User talk:Alarbus: Difference between revisions

November 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Titania, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Titania was changed by Alarbus (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.899497 on 2011-11-01T09:41:00+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism. I'm putting it back. Alarbus (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

When it doesn't make sense anymore?

You might be thinking how ridiculous that entire dicussion over the name John/João is, even more after having seen the fierce resistance by three individuals who made the whole situation look like the end of times and of the Anglo-Saxon civilization. None of them have never, ever made any contribution for the article.

Do you know when I started having a huge headache here on Wikipedia? Once I nominated Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil to FA. It had more than eight reviewers supporting it. But the article kept lingering on the limbo, without being promoted (as have all other articles I nominated). To deal with the problem of using the original, Portuguese name of this almost unknown and unimportant princess, I added the Anglicized form of her name in parentheses at the beginning of the article. Just that. Another editor (called DrKiernan, the same one who reverted two edits you recently made on two different Brazilian royals' article. Take a look at your history log and you'll see) was furious and gave his "oppose". The reason: I could not add the Anglicized form of her name simply because it was wrong. This was enough for SandyGeorgia say that the article would not pass unless I made what DrKiernan wanted. The simple fact that I speak Portuguese and English and that DrKiernan does not speak Portuguese but only English passed unheard. That's right, simply because, for example, I added for a royal named "João" the English form of his name ("John") in parentheses at the beginning and another editor opposed it was enough for my nomination (with eight people supporting it) to fail.

So, there are editors who oppose the use of a royal's native name and there are others who oppose the use of the English name of royals. See the problem? You can't please everyone. And worse: you can't please a bunch of editors who do not contribute at all to any Brazilian/Portuguese articles. They were not there to help me write the articles, nor when I asked for someone to review it to see if it was ok, or ever gave any useful advice. So, not only they do not help me at all, they also create one huge discussion and fighting for one stupid and unnecessary reason. You have no idea how much time I lost reading book and then writing those articles. And you have no idea how much time I lost having to deal with this kind of trouble. And I never had any support from SandyGeorgia, Nikkimaria or any of the other FAC folks when I needed. On the contrary.

Perhaps now you have an idea of why I decided to leave. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. A lot is going on, and I've not looked at it all. SandyGeorgia has resigned as an FA delegate. I did just look at the two reverts you mention (Afonso, Isabel). Afonso is not extensible beyond the one because of WP:REFNEST, and Isabel is using raw html which is against WP:Deviations. These should be reverted and I'm pretty sure I've your leave to improve these article. (hint: say you approve, or revert them yourself).

I look at John/João as a major issue, really. Not those specific articles, but all across the wiki people are waging a war against diacritics and non-Anglicised names. Anglicised is actually a pretty abhorrent process, a cultural hostility. People should be written about under their proper names. Other places people are waging wars against other things. I think too many are here for the fight, for the opportunity to be hostile, to out-edit others, and the subject matter often doesn't matter a whit. Diacritics will do in a pinch; see also italics and.full.stops.

I think the hostility projected against thinks like non-Anglo-Saxon civilization is due to end time. Not in the Biblical sense, but in the sense that very large scale shift in the world are occurring, and editing wiki must seem a way to control that "message" to some.

Sorry if I'm rambling a bit. I need coffee. I'll leave DrKiernan a note about the reverts. I still need to look at the FA-reviews where you met resistance (or whatever it was)—can you give me a couple of links?

And take some time to relax; maybe change that banner to "semi-"? I support the engagement of Global South editors and you'll do fine. Best wishes, Alarbus (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

See this, this and this. Yes, you may imporve those FA I wrote. But send him a nice message, there is no reason to start a fight over so little. I'm still here because Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias has not been promoted yet. I might return in the future, when things might change a lot, but right now, I have no will to write articles. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ow, and you must read this as well as the diffs I posted in my conversation with Astynax.[1][2] --Lecen (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OK; just read the Maria Amélia FAC, and have other open tabs... and little time, for now. Alarbus (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This and this are two examples of how ridiculous the debate has become. Ow, and this last one is wonderful: "... why not do a bit of work on all that and leave English [Wikipedia] alone for a while?" He could have also said: "We don't like your kind here." Ops, it seems we have a winner: "They should be in english, for english readers to understand. Afterall, English Wikipedia is for english readers."[3] Is this allowed? --Lecen (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I made a few comments out there. Fixed a few links, too. pt: is not a 'foreign' project, it's us in Portuguese. Welcome to The English Wikipedia, The Toxic Wikipedia. Alarbus (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer there. It's the kind of discussion that won't go anywhere because they won't change their mind and that's it. They won't stop until the name is John. They simply won't. Do they actually care about the article? Will they work to improve the article? Did they ever read a single article about Portuguese history? Do they have any interest on Portuguese-related articles? The answer is no. Then why are they doing all this? The answer is simple: for some reason they see a move of meaningless article as threat to the entire Anglo civilization. I dont think I'm being unfair here, just see their comments. See this new one. The entire idea for a RfC is not good at all. They will make it in a tone that will look like "look, or you're with us, and that means, with English culture, or you're against us". And worse: they keep playing with the google books search. Historians do not call him "John VI of Portugal", nor do they call "Charlemagne of Holy Roman Empire", or "Augustus of Rome". They will do anything to change the name back. Why so much interest for this matter? They don't even care for the article. --Lecen (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's anger at the decline of Anglo culture. Brazil has two thirds the population as the US; far more than the UK, and ten times that of Oz. A young, vibrant population. Then look at China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan. Huge numbers, huge energy. Look back at the others; dept, failed economies, insane costs, huge numbers of older people. So they fiddle around on Wiki while Rome burns.

An RfC would be good; it's about getting new people involved. I don't think the people all intent on protecting the language from the evils of a diacritic are that numerous. They are a noisy lot, and they seem to 'patrol' requested moves' on the lookout for the 'foreign'. Have pity, and defend your culture. Alarbus (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that will help. I believe you should stop making comments there. You migh have noticed by now that it's useless to reason with them. --Lecen (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That would make them unreasonable ;-) Alarbus (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I met you only recently, but you were a good and reliable friend since then. Thank you very much, Alarbus. I wish you good luck here. --Lecen (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Am I going to have to fly to Brazil to haul you back? I could be persuaded... In the meantime, I'll be querying you when I have questions about Brazilian articles. There are a bunch, and we need more. Best, Alarbus (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well worth it. I have fond memories of my trips to Brazil. I remember a very pleasant day in Olinda, for example. You'll need a visa.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I do have fond memories of a particular Brazillian (from São Paulo). Maybe Olinda needs some work... Thanks. Alarbus (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

In exchange for the beer, lol Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)   any weed in that brownie? Alarbus (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)   lol Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A comment

I am trying to guide a user in to understanding our civility policies. The fact of it is that compared to what the community (not me!) has decided editors can get away with, as shown in that case, as shown by what editors say to me constantly, he has much higher standards. If a user cannot work within the civility standards, in either direction, they will find it very hard to contribute without difficulty. I can explain why those standards are, and what those standards are, but I cannot change them. I'd appreciate it if you could help me, instead of making things more difficult for me. Prodego ^talk 06:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to help you help Sandy, I'm trying to help abused editors. You might consider that he comes from a civilized country where the sort of pure hostility that roams the pages of this place everyday (especially today) is intolerable. Explaining to him that body armour is required for survival amounts to ignoring the true problem. Alarbus (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, my goal is to help people who I see being mistreated. I almost universally disagree with Sandy on these matters. But the truth is that while you don't need body armor, you do need to take some attacks. I wish I could solve this problem, but I've spent years trying, and to some extent have resigned myself to it being impossible. So many blocks that I've made for far worse behaviors were immediately overturned. Anything I do about it has me branded as the civility police. Editors, especially non-admins, need to decide that civility is a priority. I'm sorry for not being more fair to you, I saw your actions as more of a disruption of my attempt to help than what you had intended. Obviously that was a misjudgment on my part. Prodego ^talk 07:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

(apologies for jumping in) Hi Prodego, did you see that Risker is asking for information about overturned civility blocks, at the ArbCom case? --Elonka 07:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I speak to Risker quite regularly so you can be sure she knows my views on this matter. Since the first block that springs to mind is of Giano, I'm hoping someone will add that one for me. I'm trying to avoid participating overly much in that case. I made my attempt to stop it, it was reverted, and now we have that case. I predict the results of the case will be 3 admonishments and nothing more, though I certainly hope that won't be so. Prodego ^talk 07:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll have seen that he's talking to Elonka about the Arbitration case, which she's implying she's participating in. Thing is monstrous. You know that an admin wished gonorrhea on me? That I was called a fucking cunt just today? You do see why Cristiano Tomás was so offended... he was, in slightly different words, told Dago, go home! An no one sees it. "Polluting English" with their diacritics.

It's not about "civility", it's about hostility. See what I said the Lecen, above, Sandy's other, other, target of the day. She went off all over the project today with a flame thrower and no one took her on. Nary a peep. Aggression is the name of the game here, along spinning the truth. They say it's about building an encyclopaedia, but much effort is spent on building empires. Alarbus (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hear, Hear! Im glad you are still fighting meu amigo Alarbus, I can honestly say I can no longer. Maybe people will listen to your words of wisdom. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I do seem to have an audience today. Alarbus (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

None of those comments to you were made by admins, and I'd consider all of them unacceptable, and actionable. The problem is that I cannot reasonably deal with that the first one is too long ago at this point, and the second one is clearly a reference to the arbcom case and addresses a nebulous audience. Nothing I can do for the second would stick. Hopefully that will change after this case. I actually didn't catch the use (and meaning) of dago. Could you link me to that one? if that's recent I can certainly do something. Prodego ^talk 07:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, Cristiano Tomás, you've been renamed to Cristiano Tomás. Remember to log in to that name from now on! Prodego ^talk 07:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I was wondering why everything was weird XD Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The "gonorrhea" comment was; User:Maunus then set down his bit. But the 'crats said they would give it back. The second one was specifically directed at myself and User:Diannaa; the Hemingway reference makes that clear. "Dago" is a nasty slur (for Portuguese and Italians); I only used it for effect; no offence intended Cristiano Tomás. I was using it to capture the between-the-lines-intent of several comments by User:SergeWoodzing in this thread on Talk:João VI of Portugal. Stuff was refactored a bit in there. He didn't use the "word" but that's what he meant. This is why civility is not about what fucking words you use, but about baldfaced ill intent. Alarbus (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

""Dago" is a nasty slur (for Portuguese and Italians); ... the between-the-lines-intent of several comments by User:SergeWoodzing ... He didn't use the "word" but that's what he meant.

Just to inform you cordially, that is directly slanderous as given in any public forum, even when used against somebody's alias. And since it also is totally untrue, I suggest you strike it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not notice your comment referred specifically to Serge's comments at the time. Since it is certainly impossible to know exactly what he meant (unless you are Serge himself), and since you appear to be paraphrasing his comments in to a highly offensive form, I think it would be best to strike that as well. Prodego ^talk 22:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right of course. But the reason for this case is because if I were to go to block someone, I need something to point to. If I don't have that, people are going to be calling for my head (and sysop bit). That's why you end up needed some profanity laced tirade to make a civility block. Otherwise people will just say, how is this any different than... and link to 5000 similar comments. Prodego ^talk 08:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on Talk:João VI of Portugal. Prodego ^talk 08:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Serge knows the rulz; didn't quite step over the line. Truthkeeper later struck her "fucking cunts" (and "Fuck them") comment so she gets away with it. Would I? Not a chance. Alarbus (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, anyone could get away with calling anyone that at the moment. I can at last see what you've been talking about. Obviously there is a problem on that article talk page. That comments were presented to me out of context confused the matter greatly for me. I will be active there trying to rectify that problem. Prodego ^talk 08:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You got my back? I'd be blocked within minutes. And I don't mean TK's talk.

You have to have been there on the João talk, or step through most of the edits. Look at GoodDay and Kauffner; they're civil, but they roam around to any RM involving diacritics. To some it's only punctuation, but to others, the ones the foundation is seeking to open up to, it's cultural hostility. That set of diffs was copypasted around a lot, so it's a mess. Alarbus (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If it helps, I have your back, haha. Anyone who shows me kindness is always shown kindness back. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly intend to help you investigate the naming of that page. But you will have to be open to use of English names, if that's what the consensus, and policies suggest. I would like to reevaluate both RMs, discussions elsewhere, as well as the discussion on that page. Prodego ^talk 08:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Obrigado

Senhor Albarbus,

I wanted to thank you for your help. You have been nice.

Cumprimentos,

Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleased, really. This project needs thousands of editors such as yourself to help. We really don't want WP:RANDY from Boise dictating the content and names of things related to the Portuguese Empire... or the Brazilian Empire, and so much more around the world and into the past. We need everyone; we need to help all the other language wikis, too. I'm glad to see that you're going to take Elonka up on her offer. I should offer some stuff, too. Let me know if I can help. Best wishes, Alarbus (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I will let you know, haha. Likewise, let me know if I can help you in anyway (though I dont know how I might, haha)

Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For being a good person while others werent so good to you Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Formatting

• re User:Wehwalt/Vote proposal

I am very careless at it outside article space. Thanks. Any thoughts? I meant it to appeal broadly, since if the FAD keeps the confidence of the community, we never get to an actual election until he steps back, but still the community can vote him out if sufficiently motivated.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I view the FA process as a failure. Sure, there are a bunch of great articles, although they can be further improved. But they amount to a tiny swath of the 'pedia, and that's due to the closed nature of FA and it's narrow philosophy. The Malleus quote, for example. Raul doesn't seem open to discussing his 'retention', he want's to close the book on that suggestion. But I'll support anything that opens up the discussion. There's no putting the genie back in te bottle (or closing Pandora's box). I don't believe the system of delegation of authority is appropriate, so the term 'delegate' should be discarded. Have coordinators, or associates.

To be clear, I support higher standards, not lowering them to allow more 'stars'. The only way to achieve both more and better articles is more and better people involved. Alarbus (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no great problem with any of that. I feel it is impossible to scale the FA process very high (possibly increase output, at its very highest, to 100 per month). I am not going to dismiss radical change out of hand. But lowering standards sullys the brand.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Triple the current rate would be a good start; a goal for end of the year. Noticed User:Crisco 1492? Get him to run. WMF want 50 million articles (on all 'pedias) in 3+ years. FA needs to a least scale at that rate. At least needs to try.) and fyi, I'm off for now... Alarbus (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe enough is enough

Alarbus, Walrasiad has made some serious accusations towards us at the ANI. See here. I can't barely accept his behavior on João VI's talk page but enough is enough. He crossed the line with those ridiculous accusations. --Lecen (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I already commented on that hilarity. Really, you don't have to be concerned with everything posted in this site. Anyone can post anything on this site and they do so every few milliseconds. Tip: If you see animal droppings in your path, step over, not into. Alarbus (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ow, so you saw SandyGeorgia's desperate attempt to block me at the ANI a couple of days ago? She thinks I'm the mastermind behind her downfall. Out of curiosity, what happened with Malleus Factuorum? I noticed that something big was happening to him, because I saw a buch of people (I think at the ANI) trying to block him again. --Lecen (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Now they are trying to cheat the game. See Subnumine's history log. --Lecen (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Think anyone would like to use the normal English form of Los Angeles and San Francisco? Alarbus (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I saw it; didn't really read all of it, though. I believe the sentiment against Sandy and Malleus has been building for some time. His 'dishonest cunts' comment was a last straw that resulted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement. That zoo of chimps throwing shit in the monkey house is into megabytes. They're asking for evidence of unaddressed incivility:

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Requests for further evidence - Collaborative evidence collection

Evidence has been requested:

• illustrating obviously uncivil behaviour on the part of an experienced editor on an article talk page or on any page in the Wikipedia namespace that appears to have gone completely unaddressed.

Tip: Ever go fishing? The WP:BAIT contains a hook; don't take it. Alarbus (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you telling me not to get involved? I won't. It would be just what SandyGeorgia would like to. But these[4][5][6] are a few good examples of "completely unaddressed" uncivil behavior. --Lecen (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying be selective about what you respond to. Many things are said seeking a reaction; don't react. You probably should post those diffs and any others to the arbitration case. Keep it short and clinical; explain the context and give the diffs. Look at how someone else did it and follow the format. Alarbus (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Been there, done that. That's how Americans say, right? In the end, nothing will happen to Malleus Factuorum. --Lecen (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that usually means you've slept with someone. I expect that case will eventually result in some ruling that mildly sanctions Malleus; a civility parole. I think it quite apparent that the rancour is way out of control. I've no problem fucking cunts, but the Americans are a puritanical bunch. As I've said, it not about a few loose words, it's about sustained hostility and aggressiveness. That Malleus is very involved with the FA process, that Gardner has decried all the slaughter of n00bs and seeks change at greater than the speed of consensus, is all very threatening to the established power nexuses. Not the indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons. And read Nero Decree. Alarbus (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia is slowly turning the tide on her favor. She may have resigned, but her name is still there. I've seen this before. Every 3-4 months, there is one huge fight at the FAC and one or two editors who can't stand SandyGeorgia ends up leaving for good. There will be a moment that there will be no one left to oppose her. --Lecen (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

{{citation needed}}. I think things have passed the tipping point. I think things will sort out. Why do you think they're so afraid of the wider community having a say in the future of FA? We're not in Kansas anymore. Alarbus (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think all this is cultural change. Some day they will tell stories about the colorful characters at the start of Wikipedia. OK, there's room for color. But the new settlers want a quieter life and a businesslike atmosphere. I'm not saying we will have to check our guns at the city limits anytime soon, but the guy at the end of the bar who shoots glasses out of the hands of strangers? He's got to be spoken to.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Gun cultures Die Hard. See the talk above about Body armour?

It is about change and change causes upset... and f-bombs, and c-words. Prodego said that ordinary editors need to take a stand against incivility. I also see some advocating that any criticism amounts to incivility. I think the core of the Malleus issue is that too many will unblock after a good block; that make for immunity and license to flame. It spreads to others; idiots. And it's not like Malleus isn't right on some things; children seeking adminship is mostly unhelpful.

You see that Lecen's back? He and Cristiano Tomás are the editors that need defending. If we ran a poll about who's been the most disruptive over the last, what?, three days... we all know who would win (assuming people actually could see it all). Alarbus (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It will take you three months, two RfCs and an arbcom case to get that poll, however. I did see it, yes, hoping they stay. But I think things are changing, as I said.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Too much time is wasted on seeking change and not enough on actually changing. The consensus model is not suited to this scale. But I do see the Genie's out of the bottle. Interesting times. I agree with the break, FWIW. Maybe I should edit an article or something? Or pet Kitty, who's insistent... Alarbus (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I know. But we are stuck in the model we began with, and changing it would be difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sue Gardner did say that thing were going to have start moving at greater than the speed of consensus. High-level pronouncements like that really piss off the folks hanging out at the end of the bar. Alarbus (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

They seem, alas, for the most part, naturally irascible. Ornery old types. Like me in a way, but I'm just annoyed at having to bulletproof my laptop screen (the bar has wifi).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to come naturally to the old-guard. You can get armour for the laptop; newegg.com probably has it. Alarbus (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll just have the barkeep put it on their tab. Not that they ever pay for their drinks. I understand they once did, back when they used "hard money" (I'm an expert on that, by the way).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think the barriers to entry are so high? Because too many old eggs got in early and want to maintain their status. Alarbus (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think standards have generally increased. But yes, I would agree with the second sentence, to some extent, given that it is human nature to want to hold on to what you got.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

How many times in a single year have we seen SandyGeorgia be involved in somekind of serious debate with someone else? Her tactics are always the same: first she mocks the opposer, than discredit him and finally, unleash her friends to annihilate what is left. I've seen this occur so many times that it has become predictable. Should a delegate be this kind of person? In fact, why would a delegate be always involved on controversial matters? Anyway, you can't live in an environment where you have someone like Malleus Factuorum, where his friends call him "flawed genius" and find amusing when he insults someone (which happenes all the time). I remember my first FACs. They were great. A lot of people criticizing, making comments, but you always had that feeling of teamwork. Everybody was there to help in the end. Now I see Malleus Factuorum call another editor an imbecile, arse, dickhead and everyone thinks that this is normal. "Standard procedure" some would say. And you have a delegate like SandyGeorgia supporting this kind of behavior and placing him as a type of super reviewer. You cant have people like them in a place like the FAC. You can't have people like them anywhere. Th problem is that most editors are so afraid of SandyGeorgia, that when they try to criticize her, they always tell first how great delegate she is. You know, no one wants to upset the boss. But if she is great, why is someone criticizing her, then? To take them out of their thrones you'll need a concentrated attack. I'm not saying that you should insult them, demoralize them or something like that. Just make sure there a lot of people who are unhappy with them. PS.: Didn't SandyGeorgia renounced her position as delegate? Is she back on the job? --Lecen (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

She resigned effective in 30 days. However, I seem to be the target of the moment; it seems that questioning why there are no elections is disruptive.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

and she'll be called back before then. Calls for governance reform are disruptive to the incumbents. Alarbus (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And so they should be. That is the idea. Not disruptive in any negative sense, of course, just the sense that every official needs that the people are always with him. Before Raul archived the page, you did catch where he said that he would reappoint Sandy upon her request? I was not certain if he proposed a similar discussion in that case, as took place in 2007.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Disruption" is a tool to denigrate someone. As are most of the shortcuts thrown about. Sometimes the shoes fit, of course, but often it's just more flaming of people. I did not miss that comment; he would have no need to seek any endorsement of her re-accession; it would dilute the authority. Alarbus (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I told you. See this, this and this. Mock, disqualify and unleash friends. Next step: everybody retreats. What an army! --Lecen (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So what do you recommend, Lecen? Being on the receiving end of this stuff is not easy, as you well know. If they can block reform and keep Raul in office without effective community review, then what is the answer?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop saying that you don't want to run for FA director and stop saying that Raul could attempt a "reelection". If you place a foot on daring and another on fear you won't go anywhere. You simply won't. Opposition wins when it acts like opposition. And when I say "opposition", I don't mean you should attack SandyGeorgia, or Raul, or something like that. It would lead anywhere. You should say "I believe that I would be a better FA director. I have experience, I have goals, and I will be present". You shouldn't do that right now, after all, elections for FA directorship of delegates do not exist... yet. SandyGeorgia always win because she goes offensive, while her oppositionists are always hesitating. "We belive you shoudn't be here, Sandy... although I respect you a lot and I believe you've done a geat job." This kind of speech will never be successful. You can't go personal or you will lose. If you criticize SandyGeorgia or Raul directly, they will play victim or will counterattack. And you will lose. Start with a good RfC on periodical elections for FA posts. Something simple, neutral. --Lecen (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. The only reason I said what I did at AN/I is that I felt she was being grossly unfair towards TCO. Any candidacy by me would be seen as a palace coup by too many people. Wouldn't it be better to think of another FA regular who would be acceptable to all, in the event that there is a process to fill the job?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The ed17‎. He is the best option we've got now. He is reasonable, patient and as far as I know, does not get into trouble. He would be the candidate that would please everyone. I believe that delegates should be elected too, or else, we would repeat all mistakes again. You could run for delegate, ans later as a director. I could see Dank as a delegate too. He is useful and reasonable too. What we must do is to avoid controversial people like SandyGeorgia and Malleus Factuorum. That's all. --Lecen (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

← I think you're the best person for the role. That fact that you are long-involved in the FA process make you suitable, and should be acceptable to the quiet minority of FA regulars and most 'outsiders'. But the scorched earth response is itself disruptive. The fact that they fight rather than put forth reasonable ideas for reform is telling. They simply went no change; the drawbridge is up and staying that way. I've criticised the FA criteria. As I've shown, a lot get through the reviews without being fixed. Not knocking authors; they need more eyes to help. The criteria are lopsided and incomplete.

One of the complaints was that the talk was disrupting te WT:FAC page; maybe, but it's a talk page. If that want that one, uh, unlocked, then get the reform discussion into a structured RfC that's not biased. But that's anathema. TCO's was ill-considered and has been used to assert that the door should be shut on te whole idea. The discussions on WT:FAC have been referred to as 'RfC's even through they were never tagged as such, never drew in outsiders who were not already looking. Enough; no time for this ATM. Alarbus (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

Do you think you could give this an early look? With her now being formally dead (as opposed to ...) the page is getting serious hits. I know there are deadlinks, I am planning to work on that article at an early date. Both Kww and I have improved our writing since then, I hope (our conom AuburnPilot seems retired, last I checked). No great hurry, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll look. Wary of getting in too deep as a high traffic page is fraught with edit conflict; all sorts. She was some big media crapfest a few years ago. No one cares about the Peruvian girl, huh? Alarbus (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You nailed it. Thanks for anything you can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It needs a lot of attention and it won't be easy with others editing regularly. It's all web sources so links will rot (and many probably have). The citation bodies should be moved out of the prose at minimum. Whole thing seems a memorial to a blond white girl and a shrine to the mass media's sensationalistic nature. Alarbus (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It was an early FA for me. However, I am determined to preserve it. Take a look here for example; we went to considerable time and trouble over it. Perhaps you'll understand why.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've brought a lot of sanity to the citations. A bunch still should be renamed per the naming convention that was sort of in place and that I've tried to iron out. It is all about missing white woman syndrome (and XYZ News selling coke/pepsi and their brand of infotainment). I usually ignore such “stories”.

I think a bunch of the links are AP but un-attributed. And a bunch are pretty poor; sparse details, no link... I d understand the desire to maintain it; you're invested in it. Alarbus (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the article just grew. A couple of times we did some rearranging, but what you are seeing are like tree rings, some stuff from experienced WP editors, some from rookies. They happen to be the same people, actually. Thanks for your work on it--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

All the unencyclopaedic articles are full of junk the randoms drop in. The whole thing is kind of like having recorded all of the 24/7 TV news channels. After I made all the edits, I read the article. And I read most of that old bickerfest. That's why things need to change. Remind me to never visit Alabama. Or US states adjacent to Alabama. Damn; never again. Too Bad Lori Berenson didn't get all this attention. Alarbus (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I keep an eye on that article too, but there are too many partisans to effectively improve it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw you in the edit history. You see how I fixed another masked ref in there? It was two different refs named 'times' (nyt). When the second was added last March, it 'stole' the others with that name. I only did a light touch and will get back to it. We could root-out the partisans together...

Aside; see this; I cut nearly 10% of the page with no loss of information. It could use more help; you know this fellow? (I saw he pinged you). Alarbus (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I already did work on the article and supported its promotion. If there's specific things I could do to help, I would.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I should look at the discussion. I'll dig in soon; probably point Remember at Nikita and company. It would remove another few Kb of clutter and some deprecated templates (use of which should be an insta-FA-fail). Alarbus (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ten per cent

Hello Alarbus - interesting discussions you host here. I'd like to start another in response your comment that "A half percent of articles at GA/FA is failure. Ten years into wp it should be 10%; with new direction, it can still get there." Do you stand by that comment, and if so, how do you propose to achieve quality content review of 10% of wp (c. 500,000 articles) in a reasonable timescale? I have been interested in this question since at least 2007, and welcome any ideas you have. Geometry guy 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll bite. All the processes need more participation from higher calibre people. One of the major problems is that far, far, too much time is wasted on discussions that go nowhere. Often they turn into attempts to lynch the opposition. That needs addressing big time. Anyway, I've seen talk about FA being fine as it has enough backlog for the main page for years (except that a lot of FAs have eroded into bat guano or always were). Phft. The proper goal of an FA process is not to feed the main page one article a day. Any that think that need to re-think a few things. Maybe the main page should not have a single 'featured article' for all visitors... it could dynamically serve one of many. Lots of possible re-design ideas would be able to be considered if the leadership vision were less fossilised. The problem with the current approach is that they think small and only look at a subset of the criteria that should be defining 'best'. See the hockey player on offer for TFA ATM; it has a dozen dead links. The checklinks tool fixed a lot of awful code while tagging the page. Does anyone look at how such pages are made? (they're made poorly). Anything that goes on the mainpage should get a fairly serious re-vist before even being proposed and all should be addressed before it going live. But at the moment, it's stuff pushed to the main page by the arbitrary decisions of a few; as Wehwalt said there about a month ago, it's not a vote, merely advisory. The FA process is stuck at one-a-day because it's all intent on pleasing a single philosophy enforced by a few delegated gatekeepers. So, it needs new leadership that's open minded and that will enable a decentralised approach that includes far greater participation and thus far greater achievement of high quality. Alarbus (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree all processes need more participation from higher calibre people, and that far too much time is wasted on discussions that go nowhere (to paraphrase your comment from a different point of view, "such discussions often turn into attempts to lynch high calibre regular participants"). Finger pointing aside, the question is, how to increase such participation?

I also completely agree with you that a TFA maintenance level of one new FA per month is too low an ambition: I think most FAC editors would aspire to a more robust output than that if engaged in a reasonable fashion. But your 10% aspiration does not do that, and you have completely failed to answer my question. Do you think it is a reasonable aspiration or not. If so, by when? Do you still believe GA and FA have failed by not achieving such a figure already?

I found your comment that "a lot of FAs have eroded into bat guano or always were" particularly interesting in this respect. One of the problems FA has had to deal with is that early standards were rather low compared to current expectations (including, evidently, your expectations). SandyGeorgia played a crucial role in improving those standards. However, imposing a higher standard ultimately lowers output. So when you ask for 10% FAs, do you mean 10% bat guano FAs, or 10% really good FAs? It is a serious question.

You make lots of interesting comments about TFA, but that isn't why I asked the question (I favor using GAs on the main page). However, I don't see the new idea that is going to achieve content improvement on the vast scale you propose. Maybe you do, and can explain what you mean by "a decentralised approach that includes far greater participation and thus far greater achievement of high quality". GA is very decentralized, but still cannot expect to cover 10% of the encyclopedia until the early 22nd century. Geometry guy 01:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"lynch high calibre regular participants"? The high calibre would be subjective. I recall two recent comments from the elite using the phrase 'reign in' where 'rein in would be the more brilliant prose (irony noted). I make my share of typos, but at least I try and use the correct words.

As to how to increase participation, the answer is more participation. More reviewers, more nominators, more ideas. I view the FA process as quite nasty and limited by the lack vision of those enforcing their narrow philosophy. I believe large numbers avoid the whole thing like the plague. It is absurd that FA bling is handed out by people that I can count on one hand. Reign's over; time for the next thing.

I do still feel that the 8 years following the current direction has been a failure. MILHIST, below, is a good example of a project that has done rather better. Something like twelve hundred participants, right? FA can still get going in the right direction (although it will take years to really boost things).

I'm all for high standards, but I see the standards in place now as lopsided. The hockey player at TFA would be one that passed with lower standards, but it's a mess under the hood. The tables suck, the references are an endless clutter through the prose. See any of the FAs by Wehwalt that I've reworked for my take on best techniques. Add that to FA's high standards.

There's more below, so I'll pick up there. Alarbus (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

And yet, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history already has almost 8% of articles in its scope at B-Class or better (i.e. formally assessed for quality). A look at Category:WikiProject Military history transcluded subpages gives an idea of the degree of organisation within that project. Or check Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles for guidance on how to organise a article in scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, and the insistence on quality sourcing at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). We don't have to re-invent the wheel, either - there are sufficient examples of excellent practice that could be emulated by multiple other projects. The key is to encourage editors into a mindset of collaboration instead of confrontation. Get folks to wiki-meetups, for example; once you've met someone face-to-face, you're far less likely to treat them like dogshit online. If I thought that FAC was a more welcoming place, I'd be much more likely to spend some of my time there. Ask yourself if you find that prospect something you'd welcome or not. --RexxS (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In my dreams, right after friendly aliens sweep away our own increasingly autocratic government and come up with something better, I see the MilHist model as what I would like to consider for FAC. A professional atmosphere, temporary leaders with defined roles and regular elections, little drama and plenty of high quality articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And yes, I agree, a certain percentage of FA does start to degenerate into crap. Stuff gets added, POV is inserted, unless someone is acting as gatekeeper. That means not being afraid to hit undo, giving a brief explanation. The tension between my actions to preserve my feeble excuses at quality and "anyone can edit" is a reason why I think WP needs a re-think. This is not Occupy, while we want help, we don't really want "anyone" any more than the Army, even in time of war, welcomes all comers. At the time, I think we lose too many on the learning curve, so there's another tension. You also have to have a thick skin to take part at certain elements of the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

and body armour ;-) Alarbus (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Imaging a thousand reviewers (and high standards). And no... what did MF say? Oh, ya; don't go there. A collegial atmosphere. Alarbus (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If we had that, we could overcome the leadership issues. Yosemite Sam was at a disadvantage when facing a crowd; even two six shooters can't do much.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A common misunderstanding of the American Old West. The sheriffs preferred sawed-off shotguns for sheer room-clearing capability. Alarbus (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

True. Why is it we can't edit sections off a page on which a diff is displayed, even if it's the current revision, anymore?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed; I don't edit sections much. I expect it's deliberate; either a change to MediaWiki or the install's configuration. Alarbus (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It can make it difficult if the page is long ... oh wait, it's a good thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Every edit I just made to Holloway was a full page edit, as was this tweak. Section edits are for talk pages, and I often start those from popups. Alarbus (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't use popups or other aids, I do things the old fashioned way. I tend to pull the diff, then want to navigate down and edit the section, on both article and talk pages. Less text to deal with.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And I was going to suggest User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff... I usually have several browers windows open with about twenty tabs each, several other apps, a snack, and a cat on my lap. The point of full page editing is having all the text at hand; the better to run local scripts on ;-)

Oh, you'll need these; say 'yes' [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. All copied out of a popups window ;-) And see {{cite doi}}. Alarbus (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added them and will figure out what they do later. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

They're references; you've got one on Chamberlain's article, too. Alarbus (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"The key is to encourage editors into a mindset of collaboration instead of confrontation."

That is certainly a good thing to do, so lets do it.

I'm also very impressed by Milhist and think other projects can learn a lot from it. For instance, it sets itself goals and has a divide-and-conquer approach (e.g. task forces) to big challenges. You have to bear in mind however, that Milhist is dealing with a restricted topic area, covering a more manageable range of articles, and which attracts editors who already have some common interest, perhaps even similar mindsets. 8% of Milhist is less than 10000 articles. GA has more than that already: indeed the current rate of production is about 10000 articles every 3 years, and increasing; I predict it will be 10000 articles every 2 years by 2020.

In what sense is that a failure? In the discussion so far, my questions remain unanswered. A collaborative editing environment certainly helps, but it is not going to increase productivity by 5000%. Do you still believe 10% FAs is a realistic aspiration for, say, the next 20 years. If not, what is, and how to achieve it? How will you maintain a high quality standard and prevent degradation in an ever growing pool of FAs? What "new direction" can make such a big difference? Geometry guy 14:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, because too many articles are three sentences about some wide spot in the mud in southern India. No way to FA that. Let's limit it to "heard of it" articles, that is, they get 100 hits a day or more. Ten percent of that may be a better goal, though still difficult. One idea, leaving aside the leadership question for the nonce, is to modify or eliminate the "one article at a time" rule. Not many of us can prepare multiple FACs, but to those who can, god bless. I call it the Harrison Bergeron rule. Or, as I suggested a few weeks ago, say that VA are exempt from the one article rule.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no harm in relaxing nomination restrictions, but it won't make much difference to output, as the main bottleneck is reviewing capacity. I personally disagree with the TCO "hits are what count" philosophy, as it devalues specialist material in favor of populist material. I also think 100 hits a day is much too high a threshold (one of the many flaws in TCO's analysis is that he chose too small a class of "popular" or "vital" articles). However, I am willing to put aside my qualms to see how your modification of the 10% goal affects the analysis.

So, with the help of Special:Random and stats.grok, I sampled 50 articles for hits. The result was: 48 articles with less than 1000 hpm (hits per month, most of them much less), 1 article with c. 1800 hpm (Borrowed Time (album)), and 1 article with c. 12000 hpm (Dovetail joint). Thus in this sample, only 2% of Wikipedia met your threshold of more than 3000 hpm. Allowing for a lower threshold and/or a margin for error, let us suppose that we are interested in 5% of Wikipedia (about 200,000 articles). This makes your revised goal to improve 10% of these 200,000 articles to a high quality level much more reasonable: that's "only" 20,000 articles.

I then carried out the same analysis for GA, and found that among 50 randomly chosen good articles, 17 had less that 1000 hpm, while most of the remaining 33 had much more, typically over 10000 hpm. So we can estimate that about 2/3 of GA is covering the 5% of Wikipedia we are interested in; that's over 9000 articles to date, and c. 2000 more every year at the present rate. Thus GA on its own is about half-way, and is very likely to achieve your target in the next 5 years. Geometry guy 23:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd also get rid of the two week rule, which I feel needlessly increases tension between delegates and nominators. I think we all agree that we want to improve the average click for readers, we just disagree about where to direct energies in order to do it. Some feel do it by giving attention to high-view articles, others by creating "best in world" in highly specialized topics. As these are very different and there is no way to force one side or the other, the best way is to honor both, perhaps with separate systems of rewards, and making editors aware that both ways are honored. That is where TCO went wrong. He made one side feel like their very hard work wasn't being honored. Mistake. Perhaps one way to go it is to dream up some tin badge or others to give to nominators whose FAs have page views that meet a certain level. Say 10K/month bronze, 50K silver, so on so forth. They can display it on their user page next to their stars.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

My dream is that Wikimedia implements a value added counter as an alternative to the edit counter. They have already worked on counting the number of characters added. Number of readers (readings) could be added. There are many aspects that could be meaningfully weighed in. If such a contribution counter was easily accessible there would probably be a lot of discussion about how the value of the contributions should be calculated. Wikimedia could then use methods based on the wisdom of the crowd to design the algorithm. --Ettrig (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion of different colour badges for articles with different view counts panders to TCO's notion of "star collectors"; TCO might not have intended the term to be derogatory, but the word collector carries connotations that the author of those articles is interested primarily in the bronze star in the top right hand corner of an article. Ucucha's articles on rodents were singled out by TCO's study, do you think the chance of earning a gold star instead of a bronze or tin star would have prompted them to move out of their comfort zone, away from a subject with which they are clearly very familiar? FAC assesses an articles quality, page views should be a separate issue. Nev1 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with you: Wikipedia is many things to many people, and we all need to live and let live. I've stated before that one of the few points where I agree with TCO is the idea to introduce new incentives to reward time and effort spent on improving vital articles and the like. However, I agree with Nev (post ec) that all such incentives have limited effect: editors mostly work on what interests them.

It remains to ask what Alarbus thinks of all this! Geometry guy 00:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the >100hpm articles would be a fruitful place to start. I'd also advocate that a much higher percentage of those be G/F articles (say half?). And we can probably discount about 10% of the total articles as simply not being worthy of anything. I'm not on the same page as TCO regarding popular articles. Popularity has little to do with importance. We should be wary of giving people what they want instead of what they need, which is lots and lots of quality articles about important stuff. And I've no problem with quality articles such as Gropecunt Lane and wife selling. They're interesting.

If more of those 200,000 articles were sporting one of the bling-tags, I expect more people would be reading them; it could spread to the next few hundred thousand, too.

I think I have answered your questions, mostly further up. Why is all this here? Because the critics have been run-off from WT:FAC by the insiders who want to control the framing of the question? Get the RFC going in any damned form and allow people to offer their own views, not just support/oppose some questions vetted by the incumbents. All of that old talk is without consensus per WP:CONLIMITED. I suppose folks are free to argue away here, but I'm going to go edit something. Alarbus (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Good luck on that tomorrow! But regarding what you said at the RfC page, do you have a better idea? I've been cautiously holding the fort, trying to get the fairest process I could. Publicity needs to be done (after Black Wednesday). Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Beware the man with a gun... I expect to don the body armour and offer an outside view. The problem is they're not "requesting outside input", which is right off of WP:RFC. Be nice to get that SOPA banner pointing at the RfC. I'd be happy with 1800 participants. Be nice to have the black day off; laze on the beach, instead. Oh, see: Talk:2012 Wikipedia blackout#Potential DYK?. Alarbus (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Banner ad sounds good, but how does that get done?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably helps if your name is Wales. Someone at WP:VPT might know the specifics. See Wikipedia:Watchlist notices for a more likely route. Alarbus (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's just mad all his peers got huge IPO profits, so he's trying to boost himself politically. Wonder if he has his eyes on Rubio's Senate seat if Marco becomes VP.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I read that Jimmy's moved to UK; it said permanently. Mostly this is about maintaining command of speaking fees. Alarbus (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why there? They have a monarch already. And what gets me is that there is no threat from SOPA, it's basically been pulled until objections are addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Fiancée, for one. Probably a tax advantage of some sort, too. I didn't comment on the SPOA thing, but am quite opposed to anything like that (anything like Rubio, too). Best outcome would have been to block just US users for a month (or until the thing is completely off the table). Alarbus (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Did you see the level of discussion there? They don't even try to talk about what I said (the inconsistency between the names), they simply repeat the rule according to the policy, which obviosly I know already. Their comments are so dumb that it's not even worth of being commented. Since it's clearly what people prefer, even though it makes no sense to have a Kaiser with an anglicized name surrounded by German names when his own grandson and namesake also has a German name. All a waste of time. --Lecen (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Which "there"? One of the João discussions? The FA leadership RFC (or it's talk page)? One of the talks with SergeWoodzing? Or perhaps wp:Dramaboard? Welcome to the argument nexus.

I'm sorry that João×2 were moved to the nineteenth century norm. You should probably read wp:Randy in Boise, for a fuller understanding of what anyone can edit includes as unhelpful baggage. One would like to believe that it will eventually sort out, and it will, but it might not be on this domain name. The database is, however, constantly flowing out into the vastness of the internet so rest assured that genuinely good content work will endure.

As you'll have seen, I'm working my way through topics like the Pedro II series and my intent is to get them all consistent with each other so that lifting the ones less developed becomes easier. I've a few questions that I should run by you but will do so on your talk when I'm further along and have a better view of what needs asking. Alarbus (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

People have voted to Raul stay for job for the duration of his life? Really? Not a single "oppose"? Really? I wonder how many folks are there in fear of saying "oppose". Well, people are dumb. --Lecen (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Mostly; Emperor Raul DCLIV of the Featured Article Empire. People want their FAs promoted and so they bend over and kiss the ... ring. See Pumpkin link in adjacent section. There are a few opposes and some have not bothered with the "framed" RfC. It's been set up to have limited visibility so it is unsurprising that it's mostly the status quo speaking in there. Alarbus (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea how tired I am from this place. I feel no passion anymore. I'm not writing anything for days. With MF and SG ruling that place, I won't be able to nominate a single article there. Anyway, thanks for updating those old articles I wrote. I appreciate it. --Lecen (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I get it. The hostility is deeply entrenched and excludes most who don't want to deal with it. I see endless denigration of good faith concerns and assumptions of bad faith and conspiracies.

I'd suggest improving articles and ignoring that process. What good does it really do besides feed a sense of self-importance of those ruling that place. They hold court over 0.1% of the projects articles.

There is always more work to do. I'm enjoying reading about Brazilian history and will keep at those. I also find a special satisfaction in fixing problems in FAs that the FAC process is oblivious to. They claim to aspire to high standards, but they miss an awful lot. Such is life in their echo chamber. Alarbus (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is much honor elsewhere in the project. I am expecting that editors will continue to leave FAC in disgust. In fact, I suspect that much could be learned by asking editors who have departed from FAC, but remain active on the project why they are no longer active at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the tardy reply; I don't see messages, until I opt to look.

Isn't Tony1 such an editor? I think I saw that said someplace. That could be a Signpost series (and I saw the concern in that process). Other things to consider are competition. Go award some articles some new 'term'. Hey, "Great" article! (but no stars). Keep a list of them. Lobby to get access to the main page by other than the current gatekeepers. Design a new main page that simply drops things like Did You Care? Alarbus (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain about Tony. I was thinking about people like David Shankbone, who had much to say in the 2007 discussions but who evidently left FAC thereafter. Doubtlessly there are others. I will say in advance that I have no idea why he left, but I see he is still active and taking great images. Obviously such images would be a credit to FAC, wonder why he is no longer there?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

One idea that TCO and I were mulling over was reviving the Vital Articles Wikiproject. What if, say, it awarded an A-class?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

People are going to leave because of the poisonous atmosphere that's replenished with Every Breath She Takes. What we have here is a half dozen people that camp out under the bridge to the main page and emerge every time someone goes tap, tap, tap on their way to presenting the world with some new effort. They pounce on whatever they personally don't like and expect Attention To Be Paid. They have another half dozen that circle pretty close. The rest are those that get along well enough with that bunch, share their values and/or simple endure in order to get through the process. It's pretty clear the Emperor's butt is Blowin' in the Wind. It doesn't much matter that little will change in the short term. Some dozens supported and probably a whole lot more had a look and sipped their beer. People see how it all went down.

Vital Articles did serve to kick a lot of this off. Or up. It's a good concept, although any such list is subjective. I'm much more in favour of pushing vital/important than the merely popular. I take it WP:VA doesn't really have a grading system at present? Of its own, I mean. That could be moved forward, modelling MILHIST's A-class?

You know how I encountered you? Sandy rained on Elvis as too long; the longest FA and pointed at a list of longest. I looked, and edited several of the top ten, including Nikita, which turned out to be your work. Alarbus (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't see that discussion. I had to push to get Nikita through, as I recall Karanacs did question the length but I went to bat for the article and people liked it, so it went through. Your taste in music I can argue with, your logic and facts not so much. :) I am reminded of this play I had in college Spanish class, set at a home for young adults who are blind. They are all very contented, until someone arrives there who is not content to be blind and live a quiet contented life, and he starts creating ripples. He dies mysteriously towards the end of the play. I'm googling looking for the name, but it's been a quarter century. I think the point is obvious though.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah ha! --Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And yes, that was my thought. Use the existing VA lists (level 4 is fairly extensive), and provide quality checks and certification for quality articles in that area.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It was on WT:TFAR; wasn't exactly a discussion. Elvis I'd not spend much effort on; Nikita is rather more important, and warrants it; you obviously put a lot of time into it. They're not specifically my musical tastes, but if the theme fits, share it. Brian Friel did a piece about a content blind woman; her husband was not content, and the doctor wanted to prove himself near the end of his time. It ended badly for all. Alarbus (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nikita was an article I was working on, on and off, for months. It really couldn't be done in less than the 130K or so I put there and still give you a sense of the man. At least, I didn't see how you could do it. And I found I liked him. Sort of guy you'd like to have a beer with.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading it and working on it. He is a very interesting figure and you captured that. Be wary of sitting down with Russians for a drink; they're very, very good at it. I've been there. I have a copy of Crimes of the Stalin Era somewhere (in a box). That took nerve given the whole climate. You seen the series Lecen and his friend have for Pedro II? Reigned for 58 years. Oh, and just recalled the Lenin/Stalin robbery; should get back over there this week. Alarbus (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you are doing Carousel (musical). I did some of the other R&H, but Carousel came out the best. Perhaps because there is conviction in it, I genuinely believe Carousel far outstrips anything else they ever did.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking a first peek. It is a good piece. I'll read the article before a get in deeply. See here, at the end of the diff; there were two page= and the latter masked the former and the bot cut the one that's been being masked... Suggest another coin and it will get gotten to. Idea would be consistency across suites of articles; that's what I'm after with the Pedro/Brazilian Empire series. Alarbus (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And I did a nine-article series on the Great Redesign of US coins between 1907 and 1921, and my citation style (and other styles) where changing. The articles are all internally consistent, but I've been meaning to go back. Probably the article in that series that gets the most hits is Lincoln cent, but I go all the way up to Saint-Gaudens double eagle.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ag/Cu much more interesting than Zn/Cu. Anyway, I meant internally consistent with Walking Liberty half dollar. All for now. Alarbus (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply. I'm stuck on yet another ridiculous discussion over an article's name with editors who actually don't care about the article. Why people use Wikipedia if for the sole purpose of taking part on sterile discussions on talk pages and asking for pages move? What about actually helping the article for a change? Back to FAC: yes, there is some serious issues over there, but they do have support. I was surprised when it was said here that Tony1 supported them. I remember that he left the FAC exactly because of struggle with SG, who as usual, "unleashed her pets to destroy the enemy". But the Vital Articles idea isn't good. I don't work on vital articles, neither does Wehwalt. The MILHIST is a good model, but it's also highly restrictive. I write about politicians, who wouldn't fit there. We need another idea. Perhaps a "FAC-B"? Or what about "FAC-The other guys"? :) --Lecen (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The community won't accept a competing process, it would have to be different in some way.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. I'll have a look at the talk page.

They do Cry 'Havoc!' a lot, and the Caesar reference is apt (see also: insider solution). Promoting vital articles is good, but they're a subset of the project. There is a list of five or ten thousand vital articles somewhere, too...

Another approach would be to assign FA status outside their process. Only to articles that are of the best quality of course. Alarbus (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well said

great PumpkinSky talk 00:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Alarbus (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

I've been thinking about your comment: "the narrow focus and 'framing' is a lot of the problem". Can you clarify? I think I understand that you're looking for fundamental change in the FA process, but other than your desire to bring in a wider range of editors via a watchlist notice, I don't understand what it is about the current RfC that you would change. From my point of view, here's what happened. I asked everyone what the right topic to talk about first was, and the answer was "leadership". Your comment there was "By far the most important question. Sort anything else afterwards", so I would have thought you'd agree that the focus was in the right place. It seemed to me from the comments I read (and per WP:RFC -- see bullet 2 here) that we needed definite statements that could be clearly understood, and that we needed to try to settle more than a single question in the RfC. It seemed clear to me from the various pro-election votes cast at e.g. Wehwalt's and TCO's short-lived RfCs (by you and others) that there was a real desire for a definite vote on elections vs. status quo; and it also seemed that we needed a place for general, undirected discussion on the topic of leadership, which exists as the last part of the RfC.

So can you tell me what I missed, in your eyes? How would you have structured the RfC differently? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's structured as a vote, not a request for comment. This is all about a speedy reconfirmation of the ownership of a process, to then be followed by waving it as peace for our time. I believe my intent in the "narrow focus" post was more about the framing as a reconfirmation vote rather than the broader question of leadership (lack of, really). We all know that the de facto leader is Sandy and she's primarily the one responsible for the poisonous atmosphere of the place. I do strongly object to wider participation not being sought. It's amounting to more WP:CONLIMITED. And I suspect there's a fear by some that by not supporting the status quo, their articles won't be passed and the bridge to the main page will be barred. What I believe should have occurred is that a neutral outsider (Maggie) should have outlined the history and asked for views and then the views considered. WP:Polls are evil. Alarbus (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)