User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Mission: Impossible – Fallout	Review it now
Galileo project	Review it now
Worlds (Porter Robinson album)	Review it now
I'm God	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:38, 30 August 2009

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.

If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.

To leave me a message, click here.

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Re:Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who are you?

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

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

Samuel Johnson's early life

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

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

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

Help me, please!

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

thanks

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

MoS last name use

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

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

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

Not working

Oh dear, it appears that Karanac's notice isn't working [2][3]. ceranthor 10:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Giving FA credit

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parapsychology/archive1

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

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

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

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

Article history 2

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

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

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

I've had a go ...

... at the TFA blurb for Samuel Johnson's early life. I think it's better, hopefully you do as well.[4] --Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BHRT

Hi SG,

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

Saddens me to say it ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to add something on here, for perspective, because I don't recall if you (Malleus) were following my talk page back in the days of "we admins".[5] I know very well what it is to be legitimately targeted and attacked by a group of admins-- better than many editors. However, unlike Mattisse (who seems constitutionally unable to "bury the hatchet"), I dropped it, dug in, did my work, made myself useful, saw the futility in fighting a pack, and saved the diffs until the day they were needed. Had FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs), at any point, simply retracted his unfair accusations about Marskell and Vickers and Tony1-- three editors who do not hide behind anonymity on Wiki-- I would have erased those diffs and forgotten the incident. He didn't; that eventually took care of itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

none of you had it, despite your very, very frequent assertions to the contrary. The goal was never to defend M., nor to punish her, but to help her to see the reality of Wikipedia. This is a most curious assertion, and I'm simply going to overlook your perception that everyone except you believed certain things about "defending" or "punishing", because I don't know where you get such ideas. Focusing on your assertion that the goal was to "help her see the reality of Wikipedia", I'm wondering how her mentors expected to accomplish that by 1) ignoring breaches of her plan even on her own talk page, 2) failing to explain misconceptions she held that were frequently expressed on her own talk page, and 3) browbeating anyone who pointed out that y'all weren't doing what you signed on to do and weren't helping her. Specifically, considering her concerns about alleged "cabalism", why have you all insisted that communication go underground and backchannel, rather than putting concerns right on her talk page where they more logically belong and where she can see and discuss those concerns in the open? Have you all taught her *anything* about the reality of Wikipedia? I put my concerns on her talk page, where they belong, and her response has been to allege, basically, that now Moni and I are out to get her. Honestly, if you "mentors" have done anything to "help" her, it ain't showing. You all missed every chance to point where she was breaching her Plan and to help her learn, so IMNSHO, if she ends up back at ArbCom, you should stand up and accept your part in the failure to do what you signed on to do. Better, most of you should resign and encourage her to get mentors who will do the job. (And, in case it's not clear, yes, I am angry that some of you blindly and naively, without doing your homework, signed on to do a job that you haven't done, and she, along with FAR, has paid the price.) In case you don't know how mentorship works, review my history with AnnieTigerChucky,[6] who went from multiple blocks to now submitting articles to GAN and FAC. I worked with an admin to hold her hand for MONTHS, through several blocks, where she was forced to learn. Y'all aren't even following Mattisse, much less holding her hand or making sure she learns, even when via necessary blocks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Floating a proposal

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

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

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

Let me try to better explain my concerns:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you've pegged that one accurately. Mattisse gets into the worst trouble in two scenarios: psych articles, and editors with whom she has had previous conflict. I was intentionally trying to be as low-key as I could during the ArbCom, so didn't spell this out clearly eough, but those two sanctions might have been good prevention (no more FARs or GARs on editors she has had conflict with in the past, and no more psych reviews). But, like you, I'm torn: she was (correctly) the only reviewer to point out the excessive reliance on primary sources at Major depressive disorder, but then she became emotionally involved and derailed the FAC, as she did Reactive attachment disorder with incorrect interpretations of policy and guidelines.[7] By the way, an uninvolved admin who worked very well with the ATC issue was VirtualSteve ... I barely know him, so don't know if he's still active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Favour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

re:FAC

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

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

FAC question

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

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

Thanx SandyGeorgia,

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

Thanx!

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

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

@@ Line 235: / Line 235: @@
 I don't wish only to accentuate the difficulties, though, so let me make one small positive proposal. If Mattisse decides to return to editing after her block, I would support a topic ban on all psychology related articles, for instance as an Arbcom motion. This may come as a surprise to some editors, as I have generally found Mattisse's comments on such articles to be informed and helpful with regard to content issues, and have taken them into account at GAR. However, that is only half the story. Having now seen several independent examples, it seems to me that, partly because of her expertise, her efforts to make her point lead to an emotional engagement that results in widespread devastation. If this one thing were removed from the equation, I imagine many of the conflicts that editors here have had with Mattisse would not be repeated. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 20:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 : I think you've pegged that one accurately.  Mattisse gets into the worst trouble in two scenarios:  psych articles, and editors with whom she has had previous conflict.  I was intentionally trying to be as low-key as I could during the ArbCom, so didn't spell this out clearly eough, but those two sanctions might have been good prevention (no more FARs or GARs on editors she has had conflict with in the past, and no more psych reviews).  But, like you, I'm torn:  she was (correctly) the only reviewer to point out the excessive reliance on primary sources at Major depressive disorder, but then she became emotionally involved and derailed the FAC, as she did Reactive attachment disorder with incorrect interpretations of policy and guidelines.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Reactive_attachment_disorder&oldid=192181063]  By the way, an uninvolved admin who worked very well with the ATC issue was VirtualSteve ... I barely know him, so don't know if he's still active.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
+::Yes, something about psych articles causes Mattisse to show misapplications of Wikipedia policies, as if she's owning the entire suite of articles. It's not entirely limited to psych. She fairly insisted a term not be linked in ''[[The Age of Reason]]'' because the linked article was poorly written and cited. That is pretty much how I get to articles that need improvement, and I guess most folks begin their Wikipedia careers. And her oppose to [[Samuel Johnson's early life]] at TFAR was just as perplexing, claiming no one really knows or cares about Johnson. If that is not why Wikipedia exists and FAs go on the main page then someone please point out to me what is the true purpose of this site.
+::My recurring point is that not only would someone have to follow her edits, but they would have to explain the most basic issues of policy that for editors with over 1,000 edits are taken for granted as implied and understood. It truly is a matter of economics: find someone with the time and energy to devote to this. Yet why should it fall on another editor? Where is the personal responsibility to adhere to community expectations? I am expected to behave myself and read up on policies where I don't know what is going on. When I make mistakes, others point them out to me. I learn or I stop making bad edits. Should this actually be explained to Mattisse? How basic really should this guidance be? I sound like I'm trying to throw wrenches in any plan to get started, but rather I'm trying to understand what a new plan might entail. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 20:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 == Favour ==