presented from the neutral point of view?
5. Can we be sure that what we read today will correspond closely to what another reader will find tomorrow?
6. 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:

1. 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;
2. the "young turks" also embrace/accept the idea (at least to some degree, perhaps, in connection with #3, below), and
3. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WT:CONSENSUS

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)

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)

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)

• Lingzilla say RfC BAD, chit chat GOOD. But probably ineffective mumble grumble. Mattisse think she GoodGuy wear white hat. Blocking admins think they GoodGuys wear white hats too. Everybody GrrrRRRRRROOOwwwrr at each other. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:38, 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)

Agree with everything SilkTork said. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:00, 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)

I handle some aspects of some issues by email, since some editors have an irrestible urge to dog-pile on Talk pages. Then I try to finish off with a more positive direction, as AFAIK giving only "don'ts" without a relevant "do" or two is ineffective. --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 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.delanoy^gabs_adds 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

I welcome candour on my talkpage. But let me ask: do you consider this to be an acceptable state of affairs? As a check-user, for example, do you not think it would be a good idea to introduce greater transparency so that everyone (not just a select in-group) knows who is requesting a check-user on whom? Geometry guy 12:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the justice system on Wikipedia, no, it is worse than almost all Asian justice/political systems, bar a few Stalinist ones. One has to be self-reliant on Wikipedia, although not in the sense of blocking someone after reverting them (although this can be done without much trouble by obscure admins with no enemies against IPs and newbies who don't know the rules and that nobody cares about, or really powerful ones). Those WikiProjects with a low density of proactive/servicing admins compared to articles, will almost always have more trauma from fights dragging on too much, stalking etc, as an outsider is not going to try too hard or doesn't have the background to be able to do it or understand the subtleties. Especially if there are no admins or those who don't intervene it can result in more quagmires sitting around, because the ArbCom won't even take a cursory look until there has been serious niggling for a long time. Sometimes a lazy admin tries to play one crook against another instead of fixing it up directly and sometimes these "my enemy's enemy is my friend", which is a very mainstream operational paradigm on Wikipedia can turn into a massive riot if people change sides. To be frank, people tend to not care unless they are involved, either in a narrow WP defnition of being in the debate and reverting, or a looser associated way in the general sphere. As for transparency I can respond to inquiries about my actions, although automatically writing a report about everything would be really annoying as most of them I just do them off my own bat on the usual places where ethnic team voting/reverting by socks is prevalent, especially the usual sweeps of haunts of banned users. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Actions off your own bat are fine, and your work in maintaining th integrity of the encyclopedia is surely valuable. Transparency is only essential when there is a political issue, be it in your own motivations or from those requesting your help. Geometry guy 20:56, 3 September 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.delanoy^gabs_adds 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)

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.delanoy^gabs_adds 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.delanoy^gabs_adds 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)

That was a depressing read (and something likely to end up on the pages of WikiReview). YM's statements about CU trouble me as much as J.delanoy's fear of blocking Mattisse, which is quite baffling considering her prior CU-verified socking. It is unfortunate that admins have to fear taking logical action because some users have vocal defenders. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered I posted this in the wrong place: I was referring to YM's post about CU as a depressing read. I won't move the post now, as it's been responded to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

<Unhelpful subthread archived as a courtesy to all>

• 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)
  • How do you help someone who doesn't accept that she needs help, and instead appears to believe that she needs protectors? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I was sad to log in and find three editors I greatly respect in such conflict. As noted above I have archived the subthread as a courtesy. I apologize if anyone is offended by this, but there are limits to what I can accept on my talk page. There are some serious issues worthy of discussion here, including possible ways forward if Mattisse returns, and the difficulties in providing a level playing field for editors that YellowMonkey highlights. Just as with content review, the key to productive discussion is to focus on the content (the issues) not the editors. I hope further contributions will be in that spirit. Thank you, Geometry guy 15:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Good move. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. I notice Moni3 pointed to the idea of a psychology topic ban on your talk page. As I noted this morning, I still think this could be part of a way forward. Geometry guy 15:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm really done here, Gguy. The frustration of watching how Mattisse has been harmed more than helped by the well-meaning (and the consequent damage to content review processes) is more than I'm willing to endure. I tried: I have other duties on wiki to attend to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand and sympathise. My personal feeling is that too much discussion has happened too fast in the wake of the block. It may be better to follow NYBs advice concerning Mattisse and return to it after reflection (when distance has added its usual perspective).

On the other hand, I would welcome views from other editors on the issues raised by YellowMonkey. Should processes like check-user be more transparent, or should we tighten up the code of confidentiality, so that no one is party to off-wiki information about it? Or both? Geometry guy 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

At this moment, I can't recall where or when the discussions happened, but the issues raised by YM have been covered before, and I hold out little hope for meaningful change on those fronts. I seriously have to concentrate on my job at FAC and avoid these perennial dramafests :) I also agree with NYB's hope that discussion would be forestalled, but because several editors have expressed they would bring a new Arb, I was hoping we could come to some agreements that would avoid that. That was not to be; it's out of my hands now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(Re a new Arb) Me too. Some motions and fixes would be preferable to the painful and laborious process of a whole new RfArb. Perhaps I will see if there is appetite for discussion next weekend (if that is not too soon). Geometry guy 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on one's POV), I was mostly out of commission due to surgery during the last Arb, and will likely be traveling with very limited and slow dialup internet access if another occurs. I was hoping to get something workable in place before, and to forestall a new Arb. I wonder ... if things continue to spiral, ArbCom might step in independently, since they retained jurisdiction. The explosive outbursts on my talk page were not a good development. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Expecting arbs/CUs to not give intelligence from the logs or the AC mailing list to their mates is not realistic. Some prominent and powerful figures have a remarkably understanding of the political stances of the arbitrators towards them; this occurs even when an arb uses aggressive language against someone on the mailing list, but votes against sanctioning a person and keeps their mouth shut on-wiki (possibly due to approval ratings and political calculations) except that high-profile people in arbitration cases often show hostility towards or openly questions the neutrality of the said arb. As regards to powerplays, as long as the average AC election voter doesn't care or is scared by anyone who makes a stand, then it will remain the law of the jungle. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm really saddened by your first sentence. I have no difficulty in declaring that all email correspondence with me is confidential, and have great difficulties when I have to make small compromises on that position to address wider concerns. Why should it be so hard for check-users and arbs to adopt a similar code of confidentiality? I understand that they may well breach such a code because they want to tell their mates who has been requesting what and what is their position is on xy. But without a code, there is no prohibition, no sense that a check-user or arb has behaved inappropriately. Without such a code, election will, as you suggest, continue to be a popularity contest between in-groups. With such a code, those who don't follow it face a potential backlash from the electorate. I urge you not to underestimate the influence of the naive: they are a great resource to help Wikipedia stay focussed on its primary goals. Geometry guy 20:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope this will not be forgotten. It is an important issue for wikipedia. Geometry guy 22:24, 6 September 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:

1. 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)).
2. 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.
3. 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)

I've reviewed the article, and my review was somewhat orthogonal to yours, so discussion is welcome! :) It is emphatically not a problem to me that references are not online: indeed I would encourage the use of sources which have been checked, edited, printed, and sold by a publisher. To me, your concerns can be summarized in the idea that the article is a synthesis: it tells a story beyond what is told by the secondary sources. I disagreed with your praise of quotation: there is way too much. It makes the article hard to read, and diminishes the effect of the genuinely interesting quotations. I hope that my review will help the article in the long run, whatever the decision is on its GA status. This last decision is yours and yours alone to make, and I will continue to respect you as an editor whatever you decide, because I know how tough it can be to decide on which side of the line an article lies. Geometry guy 20:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

G, I have completed the run-through/copyedit of this article as promised. Please take a much-deserved break from all the wiki-drama ;) and go take a look. I appreciate the assistance in improving this article. Please let me know what I can do to further improve it as this stage. --Christine (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to make yourself aware of other issues that I have been involved with recently, but from my perspective, the "wiki-drama" has not been particularly troublesome. Anyway, I've taken another look at the article, and I see you have made many improvements (well I would say that, since you have followed my advice! Bear in mind that I am as fallible as anyone!). I hope I will have time to help out at peer review, but I can't promise anything now. The input of other editors should be invaluable at this stage. Geometry guy 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance Guy. I've decided to Fail the article. This allows Christine the freedom to go for another Review. The problem for me with the sources is that I was unable to check all of them, and the ones that I did check did not always match up with what was said in the article. My difficulty is not that the facts in the sources are not accurate, it's regarding if the facts have been stated appropriately in the article. Christine and I also have an issue regarding broad coverage - a different reviewer might not have the same issues, so I am stepping aside to allow her to find another reviewer if she wishes. She also has the option of WP:GAR, or of going straight to FA. SilkTork *^YES! 09:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. You have to make the decision you feel right at the time. I understand the disagreement, but it seems that further improvement has been encouraged as a result. Geometry guy 22:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please userfy

G-guy,

As a huge favor to me, would you min moving these into your user space?

• User:Ling.Nut/Barnstar of Awesomeness
• User:Ling.Nut/Barnstar of Greater Iran
• User:Ling.Nut/*User DGAF
• User:Ling.Nut/*User DGAF2
• User:Ling.Nut/Sarahchangfan
• User:Ling.Nut/Shoji fan
• Tks Ling.Nut (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've created User:Geometry guy/Ling.Nut. You can move them to subpages of that and then we can both easily see what is there using Special:PrefixIndex. Geometry guy 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hilbert space for GA

I've gone ahead and nominated Hilbert space for GA. Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on it, and am happy give my view on common knowledge within the area. Geometry guy 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

coloured links

Hi GGuy,

Glad to have you in the discussion. Green links are not very successful as you saw. However, I would like to give "orange links" a serious shot. I have prepared a draft of a proposal here. I would also like to add an addendum to that proposal, namely changing, for stubs, the edit this page to the a more visible edit this stub, so that people understand what the orange linking is all about. It is 4 a.m. for me, I'm going to bed. :) GeometryGirl (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in. An additional link colour would be a bad idea, for lots of reasons. And then consider what would happen if it became a precedent, and everyone wanted a link colour for their pet project. --Philcha (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Philcha: no problem, and good to hear from you, but discussion of these proposals is that way (→). (If you do want to contribute, I would suggest that slippery slope arguments are not the best ones to employ. They rarely convince me, anyway.)

GeometryGirl: if you propose something involving a change in software, it needs huge support; the devs (developers) don't readily make changes on the grounds that "this would be a nice idea". The big idea to encourage more participation is great, but you need to find small ways to build a consensus behind it. Editors from all over the world and with multiple interests contribute here, so you're never going to get a huge consensus behind a significant change, unless everyone becomes convinced by example. Among the proposals so far, I'm not seeing any significant change which is likely to fly, which must be frustrating for you. I hope it is at least a learning experience.

I agree that we need to encourage more participation. Big ideas can inspire. Eventually. Geometry guy 22:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This has indeed been an interesting experience. My last (and matured) proposal will, I hope, be successful. What is more, it is almost trivial to implement! I hope you will express your opinion in the poll. GeometryGirl (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

These ideas have matured nicely into your most recent proposal. This stands a chance of success, or at least it may stimulate thought. By focusing on registered users and a flexible script-based solution, you may find a consensus. Good luck. Geometry guy 23:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

There's no need to hurry. I'm really busy myself, which is why I've stopped reviewing GANs for a while. It's nice to see that the backlog has decreased, though. --Edge3 (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you are keen...

<copied from WP:Good article reassessment/Squab (food)/1>

...to keep some form of separation of GA from the overall class ratings; however, there is a relationship. An article that is GA becomes GA class on the ranking scale; as such, at times it can be helpful to look at where an article is on that scale to indicate how close (or far) the article is from being GA class - or just simply to indicate to editors what work needs to be done to generally improve an article. My point is that this particular article is not GA class according to GA criteria, and further, that it needs some work to lift it up from C class, where it more appropriately should be placed for the reasons given above. The aim of the class rankings is the same as FA and GA - to improve the quality of articles by both giving guidance as to what can be done to improve, and to reward the effort put into improving an article by giving a ranking. We maintain the quality of that incentive by maintaining the quality of the whole ranking system from stub up to FA - including GA. SilkTork *^YES! 22:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

According to which WikiProject? "My point is that this particular article article is not GA class according to GA criteria, and further, that it needs some work to lift it up from C class". Already a confusion! The GA criteria define what is a good article: GA-Class is a matter for WikiProjects. "Lift it from C-Class" according to whom, which WikiProject, whose criteria?

Each WikiProject can facilitate article improvement in its own domain. However, over several years, no consistent interaction with encyclopedia-wide content review has emerged, much as a sensible interaction would be welcome. You speak of a ranking system. Whose ranking scale? Which WikiProject has the right to say what C or B class requirements should be in place before an article can be a good article? Many articles come under the scope of several WikiProjects, and some WikiProjects are very small. Should miscellaneous projects and minorities determine Wikipedia-wide standards?

There is no such single ranking scale which you seem to believe in: it is a myth created by a widely regarded historical mistake to include GA-Class in the WikiProject assessments. While WikiProjects and GA have similar aims, for GA there are and have always been only the GA criteria, period. Geometry guy 23:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for such a long response Guy - I have been very busy recently. I don't understand your argument - there seems to be a suggestion that there are clearly defined groups of people here who wish to do different things. I suspect you are dealing with the vestiges of some internal Wiki-politics that most of have no idea about and don't care to. A WikiProject is a meeting point for people to discuss, share and store ideas for how to improve a certain aspect of Wikipedia. It is no more than that. The Projects have no authority, though the members may join together as in a union to collectively push their ideas - this being a consequence of any group of people getting together with similar interests. An appropriate use of the Projects is that a person may go to a WikiProject forum page to get an opinion from other editors experienced in working on articles within that Project's sphere of interest, or may suggest that people work to get consensus on an issue related to that Project's sphere of interest. A person may register their interest in a particular Project so that other editors know they have some knowledge and experience of editing in that field, or they may not. I know people quite active in some Projects who have never put their name on a list, and I have known others to put their name on a list and put a userbox on their page, and then do very little. A WikiProject as such is not actually a body of people - it a meeting place.

The notion that somebody owns the ranking system, or even that there should be some form of ownership is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Any person may review an article and decide it is GA quality. Any person may read an article and decide it is B class quality by the criteria linked to in the appropriate boxes on the talkpage. The criteria being arrived at by consensus of those interested enough to get involved in creating the criteria. As such the GA criteria are no different to any other WikiProject's criteria: the GA criteria were created by a bunch of Wikipedia editors - the History article criteria were created by a bunch of Wikipedia editors. Who ranks the criteria? We all do. I do. Other users do.

You may continue to fight that fight within GA quite successfully as you are the main person within GA and highly respected for the work you do there. You are one of the good guys, and you do a bloody good job. I respect your opinion. However, I do not agree with you regarding the placement of GA within the overall article ranking. Unfortunately what that means is that occasionally I will article a view that you do not agree with. I will not do it deliberately to provoke you, and I welcome you also voicing your view so a balance is presented. I somehow doubt, though, that we will agree on this, and my aim is not to change your mind, but I would be uncomfortable suppressing discussion of the ranking system when it appears appropriate to mention it. Regards as always SilkTork *^YES! 18:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"You may continue to fight that fight within GA quite successfully as you are the main person within GA". I think that you ought to reconsider your position. G-guy's GA work is of course unimpeachable, but he's not in charge of GA, nobody is. "Any person may review an article and decide it is GA quality." Indeed they can but that article can be just as swiftly delisted. From memory I've delisted well over 100 putative GAs, and taken several to GAR when I thought the review was sloppy. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that GA has no director, no main person, no one editor in charge, and long may it remain that way, in my opinion. I do what I can to keep the process focused on the content and the criteria, not the editor or the wiki-politics. Geometry guy 20:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) PS. Please be careful when cutting and pasting material for quotations not to mangle another editors' comments - thanks.

I think I can see where my statement above can be misread. But there was no thought of making an ownership complaint to Guy. My thinking, poorly articulated, was that Guy holds a view on the position of GA within the overall assessment structure, and - as Guy is the person most active in GA, and is widely seen as the main contributor responsible for maintaining the GA project - he is able to put over his view quite successfully within the GA project. I respect Guy, and have no wish to rock the GA boat, so I am not challenging Guy's perspective on GA position. But I am reserving the right to articulate my own view on GA's position in the overall assessment scheme where I feel it is appropriate. I would not do this simply to raise a debate about the issue itself, but purely in the context of what is being discussed. Right - I have to dash out the door! regards to all! SilkTork *^YES! 06:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded briefly on my talk page (where the discussion was interrupted). I will respond in more depth either here or there in the next few days (let me know if you have a preference): sorry for not being able to respond sooner. Thanks for getting back to me and for your care and thought for the interests of the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we need to have a discussion. We have differing views on where and how GA fits into the overall article assessment scheme. I see GA as an article assessment same as the other article assessments. You see it as being different. I'm not that interested in it to make any changes to guidance (as I once tried, and you felt was inappropriate), so we don't need to convince each other of anything. But I will absolutely stand by the view I have (which is widely shared) of GA being part of the overall scheme, and that when appropriate articulating that view in discussions. The only issue we might have is that you disagree with me giving my viewpoint in discussions, and from what I know of you, I don't think that would be the case. I think that this is simply one of those situations where two people have different views on something, but like and respect each other enough for those issues not to be a problem. One of those "We agree to disagree" situations. I feel that it's always healthy for people to have differing views, and to be able to talk them over calmly. However, I'm not THAT interested in where GA fits into the overall article assessment scheme to want to get bogged down in it. My time on Wikipedia is currently very limited! Perhaps when I have more time we can sit down and chat it over (preferably in a pub with a few pints!). Warm regards. SilkTork *^YES! 06:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pub plus pints would be good - much respect to a fellow Wikipedian who writes beer articles, by the way!

Discussion is helpful to clarify misunderstandings and find common ground. In this case, going back to your earlier post, I agree with pretty much everything you say about WikiProjects. I am involved in WikiProject Mathematics, and contributed greatly to the development of its assessment scheme, providing ballpark assessments for around 3000 articles myself. WikiProjects are a good thing, and are excellent meeting places for those with common interests to coordinate activity. I also completely agree with you that ownership is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and this applies to assessment schemes too. Any editor can update a WikiProject assessment by assessing the article against the criteria developed by that WikiProject. (For A-Class, that sometimes requires having a discussion, depending on the project.) I also agree with you that the GA criteria are no different from any other criteria: assessing an article against the GA criteria is no different in principle from assessing it against Mathematics criteria or Biography criteria; read what the criteria in question say, and see if the article meets them. However, just because an article meets the Mathematics criteria for B-Class (or A-Class) does not necessarily mean it meets the Biography criteria - and vice versa. Where we may disagree is that I don't believe it is possible to compare e.g. WP:MILHIST B-Class with WP:Physics B-Class. Different WikiProjects represent different outlooks, and subject experts have been known to object when non-experts say something like "This falls way short of B-Class for XYZ, so it can't possibly be B-Class for ABC". Further, the purpose of WikiProject assessments is to help editors improve articles. Many articles now have multiple WikiProject ratings, and coupling them to each other is an unnecessary constraint.

Unfortunately, there are two WikiProjects that complicate the situation: GA and Wikipedia 1.0. GA is effectively a WikiProject (and has an associated WikiProject) with a binary classification scheme: GA or not. Wikipedia 1.0, aimed at producing release versions, originated the AB(C)-Start-Stub assessment scheme which has been broadly followed by essentially all WikiProjects, and it maintains a version of these criteria that individual WikiProjects almost always follow or build on. That would be unproblematic were it not for the fact that one class, GA-Class, requires that an article is a GA (A-Class doesn't and has never universally done so). I wasn't around at the time, but I don't believe this was Wikipolitics, simply an honest mistake that pegging the scheme to an encyclopedia-wide standard would be helpful, and I think e.g. User:Walkerma would agree with that.

However, I've only given this history by way of background. I'm just as uninterested in it now as the next editor. What interests me in my contributions to GA is making the GA criteria as clear as possible to as many editors as possible and encouraging consistency. WikiProject criteria are great when they help to inform reviewers about consensus. However, the problem with GA-Class is that it can lead to the tail wagging the dog: each WikiProject interested in an article (and their are often several) may have developed their own B-Class criteria; then the simple fact that B-Class comes below GA-Class leads reviewers to believe that these WikiProject criteria are all part of the GA criteria. My comments on this issue mostly serve to remind reviewers that they are not, and never have been, just as WP:MILHIST's B-Class criteria are not part of the B-Class criteria for WP:Physics.

I have no objection to you or other editors raising WikiProject criteria in discussion, as they can be helpful. However, if they governed what made a GA, we would have a quagmire of multiple and sometimes conflicting guidelines which every reviewer would have to be aware of. Geometry guy 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, and thanks for taking the time to do that. I have left comments on the Chicago Museum on my talk page. SilkTork *^YES! 05:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments here and there. Anytime you think further discussion would be helpful to clarify an issue, just let me know! Geometry guy 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For all you do...

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Just to note your calm head is greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I greatly appreciate your efforts to refocus the attention of all editors on our shared goals to improve the encyclopedia. I will continue to focus on that. Geometry guy 22:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion of a hatnote

I have put up a notice as you suggested, and notified my other mentors/advisers, except for Ling.Nut who has retired and Fowler&fowler who has not been active for a while. Hopefully, I will not let you down again. It will be a while before I return to GA work, though. That is the scariest place. I have definately learned never to give a second opinion, that's for sure! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That is progress, but there is still more to do: the monitoring page needs to be well structured, welcoming and easy to use so that anyone can post there. You also need to have a clear mechanism to archive resolved concerns. Geometry guy 23:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to set it up however you think it should be. I am limited by just knowing how to copypaste the archiving mechanism from my talkpage. I can do that, if that would work. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I will think on it. Geometry guy 23:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best approach is for User:Mattisse/Monitoring to be the place where issues are raised, and User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring to be a place for discussion. I think Johnbod suggested the other way round, but this way makes more sense to me and I'm making some tentative edits with that in mind. Geometry guy 22:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've completed my sketch of how the page might operate. Auto archiving can be added to both the monitoring page and its talk page in due course according to the amount of activity there. Geometry guy 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your thoughtful response at User Talk:Mattisse. :) MastCell ^Talk 05:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this as well; now if we can assure the mentors watchlist it, that should do it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Time will tell. I've added an "active mentors" list which consists of those who have indicated recently that they are watchlisting Mattisse's plan pages. I hope mentors will add or remove themselves from this list according to their activity. Geometry guy 23:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess you probably understand that the "contact YellowMonkey" for any issues at FAR comes out of left field ... that would put him in a COI for closing FARs, and I (at least) wouldn't do that. If there continue to be issues at FAR, that goes to the monitoring page, I suppose? Where is the active mentors list? Concerned that the issues raised about F&F at FAC are similar to some of those Mattisse struggles with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The list is at User:Mattisse/Monitoring and doesn't currently include F&F, as he hasn't indicated his activity recently as far as I know. YellowMonkey and ArtLaPella, although not mentors, may be helpful filters and it would be churlish to turn away their kind offers of help; ultimately, though, any concerns should go to the monitoring page. I understand your COI position; an alternative one (which may be closer to YM's) is that if all ones contributions are aimed purely at improving the encyclopedia, then a COI can never arise. I try to bear both of these points of view in mind myself. Geometry guy 23:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Also confused about YM's offer to help, as I've never seen it and the diffs to it don't show that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:YellowMonkey has stated at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop > Monitoring: that he does not put up with unruly behavior at FAR, when I asked him to make a statement about my participation there for arbcom.[1] He encouraged me, in answer to a direct question, to continue participating in FAR.[2] Why don't you ask YellowMonkey directly, if in doubt? HIs monitoring of FAR was considered satisfactory by Arbcom. I have consulted with him on his page regarding all my FAR nominations. He has never criticized my work there to me. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is an area where it continues to surprise me that you've received no guidance from your mentors; you often supply diffs that don't show what you think they show, and this often gets you into trouble. As an editor who understands the importance of assuring that sources state what article text claims they state, I'm surprised you're not more discriminating in the diffs you supply about non-article issues, and I wish your mentors would help you understand this issue. Your diffs to YM don't show what you think they show, and I have no intention, ever, of involving YM in a COI if there are problems at FAR. In that case, editors need a central location for raising issues, which as now been provided, end of my involvement and concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

  As far as I am aware, no one is asking to you to involve YM in a COI. The monitoring page does not state (nor did it ever state) that YM has any particular involvement beyond his work at FAR. You have misread it and I will clarify it. I understand your confusion because I effectively reacted similarly by lumping together ALP's and YM's positions. If you wish to edify Mattisse, you may wish to discuss on her talk page what you think the diffs mean, what you think Mattisse thinks the diffs mean, then listen to what she actually thinks the diffs mean so you can discuss what the discrepancies actually are. If you have better things to do, I will understand: so do I. Geometry guy 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  Just clarifying to you, as there are frequently things written on the monitoring page and elsewhere that aren't reflected in diffs or by anything stated in the ArbCom (and it must be confusing to Mattisse, when she continues to hold misconceptions that no one clarifies). Nowhere have I ever seen a diff or statement that FAR issues should be resolved by YM, nor would I ever involve him in a conflict by taking FAR problems to him. If there are problems with Mattisse at FAR, those belong on the monitoring page, where all can follow and mentors can do what they signed on to do. Once again, I continue to be frustrated that mentors don't explain issues to Mattisse; my past attempts to help her were unsuccessful, and she now has mentors for that purpose. I didn't sign up to help her understand the behaviors that lead her to difficulties; I can point out to her mentors when that is occurring, though, particularly on pages where I'm actively involved like FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(←) I understand your frustration and will take it as a compliment that you comment here because you see my detached outlook the best chance you have to convey to Mattisse the concerns you perceive. I agree with you that YM has nowhere offered to resolve issues involving Mattisse at FAR. I believe Mattisse is basing her position on the fact that this version was approved by ArbCom (diff to current). Given this diff and the relatively few edits to the monitoring page prior to 17 September, I have no idea what you mean by "frequently". Let me repeat one more time: the mentors are not parents; Mattisse's plan is her own responsibility and she will sink or swim accordingly. Regarding what mentors signed on to do, please read this, and please stop digging up the past: you cannot transfer your own notions and experiences of mentorship to a different situation. I didn't sign up to be a parent either and will not become one. Geometry guy 22:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Complaints regarding anything I do at FAR are to be monitored by User:YellowMonkey. I have checked with him before I nominated any article and I have posted to his page for feedback since. I have not received any negative feedback from him, except once when he thought my reference to "inmates taking over the asylum" was a reference to mentally ill users. At that time, Karancas explained to him that it was a common American expression that was not meant to denigrate the mentally ill. So far, I have received positive feedback from him. However, if anyone has any complaints, please relay them to YellowMonkey per my arbitration plan. He is capable of handling them. I will ask him again if he has any complaints about my behavior. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy, I have read your suggestions on the talk page of my monitoring plan, and I am willing to have the plan change in the direction you suggest. Frankly, I do not understand much of what has been said there, other than the obvious—that I should never post on AN/I or use sockpuppets. In any event, I would like my plan to be constructive and to be something that I can understand and follow. So I am in favor of your suggestions (even though I don't quite understand them). I will be interested to see how they will work out. I would rather be able to continue editing on Wikipedia than not be able to edit on Wikipedia. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re the "Venom alert" incident

Hi, G-Guy. Thanks for your usual level-headed comments. I'm not trying you into this mess, but if you if you wish comment on my view of the situation I'd be very interested. Here goes:

1. Bishonen titled the item "Venom alert" and used the term "venomous" of Mattisse's conduct at the ANI concerned.
2. IMO Mattisse's ArbCom does not declare open season on Mattisse. It is not a licence to carry on feuds, and editors commenting on Mattisse are expected to avoid incivility and personal attacks with Mattisse as much as with any other editor.
3. The expressed purpose of the ArbCom is to improve Mattisse's behaviour, i.e. she must unlearn old habits and learn new ones. In terms of learning, she will have to handle the simpler situations before the more difficult ones. That implies that she is not yet ready handle comments that are presented in a hostile way. In that spirit I invited KillerChihuahuah to start a new thread expressing KC's concerns in non-hostile language.
4. In the "Venom alert" discussion I expressed concerns about Mattisse's conduct, and in emails to Mattise I was lot more direct. I was unwilling to put my blunter comments in public as I suspect the more hostile contributors would have used them as ammunition. --Philcha (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, your statement, "The expressed purpose of the ArbCom is to improve Mattisse's behaviour ... " might explain why you seem to have a different view of the mentor role than several others. I hope you don't believe this is the only purpose, outcome or conclusion of the ArbCom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion can be taken elsewhere if necessary. Geometry guy 23:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, thanks for asking my view. I've numbered your comments for ease of reference.

1. Bishonen's comments fall just short of a personal attack, as she probably well knows. There is nothing anyone can do about editors who seem congenitally unable raise an issue without couching it in colourful language. However, I don't think loaded or inflammatory comments should be tolerated on the Monitoring page, which is one of the motivations for the proposal I have made.
2. I agree, but Mattisse's ArbCom placed no sanctions on any editor other than Mattisse, and so there is nothing that can be done beyond standard processes to encourage other editors to play nice. You must accept that, and help Mattisse accept that.
3. I agree that Mattisse needs to unlearn old habits and learn new ones, but otherwise I mostly disagree. The phrase "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" springs to mind. Mattisse evidently believes that many internal aspects of Wikipedia are deeply flawed, and she wants to try to fix them. I sympathise, but she has to understand that if you try to change anything here, you are likely to receive flak because not everyone agrees with your point of view, especially if, as YellowMonkey put it, you have "no political capital". While I appreciate that it is helpful to Mattisse to have a mentor like yourself who sees things from her perspective and wants to encourage her personal growth, mentorship is not protection. If Mattisse wants to go out and play hard, she is going to come back with some bruises. It's up to her whether she can handle it and still stick to her plan per ArbCom.
4. I consider it completely unhelpful in general to say one thing off-wiki and another thing on-wiki, as I'm sure you know. If you seriously believe that blunt onwiki comments are more harmful than contributing with personal integrity, then I don't understand you. Why would anyone want to quote anything you say if they don't believe it is what you really think? And if they did, who would then take notice?

So far the Monitoring proposal I have made has received no comments. If no one expresses an interest, I will assume that this means that other editors are happy for the monitoring page to be simply another talk shop where editors can rehash arguments or thrash out frustrations. If that is what others want, that's fine with me: I will simply remove my name from the list of active mentors there (while remaining willing to offer advice per the ArbCom decision), since I won't be able to contribute to any such discussions. Thanks, Geometry guy 23:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I did comment. See the section above. Also, I believe I commented on the monitoring talk page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my implicit request. I hope discussion there can clarify any misunderstandings and reach consensus on how to improve the effectiveness of the monitoring page. Geometry guy 08:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review tools and lists

Hi G-guy, Carl has weighed in on the idea of adding tools to the peer reviews here. WOuld you be able to add the code to the PR templates? I am afraid I would mess it all up ;-) Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the code (check my contribs), and I agree with Dispenser that a separate Peer review tools template including SAPR is the way to go. This could be added to the preload substitution for new PRs. I hope to find time to do it this weekend. Geometry guy 22:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much - I see you already removed the superfluous text. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Something totally different..

I'm doing the GA review for Suwałki Agreement. When I started the review, the article was fairly stable, no signs of edit warring, just the normal editing, etc. Since I've posted the review, an edit war has sprung up. I'd like your advice on when it hits the point where it fails the stable criteria of GA. I've posted a note on the review page pointing out that the edit war isn't helping it's nomination, but it's being ignored, near as I can tell. I'm not really in the mood to get attacked for quick failing the article, but this is getting kinda silly.... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

With a small scale edit war like this, what I would do is ignore any associated wikipolitics, raise the stability issue on the review page, and walk away for a few days to see what happens... which is exactly what you have done :-) It looks like you have received plenty of advice in the interim. The article has quietened down a bit, but it is not clear that the underlying dispute has been resolved. Time constraints on reviews are indicative only and are intended to help the review process run smoothly. If you want to wait a bit longer to see if the new lead sticks, it is within your discretion. However, part of the point of stability is that reviewers should not have to review a moving target. That would not be quick failing in this case, as you have left a thorough review. If anyone attacks you for providing such helpful input, they will just make themselves look silly. Geometry guy 13:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your thorough and careful review. Geometry guy 20:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You know me, I don't do any but thorough. Hopefully tomorrow I'll have time to get back to GAN. I've been trying to do a GAN a day, but life bit me in the butt today and I'm now too tired to worry about it. Blech! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed by your goal to do a GAN a day. If you can manage 20-25 a month that would already be fantastic! I'm sorry that you had a crap day and hope you rest well. Geometry guy 21:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan

Request opened by Moni3 here. --Moni3 (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, so yet another attempt at bring clarity and process to the monitoring page gets interrupted by chatter :(. Geometry guy 20:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it Sunday yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Geometry guy 20:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please watchlist this page!

This is the new page for editors who are not my mentors/advisers to make editorial comments on: User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments. Please watch list this page. However, I would prefer that dissatisfied editors contact a mentor/adviser individual, to prevent a battleground or attack mentality from developing on that page. Please let me know if you object to this. Thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Only two pages are needed: a notification page (User:Mattisse/Monitoring will do) and a discussion page (User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring will do). The problem is a lack of clarity. I see no point in providing a proliferation of pages for yet more chatter. Geometry guy 20:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you mentors have to get together, because Philcha is proposing more pages on Mattisse's talk :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have already noted, I don't have significant wikitime before Sunday. If in the meantime some other way is found to provide clarity, that is fine by me. Thanks for stopping by, anyway. Geometry guy 20:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments subpages

You might like to comment in this discussion because I know you've used these subpages a lot. Best wishes, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, and for your progress at Template talk:Maths rating, where I should comment soon! Geometry guy 22:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've commented now. Sorry not to be more supportive, but this template looks increasingly like a step towards more central direction of WikiProject activity and Template talk:WPBannerMeta did not reassure me. I believe such movement is generally against the spirit of Wikipedia and harmful to the project. Geometry guy 20:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A start on the ArbCom report

Here. SilkTork *^YES! 10:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this, and for all your efforts. Geometry guy 12:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your wonderful "preloaded" forms. I think that is a great idea. Probably needs some "trials" to see how it actually works for people having complaints. I take it that the first part would be filled out by the complainant, and the latter part by the mentors/advisers? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. It isn't a new idea, but has certainly proved to be useful in other contexts (PR, GAN etc.). If you edit a test report you will find a comment that edits below it are reserved for mentors. Geometry guy 22:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain...

Perhaps you could explain that anyone with expertise in psychology is threatened with a top ban suggested to be top banned?[3] That is certainly why I never edit wikipedia articles on the subject. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a mystery to me why you felt it necessary to make a false statement that might cause irritation to an editor assisting you, which serves no purpose to improve the encyclopedia. Think hard before any click of "save page". Geometry guy 08:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I made a false statement regarding you. I reworded the statement to say "suggested" I be topic banned. I have struck the statement. I meant the statement somewhat ironically, as I made no comment at the diff above, and would not consider doing so. I do find it ironic, when psychology needs all the help it can get that it is suggested that I stay away. My apologies if my statement came out wrong and I regret making any kind of statement that would irritate you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mattisse, I accept your apology. I wasn't in fact irritated, just bewildered, and the part I found "false" was the word "anyone" (but that may be in part because the word is ambiguous - it can mean "everyone" or "someone"). Anyway, I understand now your ironical intent, and it is indeed a serious general issue on Wikipedia that expert editors can be discouraged by the culture here. Geometry guy 19:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy, FYI

I don't want to get bashed again for mentioning a faulty recommendation in a GA review :) User talk:SandyGeorgia#Refs following punctuation. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. Geometry guy 18:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Involved administrators

I hope you do not mind me approaching you on your talk page, but I do not wish to bloat or derail the clarification request further. If Moni3 had said "oops, my bad" in any form, I would not have made any further note of it. You mention hindsight and the heat of the moment, but a significant part of the problem is that there was no hindsight. On the contrary, she insists that she did nothing wrong except not "pitch[ing] a holy fit". I'm sorry but if that's a response about an involved admin action on a page where the need for protection is significantly less pressing that the usual targets (articles, disruptive editors' talk pages), there's a huge problem on multiple levels in my eyes. I'm glad to discuss this further, if you wish. I've your page watchlisted, so feel free to respond here. I hope this helps clarify why I made further note of the incident and the root of my concerns. Vassyana (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, and a warm welcome to my talk page. I understand your view, and did not intend to be critical in my post. The intention behind my comment was grounded in my view of Arbitration as an extension of mediation and requests for comments: if the parties can be brought together that is so much the better for everyone. While I agree that the use of tools by involved administrators can be a matter for serious concern, I don't think it is one of the main issues in this case. Of course, I would welcome any conciliatory remarks from Moni3, as this would also help bring parties together, but I believe such remarks are more meaningful when they are volunteered rather than required. Geometry guy 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the welcome. :) I appreciate your point and did not regard your message as overly critical by any means. Part of my motivation is that ArbCom is one of the few venues for addressing adminisrative problems and that it would seem extremely neglectful to let such a blatant example slide by without comment. I'm certainly not looking to move towards a desysop or make a capital case out of it, but at the very least noting the matter seems warranted. I doubt even a formal reminder will come into play, as I'd hope that a strong expression of concern should be sufficient, given the isolated nature of the action. As for the rest, I'd be entirely pleased to be shown some indication that this situation can be worked through only with a bit of guidance from ArbCom. The indications I have seen appear to indicate the contrary, much to my chagrin. While there is an improving focus, it seems insufficient to counterweight the negatives (and give no indication that those will be actually mitigated). Vassyana (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you believe, as I do, that this ArbRequest would not have happened were it not for the dysfunctional nature of the monitoring page, then you might consider that making this page more functional would be the most straightforward outcome. Geometry guy 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have Geometry guy's page watchlisted and would be happy to remark here or on my talk page. I am not unreasonably stubborn, punitive, or vindictive in any way and I firmly believe that any stability for the process was quickly spiraling out of control. Not my control or SandyGeorgia's, but any semblance of transparency and purpose was fleeing in haste. I do not feel that I made a mistake or an error in judgment. I feel as if ArbCom made an egregious error in giving no structure to a plan and then approving one that had no expectations or consequences, and I was one of a minority of editors who have been pressing for some structure that seemed so basic and fundamental as to be obvious. I don't understand why something was not implemented months ago. But I said all this in my request for clarification, and your focus on my protecting the page for six hours so rapid changes would stop, the integrity of the page would remain, and perhaps a splinter of sense might be made of its content is baffling. Quite so. I feel as if we're speaking two different languages. I feel as if I have been forced to make myself obnoxious and escalate matters just to force editors involved to have some integrity, and now I'm being chastised for it. Maybe ArbCom is used to simpletons who watch out for their own self concepts or some nebulous idea of winning. That's not who I am. I don't know what to expect from this process. I've never requested clarification before. But your response, Vassyana, has me re-evaluating what little faith or optimism that Arbitrators can see sense and intent, and use failure to improve. I simply don't know what to do anymore. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wherever you look on Wikipedia, there will be different perceptions of the same events both by those involved and those not: textual communication is very unreliable at communicating intention. With further editors at the ArbRequest commenting that this is a side issue, I suggest a line be drawn before it becomes divisive. Geometry guy 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Moni3, I do not disregard your valid concerns and points, even understanding and sympathizing with your frustration. My prime issue here is the action as an involved admin. Not using the tools in disputes where you are involved is one of the basic rules of adminship. This was not a BLP or similar issue that required such quick and direct action by an involved party. Can you understand why, in that context, this is a substantial concern for me? Vassyana (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana, if it could help you move on to what I feel the real problem is, then I will acknowledge that it appears I am an involved admin taking action in order to gain leverage somehow. This is not the reality of the situation (at least not my reality), and your continued focus on this issue detracts from the very real and very difficult problems that are not being addressed. Can you understand or at least acknowledge that I feel that I was forced, through lack of clarity created by ArbCom, to stop the degradation of what tiny modicum of progress that was being made? I hope at least you are able to see my perspective, to understand that it is possible that an editor who was not a mentor, was trying desperately to get others to see the need for structure. I do not feel I had anything to gain personally by protecting the page for 6 hours. There was no leverage to be had on my part; at least I cannot see it. If others presume I had an ulterior motive, I do not know what it would be. In my opinion, nothing is more important that setting in place a logical system where editors can register comments and complaints, where they are heard, where content is the highest priority instead of my well-being or Mattisse's, and collaboration is as seamless as possible. I know it won't happen that way overnight, but nothing will be accomplished by wishing it to be so without defined goals, roles, expectations, and consequences. The system so far has proven to be a waste of everyone's time. Please, Vassyana, focus on how to improve this situation. Please! I do not know how to express how exhausted and disheartened my experiences in this entire process dating back to the original ArbCom have made me. Now I am begging you to help me. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2) Apologies, Geometry Guy, for butting in on your talk page. I would just like to point out that I had originally intended to provide an analysis of where I thought the discussions on the mentorship pages had spiralled out of control, but I couldn't find the diffs. Mattisse had moved conversations around so many times and lumped them all into one archive area; I couldn't figure out where many of the posts had been originally made and could not be sure who was actually responding to whom (even time stamps didn't help much because some of the conversations took place simultaneously on multiple pages). For this reason, I can fully understand why Moni3 was concerned that posts were being moved yet again, to yet another page, and without discussion. I'd be happy to add this to my statement at the request for clarification page, but please don't make me find diffs. Karanacs (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No apology necessary, Karanacs, and a warm welcome both to you and Moni3. The monitoring page has spiralled out of control on multiple occasions, and I understand and share Moni3's frustration, so you certainly do not need to provide diffs on my account! As I noted above, I think it would be better to draw a line: arbitrators may wish to reaffirm a point of principle, but its application here is not helpful. Geometry guy 21:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The information about who moved what where has been contested in the archived posts below. Geometry guy 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving from "I believe it was Geometry guy..." to "the whole situation is alarmingly detracting from why we're here and the work we all need to be doing."

I believe it was Geometry guy who archived the monitoring pages. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, it was SilkTork that archived the pages, going by the history. I moved two threads to the monitoring page from my talk page. but I did no removing of anything until the incident in which I attempted to gain control of my userspace, thus provoking the page lock down. I ask for some assuming of good faith regarding my motivations and behavior, please. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, but discussion of issues like this doesn't really take matters forwards. Geometry guy 21:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Karanacs said: Mattisse had moved conversations around so many times and lumped them all into one archive area; I couldn't figure out where many of the posts had been originally made and could not be sure who was actually responding to whom (even time stamps didn't help much because some of the conversations took place simultaneously on multiple pages). In fact, I did not do this. I will be happy if the blaming me on you page stops. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, you did. I have continually implored your mentors to help you understand how to read diffs and article edit histories, as I think this is one of the roots of the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Please provide diffs that I had moved conversations around so many times and lumped them all into one archive area. The fact is that I did not set up the archives and I did not achieve anything. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC) This isn't an evidence page, and as I've already stated, I have no intentions of wasting any more of time or good faith efforts to help you by going back again through your extensive edits to locate them. If you want to present counterevidence, by all means, do so. Honestly, Mattisse, since you feel free to make statements about other editors on your talk without presenting diffs, I don't feel obliged to accord you this courtesy any longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Karanacs and SandyGeorgia: Please provide diffs if you are going to accuse and blame. I have looked through my diffs and I did not do as you allege. Please stop. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC) So, since everyone else is butting in, I will as well, with apologies to G guy. I am finding this whole matter so exasperating and exhausting, that I just no longer have the energy to go through Mattisse's thousands of contribs to locate the diffs to back evidentiary statements. This whole affair (and by that, I mean what I see as ArbCom's initial mishandling of the mentorship portion of the decision) has really drained my enthusiasm for Wiki. I've watched as I, other productive editors, and content review processes are maligned across multiple pages, while little was done untl recently. I had planned to make a coherent response today, but I just no longer have the energy to continue involvement in this debacle. So, with a recognized amount of incoherence and a lack of diffs, I'll mention some things in no particular order. Until very recently, there was no venue for presenting issues and, amazingly, several of the mentors did not even have the Monitoring page or Matisse's page watchlisted. To this day, several of them are relatively uninvolved and/or unaware of the history or the issues, and there have been some clear concerns about partisanship and "attacking the messengers". Somewhere on the current Monitoring talk page, one of the mentors mentioned days into this recent debacle that he had just figured out where the moved posts went. This is the sort of chaos I had to deal with in several FACs where Mattisse participated, and knowing that she has a tendency for making history difficult to sort, I understood the need to quickly protect the page in the absence of any of the mentors and the ongoing chaos. Only the day before, Mattisse had moved a whole slew of commentary from her talk page to the Monitoring user page, doesn't seem to understand the difference between a page in user space and user talk space, and these kinds of moves create a burden for everyone trying to sort the issues. Moni's protection seemed like an unharmful example of the appropriate use of IAR; precisely because it wasn't an article, no harm was done, and Moni immediately brought it to ArbCom. I am unclear what ArbCom's "continuing jurisdiction" in this case actually means, and it seems to me that they didn't exercise it. Perhaps I misunderstand? But (I think) at least twice, I left talk notices on NYB's talk page linking to discussions of concern. Yet the situation continued to spiral. In this vein, we just need more clarification, and I understood the need to protect the page while things were quickly spiraling again. An additional complication in this matter is that discussions are split across multiple pages, and several mentors have furthered this, taking issues to user talk pages. It would certainly help busy editors (and most of us are), if everything would just stay on the gosh darn mentoring page! If others are not allowed to discuss on the Monitoring page, we'll get partial analysis of situations and diffs as presented by the examples I left on the Request for Clarification page; the complainants need to be able to discuss and clarify. If input on that page is restricted, we need to be able to take issues elsewhere instead. If the plan is to continue, and if the Monitoring page is to be the only place for complaints, then the Mentorship committee should expand to include more neutral parties; for example, notice how effective Karanacs has been in raising issues without raising hackles. In support of some of what Durova observed, I am very troubled by how long it took for Mattisse to strike a comment from AN/I, that was initially called to her attention by Karanacs, with a followup from Philcha, on her talk page. I stuck with it this time, although previous attempts at discussion with Mattisse have all failed, because there were enough observers involved to hopefully assure the discussion would stay on track, and because her mentor had specifically recommended a course of action that she delayed (substantially) in following. But from observing that interaction on her talk page, and that she twice went to AN/I and yet did not follow her mentor's advice until a long while afterwards and with a lot of prodding from me, makes me wonder what's going on there. It appears disingenuous, as pointed out by Durova. At a minimum, I never understood why ArbCom didn't rule that Mattisse should no longer review FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts. I agree that we don't want to lose her sometimes valuable input, and to that aim, G guy and I once discussed the idea of allowing her to comment on talk pages only, so the review pages wouldn't be derailed, as they do when she is emotionally involved. (I've seen numerous references to her copyediting skills, yet she was so upset during the MDD FAC that she introduced copyediting, spelling and grammar errors almost every time she edited the artice; she shouldn't stay involved when she's upset.) That's all I can think of for now; the whole situation is alarmingly detracting from why we're here and the work we all need to be doing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to all concerned for archiving this, but we are going round in circles here and revisiting old ground, and there are limits to my tolerance of this on my user talk page. I have preserved the text so that editors who wish to can copy it and continue their disagreements elsewhere, but as SandyGeorgia noted at the end of her long post, don't we have better things to do? Thanks for your understanding. Geometry guy 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: StatisticianBot

I replied to your message on my talk page, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks! —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up that StatisticianBot has been repaired and is ready to go again. See the GAN talk page for more info. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Many many thanks for this. May I add a personal request? I have found the GAN/R information very helpful in understanding whether GA is working, being overwhelmed by requests etc. etc. As I understand, the bot parses the Wikitext at GAN at 09:00UTC each day. Would you be willing, using the edit history of GAN, to make a one time pass over the missing days between May and October this year, and provide summary statistics for this period? Geometry guy 20:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I can probably create a one-time task to take a look through the history for the months that were missed. I'd need to change around how the bot works a bit, but I can probably manage that. I guess it's really the backlog section that you'd be interested in, right? The other sections wouldn't be very useful anymore but backlog gives a good summary of the state of GAN at any particular time. I probably won't have time over the weekend but I'll see what I can do on Monday.

Also, in the future, if something goes wrong with the bot and I don't seem to be around, please email me at daniel.vandersluis@gmail.com so that I can know about it and get on fixing it sooner. I must admit that because of all that's been going on this year for me, I completely forgot that the bot wasn't operational until I happened to see your message a couple days ago. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm interested in the raw numbers for the missing months: number of articles nominated, under review, etc.: if you can find a way to publish them onwiki, that would be ideal. Geometry guy 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

invitation

Can you please come here [4] and discuss. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The article on the Catholic Church is at long last receiving considerable attention from editors who value scholarship and the goals of the encyclopedia as paramount, including some with expert knowledge of reliable sources. I will contribute (and I hope others who are interested in improving the encyclopedia will do the same) when I believe my contributions will make a difference, not when they will add to disruptive chatter. The sentence in dispute was discussed extensively prior to the vote which you started, yet still you ask for explanations of objections.

Nancy, with due respect for all your hard work, there is no ownership of pages on Wikipedia. If you truly want this article to really fly, and be the best encyclopedic article anywhere on web on the church that you love, you need to step back and stop orchestrating its development.

In more general terms, fixing problems in the lead is not worth considerable editor resource when problems in the body of the article remain. Similarly, fixing problems with a summary style section is not worth considerable editor resource when the spinout article is deeply flawed.

In this respect I would note that History of the Catholic Church is in a dire state: it is closer to an assertion of belief than a history. Anyone who truly wishes to engage with the debate on the Catholic Church article from the Church perspective could show good faith by fixing the egregious problems with the History article. Geometry guy 22:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. Your post sounds like a polite request from a schoolteacher to a student, which I hope was unintentional.

Other editors have now also raised concerns about ongoing ownership issues at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise. Geometry guy 21:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Size

Oops, apropos of something, the above thread is related :) I chuckled at your reference to the size of the Request for clarification page; the other case was just archived, so it's possible to see now that the Mattisse case is 248KB. The Catholic Church FACs regularly surpassed 400KB, even with me aggressively moving comments to talk, even after restarts, and I had to read through it all by my little lonesome-- no clerks, no committee :) Anyway, I'm not sure if your comments about old history on the Requests page apply to me: if they don't, please ignore me, but if they do, how am I supposed to answer Philcha's partial analysis, Mattisse's statements about the Unreviewed list, and provide context for the new Joyce incident without covering the history that led to the current incident? Or am I just supposed to let inaccurate things stand on the page, and then complain if the arbs don't get it? At least Philcha didn't seem to see the relevance of the Joyce incident, so it seemed I had to lay it all out. What else do you suggest? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(The article itself is now > 222KB!) Regarding the ArbRequest, my comments apply to all, from Philcha to Giano, but it is a vicious circle: everyone wants to answer everyone else's points. Most analyses are partial in both senses of the word, and there is now too much material for anyone to digest. I can't answer for the arbs, only for what I find useful. Although I know a lot of the back history, what I am interested in at the moment is how Mattisse has handled herself since June. For this it is not actually so important what happened or who was "right" in a prior conflict: what matters is how Mattisse handled the issue recently, whether she helped to raise, escalate or deescalate the conflict, whether mentor advice helped, and how it could be made more effective. Geometry guy 22:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she's doing much better now! (No comments on the CC article, but I did notice that Dr pda just put up new article stats on FAs.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was User:The ed17 who updated User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, however they used wiki text size rather than readable prose. I have just regenerated the list myself using the readable prose size of the articles. Dr pda (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I have been accused of having a sockpuppet. See User talk:Mutual monarch. What do I do now? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Confess if this is an alternative account of yours (which seems unlikely!) - otherwise do nothing. Anyway, SilkTork is now looking into it. Geometry guy 21:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It can't possibly be one of Mattisse's, as it's actually one of mine ... oh bugger, I'll get me coat. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank goodness for SilkTork. He posted to that editor in a really nice way. I appreciate SilkTork more and more. And to think that he used to very much dislike me! Very much. And I was not appreciative of him during those times either! He is a truly good "person". Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  He is one of Wikipedia's true grown-ups. Geometry guy 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! And to think he was a former "enemy" of mine. I am very thankful. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow up

Thanks muchly for the effort; it is noted and much appreciated. I'll leave it to you (and others involved) to decide if a private e-mail loop ... something I normally avoid and abhor ... might be beneficial at some point in the future, but I would engage with great trepidation, considering the results of past efforts. I've been down that road before and found only unbudging perceptions and evasiveness. But I wouldn't want to engage on-Wiki in a discussion involving "perceptions", since those are basically speculative and not diffable. And <smile> please don't put me in the position of passing judgment on FAs again ... my "job" is to respect consenus and the processes for forming it, whether or not I agree; to that end, when an FA I'm watching turns problematic, I usually unwatch and wait for it to appear at FAR.  :) That article passed at 2006 standards (when I was still a relatively new editor), and we still have more than 70 2005 FAs that haven't been reviewed; those concern me more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I do what I can to help. I'm also not interested in a private email loop: I share you propensity to avoid such things as much as possible. Concerning the rest of your comments here and immediately prior to this followup, I agree with you that large-scale tagging can be counterproductive and discouraging. However, the benefit of tags instead of the "so fix it" approach is that article experts generally have better knowledge of the sources and so can implement better fixes.

Now, Sandy, I cannot accept your suggestion that I put you into a position of passing judgement on FAs, nor that the to-and-fro we had on the reporting page (aka "dispute not worth having") has anything to do with your position as FAC delegate. Your "easy sofixit" removed material which you were later able to source, but also did not source the most contentious part of the sentence. This is not the point: anyone can edit Wikipedia, and mistakes are allowed, even encouraged. Please don't think I am criticizing you over this.

The point is that you had already passed a judgement on this sentence when you held up your edit as an example of an easy-sofixit (For example, this could have been fixed almost as fast as it was tagged...), when it was not such a good example. I only asked you to revisit a view you had already expressed. In your position I would have said something like "Oops, my bad", and that discussion would have been over, returning us to the main issue as to the appropriateness (or otherwise) of Mattisse's responses.

You are widely respected for the work you do at FAC, and I am one of the many who respects (and understands) just how hard the job is. I would encourage you to edit with confidence towards improving the encyclopedia, and not to be afraid of making mistakes. But I also encourage re-evaluation. I repeatedly advise Mattisse not to respond in a rush to other editors' comments when disagreements arise: this is advice I take seriously myself, lest I dig myself into a hole by committing to a position without thinking carefully about it. I freely offer this advice to all as a way of dealing with the fact that we all make mistakes and we are communicating over a very imperfect medium. Geometry guy 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, G guy. I'm going to wait until tomorrow or Tuesday to respond, hoping I get my computer back in functioning condition, since I'm on a dinosaur, and reading and editing is a challenge. Now that the other fires I was fighting have subsided, and if I get my computer back, my posts should be more coherent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Please take your time: the above fire (if it ever was one) is now out as far as I am concerned. Geometry guy 21:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Working from memory-- I'm not going to go back through diffs, because this dinosaur computer makes it too difficult to go back and locate or review them. When I watchlist an FA, my goal is to maintain it to the standard that passed-- not to rewrite it or question the consensus at the time it passed. You are right to the extent that you've brought new information to the incident: information which had nothing to do with the incident when it occurred (but is relevant to the FA status of the article and the quality of its sourcing). Every time a Mattise behavioral issue is not dealt with, and deflected to a content dispute based on hindsight and new information, the situation becomes more intractible (because Mattisse uses that to excuse the behaviors); this has happened more than once (for instance, on several GA reviews). We should be dealing with the behavioral issues here, not armchair quarterbacking. Mattisse reverted because she thought the site was inaccessible; she stated that clearly on her talk page when attempts were made to understand the issue. I incorrectly characterized the incident as an "easy so fixit", when your new information shows it wasn't so easy. That is 20-20 hindsight, but unrelated to what was happening at the time. To the extent that you've brought new information to the table, you are correct, and my characterization of it as an "easy so fixit" was wrong.

The entire incident could have been avoided, and the sourcing issues resolved more quickly, by addressing the behavioral issues and good editing policy. First, when you've been reverted once, discuss, don't revert a second time. Mattisse didn't do that on article talk; others had to go to her talk to try to understand why she couldn't access the site. Your subsequent analysis of the problems with the sourcing had nothing to do with what was happening at the time, at least according to what Mattisse stated on her talk. Second, the situation became further problematic when she accused me of stalking.

These behaviors are the issue that should be dealt with, and are symptomatic of why so many editors are disturbed by the "advocacy" positions taken by the mentors, who don't seem to see the behavioral issues. A very good example is the Johnson incident I put on the Report talk page; mentors focused on the Johnson language, while ignoring the targeting of editors with whom Mattisse has had disputes and a possibly pointy oppose. By "advocating" and finding reasons to excuse her behaviors, the mentors don't help her recognize and change the areas that lead her to problems.

Another example of how her perceptions drive her editing and lead to her failure to AGF is the Major Depressive Disorder FAC. Mattisse's "perception" of a "FAC cabal" seems to have led to her upset on that FAC, and the subsequent disruption (which extended to her article editing, where she seemed so upset that she introduced copyediting errors into the article, and made the FAC unintelligible). In spite of me being one of the primary proponents of WP:MEDRS, and an editor who edits in that area, Mattisse seems to have honestly believed that I would have passed an article that was riddled with primary sources used incorrectly, because the FAC had a lot of support. Her misperceptions about FAC, a "FAC cabal", and me led to her upset in that situation, in my opinion. Had she not raised the primary sourcing concerns on that article, I would have had to recuse and do so myself, and that is not a good situation for the FAC delegate to be in. It was not necessary for her to disrupt that FAC to make a point which I, as well as any editor on Wiki, support. That is why I have worked with you to hopefully forestall another ArbCom and find a way to implement a plan that will address the behaviors; in spite of my efforts, Mattisse continues to make characterizations about a ban at FAC, although I've not seen any of us calling for that. If the behaviors don't change, that will be necessary, though, and if there's another ArbCom, I'll take the time to prepare my evidence carefully and convincingly-- something I have yet to do on any of the three pages so far (the RFC, the Arb, and the Request for clarification) because of other pressing issues that were taking my time. I wish you all would get a workable Plan and Monitoring page in place that will address the behavioral issues, so we could all put this behind us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, now we can discuss perceptions. I agree with your general concerns about Mattisse. We all have perceptions which affect our editing, and Mattisse has had some particularly harmful perceptions, some of which she probably still holds, and some of these may still be contributing to bad editing patterns. That has to stop.

I'm sorry that you are struggling with a slow computer: I did try to provide a complete set of diffs on the report page. Here is a history slice, and Mattisse's contribs slice for the period concerned.

There are two incidents here: August 8-9, when Mattisse tagged some sentences with "failed verification", and they were fixed, including your fix; and August 12 when Mattisse added "membership required" to the link concerned, you reverted, and she reverted back. Now according to your comment ("Mattisse reverted because she thought the site was inaccessible") above, your perception is that Mattisse's original tag was placed because she could not access the site. According to this diff, that was also your perception at the time.

That perception may be correct, in which case Mattisse misused {{failed verification}} in her original tagging: this is supposed to indicate that the material in the source does not verify the material in the text, not that the source requires membership. However, on the basis of fact, it is incorrect to say that she reverted twice: this is not a revert.

In my contributions to this, I added no new information: it is an agreed fact that the sentence failed verification (the source did not support the information in the sentence). It is a perception that Mattisse added the "failed verification" tag because she could not access the site.

The subsequent continuation at WT:FAR concerned the original tag (which was perfectly correct) not the later discussion about membership. Geometry guy 21:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. I have already attempted to fix the Monitoring page so that it might be useful. Let's see if it is.

Per your analysis, yes, perceptions on both sides were probably driving the conflict and misunderstandings over a trivial tag (which has little effect overall, anyway, considering the state of the article). Of concern is that all of this could have been avoided if Mattisse would discuss edits and refrain from accusations of stalking or otherwise maligning other editors and content review processes, and none of this addresses the underlying, bigger problem, which in my opinion is: Mattisse's perceptions were formed when I had to back out of mentoring her, after the Fowler/Dineshkammanbadi issues forced me to recuse from a FAC only days after I agreed to mentor her if she would refrain from personal attacks, and her perceptions led to her allegations of FAC and FAR cabals, and prevented her from considering that I was unlikely to pass a medical FAC riddled with primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That, in my view, is your wisest analysis on this issue to date. Your/our perceptions are based on past experiences, as are Mattisse's. Mattisse has to learn to move on and not blame other editors for her failings: she needs good role models and a forward-looking perspective. Geometry guy 22:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy, are you recommending that I engage in some level of mind reading and speculation to figure out other editors motivations and base my response on my hypotheses as to what has "caused" a certain remark? My "perceptions" of another editor's "perceptions"? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Geometry guy 22:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think my mentors/advisoers, or whatever the heck they are called, are good role models. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse report

Would you please read over User:SilkTork/Report#Draft_Final_Report and confirm (or otherwise) that you are content for this to be given as the requested report to ArbCom. SilkTork *^YES! 20:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy with it as I don't believe it fully addresses the concerns raised in the ArbRequest and elsewhere. Geometry guy 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to provide feedback on User:SilkTork/Report#Draft_Final_Report as requested and express the reasons you do not feel it fully addresses your concerns? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I was actually doing exactly this, when I received your post. I am but one advisor and the report should be a consensus view. Geometry guy 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, and feel free to express to me the nature of any reservations you have about my behavior now. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I don't need anyone's permission to feel free to comment on the contributions of yourself or other editors. However, I aim to do so in a way which helps to resolve disputes and with respect for all involved. Any time you want input from an editor who appreciates that there can be more than one side to an argument, feel free to let me know. Geometry guy 22:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

HI

Hi, i just wanted to know if you could semiprotect Miss Universe 2010. There are many IPs changing the hometown of Miss Venezuela, and it's kind of pissing off xD. Please, can you semiprotect it? ҢДMM®(Hundry Marquina!) 18:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no, semiprotection is not needed here. If you are stressed by disruptive edits, please step back and ensure that your own edits avoid inflammatory edit summaries. The best way to handle such disagreements (e.g. over the origin of one of the participants in the pageant) is to add a citation to a source that supports the presented fact. Admin intervention is unnecessary at this time. Geometry guy 00:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:GAR

Hi G-guy, I would appreciate it if you could cast your eyes over the GAR case at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Kevin_R._D._Shepherd/1#Kevin_R._D._Shepherd. It needs handling in a calm, polite, and assured manner, and you seemed to fit the bill admirably. ;) Only if you have time, of course. Thanks, --JN466 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen. Thanks for the heads up. I do watchlist all community GARs, and will do what I can to ensure this one runs smoothly and reaches the best outcome for the article. Geometry guy 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy – User:Simon Kidd, the GA reviewer who promoted the article, says he has now himself delisted it. He asked me on my talk page to check that he had done it correctly; could I pass the buck on to you? You are much more au fait with how it's done than me. --JN466 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Checked (with minor fixes). I would like to express my appreciation for the way editors found consensus and helped each other in this GAR. Geometry guy 19:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. And thanks also to you for sorting out the article history on the talk page. Simon Kidd (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

First point

The closest example I can think of is the way Mattisse pressed her case over Munchausen by internet. However, I am firmly convinced that Mattisse's approach was primarily motivated by this being a psychology-related article, not by Moni3 being an FA writer.

Aw, dude. Geez. What do I do here? I absolutely disagree with you. I don't want to revisit this because it's a tar pit that appears to be a wormhole into the 10th level of hell. I really want this to be over. I don't want to deal with this stupid case any more, but this keeps coming up like a bad penny. SilkTork declaring the Munchausen by Internet issue, for some unfathomable reason, a success. I didn't respond because I don't think it helps to rehash, but how anyone can call that a success is in a fantasy. Two instances now, and from this Clarification I simply don't trust ArbCom to be able to draw their own conclusions. So how do I avoid rehashing it? Email you privately only to go on interminably there, participating in off-Wiki communication, and then having no record? I think Sandy has a point. I can't really state what I think about this on Wiki because I would blast another wormhole to a deeper level of hell. What do I do to set the record straight? Is it really even worth it by now? Does this place really want to know every reason why I disagree with your assessment? Gah!

All I want to do is write articles. That's it. --Moni3 (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And long may you continue to write articles.

The simplest answer to your question is to agree to disagree. However, we need to be crystal clear what we are disagreeing on, because the areas of agreement may be wider than you believe.

If an incident like MBI had driven away an excellent contributor like yourself, I would have been among many appalled editors. I do not regard this incident as a "success" and have nowhere stated that. The only editor who has, as far as I am aware, is Philcha (not SilkTork) and he seems pretty red-faced about it on your talk page. My view on mentorship of Mattisse is that it can only be considered a success when it is no longer needed. Every time that mentor intervention is required (whether we rise to the challenge or not) is a failure.

The only point I am making in my comment above concerns Mattisse's motivations. Only she knows her motivations for sure, so it doesn't seem reasonable to "absolutely disagree" over such an uncertain quantity. My view is that her dogmatic and insistent approach in the MBI story was characteristic of the way she has engaged with other psychology-related articles. A personality clash and past interactions may have made it worse. However, I don't believe this was about you being a friend of SandyGeorgia or being targeted as an FA writer. If you disagree with that last point, then I hope we can agree to disagree. On other issues related to this, let us suppose that we agree. Geometry guy 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback Rights

I wish to apply for rollback rights, and consequently I have decided to approach you, since I am most familiar with you as an administrator. Would you be able to grant me rollback rights, if you feel that it is appropriate? In the past, I have become more accustomed to the idea of discussing reverts with other editors prior to implementing them. Specifically, I follow this strategy when dealing with IP's or any established user. If I notice that my edit has been reverted, I usually tend to approach the reverter on their talk page to obtain consensus, or on the article's talk page, if appropriate (there was one incident with User:RobHar in the past where an edit war occurred, but the dispute was eventually resolved). I hope that you are willing to grant rollback rights, but if you do not have the time, I can approach another administrator. Thanks, --PST 10:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please remember that rollback leaves an automatic and uninformative edit summary. Only use it in cases of vandalism where a more informative edit summary is not required. Geometry guy 19:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for granting me rollback rights. I will use this privilege appropriately (and only when necessary). --PST 06:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)