User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch49

NYC meet-up video
I am aware of the issue you raise on the "arbitrator confidence" page. The father of the younger editor in the video was present at the meet-up. I discussed this issue with him before the video was made, and he told me that he had no objection to his son being included. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My concerns are broader than the one child, one situation in the video. Some parts of the video are hard to hear, so I may have missed critical statements or moments, but I was left confused.  Either the adult participants in that meeting are unaware of the number of issues arising with child editors, including the affect on content review processes and admin actions; not concerned about those effects; or perhaps they were being polite in deference to the father and child.  Unsure.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific how you believe that child editors are affecting content review processes and admin actions. I am aware of concerns expressed regarding younger editors' personal safety and privacy issues, as well as the never-ending argument concerning whether younger editors who are otherwise qualified should be granted adminship. I don't believe I'm as familiar with how younger editors are affecting, say, the FA process, so I'd be interested in more information about that issue. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Brad, thanks for taking the time to inquire.

I've come across nine- to 12-year-olds submitting articles to FAC, so when we talk about children on Wiki, it should be clear that we are not talking only about minors close to graduating from high school. A 9-year-old or a 12-year-old is a child; I'll avoid the euphemisms and call a spade a spade in this discussion.

I raised the concern because I found that video so surprising. Although much of it was hard to hear, the general impression was of a gathering of adults who appeared to be universally and casually accepting, condoning, to even embracing acceptance of child editors and admins on Wiki. Perhaps the discussion was one-sided in deference to the child and parent present, but it was surprising that the serious issues appeared to be ignored.

I'm sure you're already well enough aware of the "personal safety and privacy issues", which are significant (even for adults, more so for children who aren't yet equipped to deal with issues that may present on the internet), but I understand that parental decisions and supervision are not within the scope of this discussion. I'm unaware of what the legal issues are in public schools or in other countries, but for schools in the US that don't rely on federal funding, parents can demand and expect that Wikimedia be placed behind the school firewall, as with any site that contains adult material, because of Wikimedia content that is unacceptable for school children. The content issue, or the notion that children should be able to become admins, is unlikely to change, so I understand you're mainly inquiring about the effects of child editors on content review processes.

Since children will be children, they often engage in reward-seeking behaviors with the ultimate goal to become an admin, and they are aware of or coached to engage processes that will help them accumulate awards on the path to RFA. This reward-seeking behavior affects all processes via the accumulation of DYKs, GAs, "Triple Crowns", barnstars, and attempts at FAs and often creates a drain on already thin reviewer resources, utilizing the time and energy of other editors who could be better engaged in generating and improving content themselves. ''It is unclear that the content generated is commensurate with the effort other editors have to expend in review and cleanup. The concern is whether the content being added aligns with the goals of a professional reference work.''

Tracking down specifc examples would be time consuming, and it might not be helpful to point at specific cases or editors. Often, the problems don't become evident until an article hits FAC, as other processes have fewer reviewers and don't have a director or delegate where the buck stops. Of course, these issues are not unique to children, but are more common with child editors IMO.

The child editors tend to congregate together on- and off-Wiki. Quid pro quo FAC supports and GA passes via on- and off-Wiki contact are an issue (you support my articles, I'll support yours). They meet and congregate on MySpace, IRC or secret pages, and may exchange quid pro quo GA passes or pile on support for each other at FAC. This used to be a big problem at GAN, because a GA can be passed by one editor only; when numerous extremely deficient GAs began showing up at FAC, both the GA and FA editors shone a light on this issue, and I believe the problem has substantially subsided. However, it's possible that the quid pro quo deficient GAs are still being passed, but they're no longer being submitted to FAC, as editors now understand they won't get through FAC by piling on IRC-generated supports. When fan or group support is piled on at FAC, serious reviewers have to spend a disproportionate amount of time documenting the issues on ill-prepared nominations. The deficient articles don't (hopefully) pass FAC, but reviewer time is expended on ill-prepared articles: this time could be better spent on maintaining standards and reviewing prepared articles, and reviewers are stretched extremely thin.
 * IRC, MySpace and strength in numbers

DYKs are easy to accumulate: even easier with plagiarism. Reviewers are stretched thin, and checking for plagiarism is one more thing for mature editors to review. Plagiarism is not only a problem among children, but children may be less aware of what constitutes plagiarism and more likely to take shortcuts to gain awards.
 * Plagiarism

This issue has shown up at GAN, FAC and DYK; en editor accesses an FA on another language Wiki and runs it through an online translator, cites the foreign sources without accessing or even being able to read them, and ties up multiple content review processes, reaching FAC before serious deficiencies and inaccuracies are discovered. Many resources are expended along the way, again, disproportionate to the value added to Wiki or the reviewer resources expended.
 * Translations

All three of the above-mentioned problems come to roost in award-seeking behaviors via Triple Crowns. The problem is not the Triple Crown awards per se (Yellow Monkey has many), but that the children may be taking shortcuts and generating inferior content, stretching reviewers thin, on their award-seeking path to RfA.
 * Triple crowns

Although they are routinely MfD'd, the children tend to form and congregate around award centers where they can earn prizes for generating content. The same problems of quid pro quo supports, plagiarism, misreprentation of sources, translations, etc. result. The goal is to accumulate barnstars and prizes to be touted at RFA.
 * Award centers

Mentioned already above, seems to be greatly improved since both FA and GA editors shone a light on the issues, but numerous quid pro quo, IRC, and buddy passes among the children were noted in the past. It matters because it ties up reviewer time in sweeps, GAR, etc., as the deficient articles are uncovered.
 * GAN

FAC is where the buck usually stops and problems often surface, because FAC is not a vote, and pile-on buddy IRC-generated, quid pro quo support doesn't get an article promoted. But many FAC reviewers can speak to the disproportionate amount of time they have to spend on the articles that make it all the way to FAC before the deficiencies are uncovered. The deficiencies are often serious.
 * FAC

That's a basic framework from me: other GA and FA reviewers will probably elucidate, clarify, and add examples. The bottom line is that it's the childish award-seeking drive to RFA that is impacting articles, sapping reviewer time (most of our better FAC reviewers could be generating conent themselves, rather than trying to address deficient articles that appear at FAC), and generally generating review and cleanup work for other editors that is disproportionate to the content generated. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Another piece I forgot to add last night, the effect on admin actions. As a typical example, I once submitted a BLP issue to either the COI or the BLP noticeboard (intentionally avoiding the type of interaction that characterizes AN/I), someone else picked it up and reported it at AN/I, and the immature admins swarmed, creating unnecessary drama and ill will, escalating the issue without need. Eventually, a non-admin stepped in to calm the waters (and I've been trying to get him to RFA ever since). Immature admins are not typically equipped to handle delicate COI or BLP situations, but unfortunately don't realize that, and wade in anyway. Since then, I've been more careful to avoid all noticeboards, and go direct to a mature admin for assistance. Some of the rift between content contributors and admins might be traced to the increasingly younger age of the admin corp. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The other issue at RFA is that, because it is a vote, child adminship perpetuates via the MySpace, reward-seeking, IRC-chatting group supports, while a mature PhD or superior content contributor may be opposed because s/he hasn't engaged the typical admin-coached path, even though that person has demonstrated capacity and need for the tools. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? It's not like an admin gets any more of a vote on RfA than the next guy?  How does it self perpetuate?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Via the IRC, MySpace, secret page groups voting for each other, and curiously, often against editors of demonstrated maturity who haven't followed the path recognized among the group that dominates at RFA. (Consider those RfAs that aren't worth opposing because you know they'll pass anyway, and if you question the maturity of the nom, ageism will be charged.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, have you encountered any examples of an RfA influenced by IRC? –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 16:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look on my Talk you'll see that Sandy asked me to comment here. Sandy's discussion above seems a bit objective and impersonal. I suppose I can only put a face (or a sig) to her comments, as a near-casualty (from my point of view) of the friction along values-driven fault lines (you'll notice I didn't say age-driven, though age is certainly a proxy for values... see below). The observations she makes above are not hypothetical, as I'm sure you know. What you may not know is the emotional toll they can take on other editors. I've been near to quitting Wikipedia twice during my time here, and both incidents were cases where I invested major time and emotional energy in opposing the actions or planned actions of under-aged editors. When I was finished, I ended up being instrumental in obstructing their goals in both cases... but I was.. I wish the pixels on the screen could come to life and show you the emotional toll the two incidents took on me. I was a basket case.
 * The main problem, from my point of view, is this: under-aged editors are not reflective enough to step out of their own skins and at least countenance the possibility that their actions are simply ethically wrong. They don't slow up to discuss the possibility that they are wrong; they are too hell-bent to pass the GA (I wasn't initially involved in that one), pass the RfA (my first incident) or to get that bronze star for the FA (my second incident). In all cases, as Sandy pointed out, it's all about Approval. Younger editors are simply (but deeply) blinded by their need for Approval. The second problem is that it's easy for them to find groups of similarly-blind fellow under-aged editors. This isn't a case of the blind leading the blind; it's a case of the blind forming a scrimmage line (with "ageism" as their battle cry) and cheerily trampling others underfoot.
 * Let's talk concrete ramifications. In these incidents, we had folks swapping pass-for-pass for GA on IRC, divulging personal info as a means of retaliation for a souring RfA, and... how do I describe it? The FA incident was mind-blowing. An editor copied a foreign-language FA, used Google translate to translate the text (very badly, I have been told; I speak no French), NEVER CONSULTED OR READ EVEN ONE of the sources for the article, blindly copied over anti-American propaganda that was cited to a source that in actuality said exactly the opposite of the anti-American claims, never attempted to establish whether any info was missing (by searching for further sources).. and here's the topper of it all... in true MMORPG style, the editor(s) contacted the principal contributor to the French FA, told him people were French-bashing and French-wikipedia bashing, and asked him to come Support them in their FA drive. They went across the ocean via the Internet to stir up (or perhaps play upon) a meme of bad feelings between en.wiki and fr.wiki, all to get that bronze star&mdash; for an article they had simply copied without ever examining, copying propaganda in the process. These are real consequences. That FA was headed for a Pass, I believe, until I started trying to slam on the brakes. Everything about it (if you don't speak French) had a surface air  of credibility. FAC is undermanned; it is not impossible for folks to slip stuff through that is profoundly unacceptable.
 * Finally, emotional ramifications. Really, for quite a while, I felt like a lone voice crying out in the wilderness... and it was exhausting. It's exhausting, really exhausting, to fight a group of people who cheerfully trample upon all academic norms in the name of gaining Approval. They value Approval more than they value the norms of Wikipedia or of academia. That's the final word; that's the final problem. It's all about values. It's a values-driven conflict. They value Approval more than they value long-established Wikipedia processes (GA and FA). The value Approval more than they value other editors' fundamental right to privacy. They value Approval more than they value the goal of presentng academic-quality articles on the encyclopedia. They value Approval from Wikipedia (in the form of admin buttons, green dots and bronze stars) and from each other (in a process where the groupthink is a hotbed where they reinforce each others' blind spots.. crap.. folks were putting up userboxes saying they respected the decision of the young adult who divulged personal info during the RfA). They stand ready and willing to sacrifice Wikipedia processes, Wikipedia editors and academic standards for approval. They also stand ready to fight for their perceived right to that approval. In short, they don't get it. They don't get the fact that the world outside them is more important than the world inside them. They don't get it. And that's all. And it drove me once to being so burned out that I could barely log on. Chalk that up as another consequence: discouragement to those whose values are different. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 07:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide specific examples (by e-mail, if you do not want to name editors here)? I am very interested. Ruslik (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that this was a significant problem at WP. I'm following this thread with interest.  I shudder to think what I would have written at age 12 or so.  My sympathies.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe (who was a particularly helpful FAC reviewer) just gave up.  He was always troubled by the quid pro quos and award centers and the effect at FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While I understand where Sandy and Ling are coming from and would never say otherwise that the type of actions such as poor judgement, hasty FAC noms and sloppy writing in general are major issues, I feel one should "speak up for one's self" and state that there is little evidence that the above actions are perpetuated entirely or even mostly by children/child admins. People of all ages are capable of acting like children online and often do act like children online because "nobody can see me!" I'll admit when I was younger or even when I was made an admin (coincidentally, I passed RfA on my birthday) I had much less an idea about how to write quality articles, to the point that I've been sprucing up my old FA's with new sources and better prose because they are somewhat poor by my standards (and knowing my standards, you know that's bad :P). But the point is that in many cases it's not the age, but how long people have been on the Wiki which determines their online maturity. So in short: all the above are problems, but I very much doubt it's due to gangs of children; the child in the NYC video was actually rather articulate, engaged, and professional. Let's judge the content, not the contributors... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * David, I'm well aware that there will be a swarm of editors here to defend or deny the actions of the children, with arguments that have already been played out many times in other places. It would be nice to have one discussion where we could really examine the issues without the swarm of child defenders and without the misplaced charges of ageism. Although I doubt that will be possible, at least I've spoken up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec; butting in here) Adding my two cents here within going on a rant, I can name 10 admins off the top of my head under the age of 16 (of course, I'm not going to specify who). I think people mistakenly perceive children as inherent MySpacers, but they're really not. Sure, there are some immature kids on Wikipedia, but there are just as many, if not more, immature adults on Wikipedia. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of our most time-consuming FACs this year were not submitted by children, and some of our most misguided admins are not children. But it would be nice to have one discussion of the issues that do arise with children on the internet, and on Wiki.  It is not a given that most, or even many, children are equipped to deal with professional content generation or admin decision making or any of the other issues that occur on the internet. It is unfortunate that any discussion is often shouted down with charges of ageism, and it's politically incorrect to even question the maturity of a child at RfA; it would be nice to keep this discussion focused on the impact in content review processes.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely that content review processes need to be monitored for hasty nominations and other immaturity, but I believe that it isn't necessarily the fault of people below the age of 16 or 18. As a side note, the editor in question in the NYC meetup video appeared to behave in a very mature and professional manner. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, my son is 14. A pretty mature 14. I let him do a lot of things that most American parents wouldn't (no, nothing illegal) because he is pretty mature. But, he doesn't have what it takes to be an admin on Wikipedia. Nor do I let him edit Wikipedia. While I'm sure there are under age admins that do fine work, it's just a fact of life that younger people as a whole lack the maturity/judgement/experience, in general, of older folks. Yes, there are always exceptions, just as there are always exceptions with adults also. However, can we please discuss this without assuming that everyone who is discussing this is out to bar children from editing Wikipedia or is suffering from agism? Please? Let's not get defensive. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to do something very rare and use my actual degree here, so brace yourselves. The young man in the video was, as said, very articulate. Surprisingly so. His address to the NYC meetup is not characteristic of his age, nor that of people at about 25 years or older. I would say, just by his words and manners that he probably performs in the top percentile of children in his age range. He is, to summarize, extraordinary. It is a shame that the children who perform in the top percentile are grouped too often with their peers who do not share their sensitivities or their passions. Many people, despite age, who perform at such a level, often focus on issues and topics that interest them, and consume information only in order to learn more about the subject; no other reward is needed. Others, unfortunately, participate in the Wikipedia process only to gather accolades, that without the honest work that has gone into a task, are motivated so much by rewards and approval that the article work becomes meaningless over external gratification. We as yet have to devise a tool that assesses an editor's true motivation, regardless of age, so it is only experience that we may assess an editor is ready to be an administrator. For only the top percentile, I do not believe that age should be a prerequisite, but I recognize the pickle that puts the system in. I have also run into the award-seeking corner-cutting youth who do not value scholarship as much as they do rewards from their peers. I know it is exhausting and straining for all editors who value quality. With the system we have in place, I do not see a solution for this. Perhaps the young man in the video can create one. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Moni hits it on the nail here. I'm not trying to dissolve this into ageism crap (god knows that WT:RFA is full of that bonk), but minors will always edit wikipedia, and I don't see any solution that's feasible besides trying to educate all users about proper conduct or attempting to ban kids or make them feel unwelcome. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Very well said, Moni. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 15:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think all we can do is judge people by their actions at WP, regardless of age. Be careful casting votes at RfA. Kids using WP as a playground, treat them like any other problem editors. That kid in the video, though, is obviously striving for acceptance at WP, but in a positive way. He probably gets little of it at school, from what I care to remember of high school/junior high. Don't know who he is, but I hope WP is as welcoming to him as he deserves.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever the problems are, I think we're agreed that the solutions are going to be different in different places around the wiki. Since a single persuasive oppose can hold up a FAC, everyone who comes to FAC expecting to vote their way to success gets really frustrated and gives up.  I support the trend not to spend too much time and energy on these FACs.  It's a bigger problem at GAN, but note that GAN is in the process of switching over to a system of encouraging multiple reviewers, and that may over time start to insulate GAN as well.  RFA is a harder case, but note that 70%-80% is the bureaucrats' discretionary range, and bureaucrats are very good at sniffing out "write-in campaigns", and so are at least 20% of the voters, generally.  So, we seem to be heading the right direction. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that one of the problems is the award based structure. Most professionals come here to put needed content up. Most children come for the awards and atmosphere. This is not to say that these groups don't criss cross in motivation, but this is how I read the general state of things. I don't approve of the younger crowd, but there are exceptions. I definitely think that some of them only fuel drama and tend to start feuds that are detrimental. I will withhold names on who. I'm here for an encyclopedia aspect, and I believe that an encyclopedia is a scholarly tool. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * SG, whilst I believe you bring up important points regarding this issue (I acknowledge that younger editors are a problem in some of the processes, especially GAN) it is key to remember that not all younger-generation children are particularly the same – as has been mentioned and you, I think, accept. Saying that, the worst way to target these mindless editors is to automatically assume the worst – whilst they may validify some of these notions with their actions, it is almost an obligation of us (referring to the supposed wiki ethos of every editor being involved) not to remove them without justification. Each case should also be reviewed individually, without sounding like too much of a process-wonk. Whilst I may not agree with extreme options, particularly this one, the only realistic avenue of removing this timebomb is to set age restrictions (say, legal age in place of residence) on accounts – the implications of this would be drastic and would exclude several administrators, including myself. Caulde  00:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * blah blah blah "case by case" blah blah blah "very well said" blah blah false dilemma blah blah blah I'm good, you're good, we're all good, I love you, you love me, we're all fine, blah blah blah paint by numbers thread.. Funny. Why does it still suck so very very much? These discussions are so pointless and so predictable. And also pointless. And also predictable. Did I mention pointless and predictable? Hey, if you young folks wanna help the encyclopedia, then police your own ranks. Look for MMORPG behavior and steer the culprits in the right direction before RfA and before FAC. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't much point in saying anything different, otherwise all you get is "assumption of bad faith" this, "irresponsible administrator" that, shoved in your face. I am sure you are well aware that although this sentiment is shared by a large majority of the community, it never raises its head in these discussions and we just wait, waiting for the next time it happens where the exact same thing will happen over and over again. Caulde  00:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing solutions, Caulde; in fact, I don't imagine there are any. I was just surprised to see so many mature Wikipedians in a video who seemed unaware of the extent of the issues.  That we do have some mature child editors or admins on Wiki doesn't negate that there is a real problem.  Brad inquired about the effect on content review processes; I answered.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that. Perhaps the only realistic way to remove this obstruction is have to experienced editors vouch for the nominators and the nominated article before approval for a GAN/FAC whatever – at all processes. This would obviously incur the wrath of time, however. Caulde  00:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Caulde, I didn't understand a word of what you said about bad faith and waiting and so on. Care to fill in all the blanks for me? I'm slow. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it's way past my sleeping routine (hope you appreciate the irony) - I meant, if anyone provided real substance to a directive which stopped these mindless editors then that is what you would be called – precedent says that whenever you believe in something on here, there is always someone else who believes their point of view is stronger, and they end up winning - hence why this discussion is so perennial. SG's point of view, which I share, is so often oppressed (at WT:RFA and the such) it is difficult to see a way in which the "consensual" community would ever accept such a resolution. Caulde  00:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps for not the first time, I find myself in complete agreement with Ottava. Caulde is a young editor, and in the interests of full disclosure he and I have had run-ins in the past, over his claiming credit for work that he had not actually done. He knew better than me how to play the system. He is now an administrator, and I will never be an administrator. Go figure. I bear Caulde no ill will; he learned how to play the system and I didn't bother to take the same trouble. Maybe that's why there's a unhealthy preponderance of kiddie-admins? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I am offended that you would say that, you ageist scum! That is a personal attack!!! I'm dragging your soerry ass to ANI! Put up your dukes! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks MF, I love you too. Caulde  00:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ANI holds no fears for me. Been there, got the T-shirt. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

SG did not invite me to this party, but I have some experience with high-exposure pages of interest to young editors. I could document cases where content was copied from one article to another (when it obviously didn't apply), and other content apparently just made up. Some of these cases took a lot of time to identify as the content was supported by multiple accounts, which often turned out to be reincarnations of the same editors. I think this comes from the segment of online culture experienced. Younger editors often come to Wikipedia conditioned by a culture of myspace, youtube and blogs, and may not share the notion of a fact-based reference work. They often edit mainly to make the subject look better or worse (hence copying irrelevant material is OK and part of the game), and seem to act primarily to improve their online reputation or harm other's. Some level of education conditions editors with a culture of print encyclopedias, non-fiction works, textbooks and academic journals. Many such editors [with some level of education] give little or no concern to "online reputation". Gimmetrow 05:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't giving "little or no concern to 'online reputation'" inconsistent with the notion of gaming the system to collect what passes for bling on WP concluding with the Big Brass Ring of adminship? (though why that should be so attractive to the MeMeMe Generation, I have no idea) I'm just surprised that so many no doubt easily bored kids would be willing to put in so much misguided commitment to get prizes of dubious value here on WP and worth nothing in the real world.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Added bracketed phrase to clarify. But some users (probably more adolescent) create new accounts on a regular basis, which prevents collecting bling. Gimmetrow 11:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Then I don't see that anything is to be done except blowing off steam. Complaining about the other generation has been au courant since caveman days, since Ugggh complained about his son Grrr's penchant for using that newfangled stuff fire and actually being nice to his mate, why he hadn't even dragged her from her old cave by her hair.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your analogy seems very odd, as it equates youthful open-mindedness with falsified information. Are you really saying that "getting facts right" is merely one patriarchical point-of-view, and that youthful "anything goes, however false or unverifiable" is an equally acceptable point-of-view that the old folks ought to tolerate? Gimmetrow 15:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, of course not, my thought is, as I expressed above, that we should be less concerned with the age of editors, and worry about what they do here on WP individually. Hopefully they will become committed to the project, as the young editor downthread seems to have become.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is about issues particular to a class of editors. Of course, some very young editors can be remarkably helpful on topics they know, helpful enough to warrant fixing the grammar and so on. Also, young editors mature and become productive in other ways, and I'm happy to say I've seen this occur. My observation, however, is that some individuals in this class of editors treat information in a way other editors wouldn't. People can misunderstand or misinterpret a source, and I can vaguely understand the motivation behind "sneaky vandalism". But the specific issue I'm talking about - copying information from subject X to subject Y - doesn't seem to be about sneaky vandalism. It seems to be about making subject Y look better or worse without regard for the facts. I can't imagine any sufficiently-educated editor, even those I strongly disagree with, ever doing something like that. I don't know exactly where "sufficiently-educated" falls or what to do about it, but that's my observation. Gimmetrow 16:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Though I edit a few articles which are of interest to teenagers (mostly bands), it isn't something I've personally seen much of, so forgive me for not getting your point earlier. Although I have seen a lot of drama in attempts to label a band "emo", which is seen as denigrating.  So I guess I have seen it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant something a little deeper than just adding some "bad" genre to a band - that's just a form of vandalism. Gimmetrow 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to change the topic back from its current place, but I'm just kind of in awe of all that I've been discussed here.
 * Just to clear up a few things: I have done some bad things to Wikipedia (as you can all go look I was formerly blocked, not trying to hide anything). I also did hang out with the "Young Editors", some of which did not have the maturity they have now. However, I am trying my hardest to get on the upswing and help the Encyclopedia as much as I can.  And truth be told, adminship is at the back of my mind right now.  Once again, I'm kind of shocked about all this discussion.  Sam  Blab 13:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What is so surprising about it, if you don't mind clarifying. Many of these issues have been discussed at FAC talk, although I know not everyone keeps up with comments there. --Moni3 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very rare that I've been discussed positively. Because of my age, I've not been seen in very favorable light for quite a while.  Sam  Blab 14:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No one knows how old you are unless you tell us or it is very clear from the way you act and/or write. Early mistakes can be overcome.  Build some solid articles, do serious work on building this encyclopedia, and do good work in a way that avoids ticking people off (the true test for admin, IMHO), and there is no reason why your early misdeeds should count against you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * @Shapiros10, welcome! (From my point of view, this conversation isn't about you; it's about whether a group of experienced Wikipedians at a Meetup understand that there are issues with child editors, of which you may or may not be a typical representation.)  @Wehwalt, there usually is value in the real world to child adminship:  it's worth a sure write-up in the local newspaper. I imagine points on the playground as well.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All looks good on the college application, I guess. Or even private high school application . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this will be hard to hear, but we need to do what I've been saying for years: drain the swamp. Remove the awards. Remove the pages with huge edit counts. Kill the ability to promote yourself based on numbers or arbitrary figures. Once you kill that, you kill the motivating force that these kids have for coming here and doing the problematic actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Assuming good faith for a moment, have you considered that "kids" might be coming here to build an encyclopedia? I highly doubt deleting WP:AWARD and WP:WBE will completely eliminate youth participation. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 17:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want a nice, simple, and easily implemented suggestion, make WP:WBE opt-in instead of opt-out. That way the "gamers" would have to declare themselves as such by adding themselves to the list, and everyone could read into that as much or as little as they see fit. – iride scent  17:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Julian, wouldn't that be the point? Scare off the kids not here for building an encyclopedia? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's necessary. As I see it, the ultimate reward to the children is adminship, and they clog the content review processes as part of the route to adminship. That has to be addressed at RfA, where it is considered unacceptable to question the preparedness of a child to administer one of the net's largest websites, one that aims to be a professional reference work. Shining a light on the problem may be one part of resolving it; putting a lid on unreasonable charges of ageism whenever these discussions occur is another. We should be able to talk about the growing presence of children on Wiki, and its effect on content review processes, without the misguided use of the term "ageism". If we're going to deal with children, we should be realistic about ... children. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm interested Sandy in what you see as the "proper" response for the editors at the meetup, since that's what your main point is. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is funny how adminship is an award to a lot of people, but many o fthose same people vote on RfA saying that adminship is no big deal and it should be given out to many people. The contradiction bothers me. We should probably have something in which admin must disclose their real identity and only have 18+ to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec @ David) Again, I'm unsure if a different response was possible in that situation, as reactions may have reflected deference to the father and child present, and it may not have been the right time and place for a full discussion of the broader issues. My concern is how much awareness there is of the effect on content review processes, and some issues that spiral out of control at ANI. I'd have to watch the video again, but I remember one long discussion of a particular child RfA (can't recall the name), where the opposes seemed to be discredited as ageism. As I recall that RFA, the candidate presented as a content contributor based on one GA: in the sometimes quid pro quo world of GA passes, I need to see a lot more evidence of preparedness to administer Wiki than one GA. @Ottava, the meme that adminship is no big deal should have been put to rest long ago; it most clearly is. And children have figured how to rally round the cry of "ageism" to get it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are refering to this RfA, which eventually lead to an admin stepping down.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, gee, Sandy, it seems to me the appropriate thing to do was to oppose on the ground of lack of qualification. A content editor with one GA, maybe a couple of diffs of the candidate putting indifferent material into the article or showing immature behavior.  Don't play on their playground, you are a longtime evaluator of content, make them play on yours, don't mention age, mention edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone will remember the name on that particular RfA, but in that case, although I recall that I did do just that, the opposes were still discussed in the context of ageism in the meetup video. Ageism is a rallying cry that prevents us from evaluating the children to the same standard as other editors. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 17:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Julian: Requests for adminship/JamieS93.  I hadn't remembered that you were a co-nom (but that explains some statements elsewhere from Majorly).  IRC redflags went off early in that nom.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize that it was a mistake to mention IRC in the nomination statement, but in all honestly, IRC had no influence in that RfA. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 17:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ageism here is the same as any other measure to determine if someone can handle something or not. Just because it has an "ism" behind does not mean that it is wrong. That is a problem with our society. Its okay to discriminate, because the term itself means to choose from what is good or not. We should be picky, and we should be careful. We are here to have best product, and we need the best people. Children are not allowed to vote for a reason. They are not allowed to have legal authority for a reason. etc etc. Children have not mentally and emotionally developed fully. Sure, there are ones that may be more developed, but those extra years of experience are a part that you cannot suddenly gain out of no where. Once of the problems right now with FAC is the same mentality of people pushing through children admin: they don't care about it being the best, they just want the recognition. I rarely put any of my work through FAC and I wont attempt to put most of it through. Why? Because we should hold every aspect to the highest standards and work towards an ideal. The more we just pass things through to have more passed through, the lesser the rest becomes. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, it is a rather hideous read, that RfA. Do we have any examples of any RfAs where the nomination succeeded, and justified opposes were cried down with shouts of "ageism"?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Best not to name names here :-) But I've seen several that got so full of the multi-colored sigs on Support that I knew it was futile to oppose, and didn't bother.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of people, myself included, don't get involved in RfA's that are going to pass once they reach the tipping point. Once an RfA gets 20 Supports (and no more than 1 or 2 opposes) the RfA is for all practical purposes is successful.  A strong oppose won't really matter, which is the problem with RfA's.  If candidate A runs for adminship and one of the first 10 people to !vote is a strong oppose, then that candidate might as well withdraw.  The RfA is doomed.  The same oppose coming after 20 supports won't matter because the RfA is going to pass.  Part of the problem is that most people are too lazy to:
 * Do their own research into the candidate, there is too much of an emphasis to "beat the nom."
 * Review the !votes after they chimed in.
 * Change their !vote for fear of looking like they didn't know what they were doing when they made their initial vote.
 * Cling to notions such as "Adminship is no big deal" or "Why the hell not."
 * Most RfA's are determined not by people who actually review the candidates, but by people who vote support almost all the time! 25% of people who vote in RfA, support 90% or more of the time!  47% support 80% of the candidates, and 65% support 70% of all candidates. 90% support over 50% of the candidates they review.  Only 10% of the project oppose more than 1 out of 2 candidates they !vote on.  (NOTE: This was not a scientific study.)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The latest RfA nominee does, on the surface, seem to have a lot of those characteristics. Five months as an editor, a fair number of DYK, two rather borderline (to my jaundiced eye) GAs created in only a couple of weeks, and barely 2000 edits. User:Suntag, by the way. However, he does have positive interaction with some editors I respect, so I don't know.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm disturbed that Wizardman was willing to nominate such an inexperienced user. That is not including the various problems that the user has demonstrated in addition to that while at DYK. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think they're reasonable over at the RfA in asking for diffs. I'm still looking into the guy.  I'm really raising my eyebrows at his GAs, they are really borderline.  The park one especially.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think those GAs are borderline at all, but I won't say more for fear of encouraging SandyG. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. I'm carefully reading the park article now, and wondering how the guy got away with such an awful lede and the use of "grassy expanse recreational area", a phrase otherwise unknown to google, TWICE in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Break 1
I have a lot to say on this topic. I'll try to add my two cents later today. Awadewit (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! (No hurry, I won't archive it at month end.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the things that bothers me the most is that the youngest children (those under 12 certainly) often have no understanding of what real scholarship is. They are still learning how to evaluate a sources's reliability and appropriateness, how to properly interpret the information they read, and how to assign weight to different aspects/opinions. The overwhelming majority of these very young kids simply don't get it - primarily because they haven't been taught yet or because they aren't mature enought yet to understand what they are being taught. And generally, young children are not introspective enough to realize how much they don't know. So what happens? Many of them come to wikipedia and begin writing articles. Many times, very bad articles. The children are happy with their contribution because they don't realize how much they don't know. Then those articles come to GA/FAC/DYK. Experienced contributors are often sucked into trying to train these children on how to do basic research, which takes a great deal of time and often has minimal impact. As far as these children are concerned, they are equal to all other editors (because it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, after all), and they are often unwilling to believe that they are wrong or that they don't know something. It leads to emotional stress for the children and often for the experienced contributors who got sucked in (as Ling.Nut mentioned above). Teenagers are more hit and miss; many of them have already been trained in research techniques and can put together very good articles and/or can be easily guided onto the right path. Other teenagers still have no clue and operate at about the disruption level of the young children. I don't think we should allow anyone under the age of 12 to edit, although how that could be effectively enforced I don't know. I don't think we can do anything about the teenagers, because enough of them do great work to balance out those that cause lots of work. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, there are plenty of children editors who are mature and avoid drama, Julian, for example, is an admin. I don't see why this has generated such a heated discussion, as I personally oppose ageism (though I will never run for adminship). I'm rather young and haven't done anything incredibly immature. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 17:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are indeed some teenagers who are excellent contributors and who are quite mature; they appear to be outnumbered by the throngs of young children (12 and under) and the teenagers who have yet to reach a higher maturity level. In my experience, very few young children notice or understand the problems that can be caused by young editors. This, unfortunately, means that those young children can't fix the problematic behavior (either in themselves or by pointing it out to others in their age group), because often they aren't mature enough to recognize why the behavior is problematic.  Because, after all, what is wrong with our behavior as long as we aren't flat-out vandals?  When problems (or potential problems) are pointed out, the children tend to get defensive.  Most simply don't have the maturity level (yet) to handle criticism well, especially since they can't understand why what they did is different from what so-and-so did.  Many resort to crying "ageism" to show that it's really those mean old adults who have a problem.  Note: Ceranthor, please don't take this personally, as it is not intended to be a reflection on only your behavior; you may, however, want to rethink whether you've "done anything incredibly immature".  Karanacs (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Karanacs, that is merely a lack of experience, not maturity. I have shown remorse for that action, and moved on. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 19:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

First, let me say that I am going to avoid questions of legality and privacy in the following discussion; it is therefore quite incomplete. No discussion of children on Wikipedia can really be complete without an integration of these issues. However, as the above discussion has avoided these topics, I will try to stay focused on how children affect the content review process.

In these discussions, I always think that it helps to add some context. Everyone so far seems to be taking it for granted that "childhood" exists and is easy to define. However, scholars who study the concept have argued that the concept actually emerged during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Before that time in Europe and America, "childhood" was really only conceived of in what we would call "biological" terms. The idea that children were not mature enough to be part of society did not exist in the same way that it does now - that idea was a very specific development. The notion of an "age of consent" and an "age of reason" developed during the Reformation and the Enlightenment. In Holly Brewer's book By Birth or Consent, she outlines the development of this idea and some examples of what life was like before this notion transformed European society and family life. These examples will help us to understand why "childhood" is such a specific category now: ""In sixteenth-century England, children over the age seven were of ‘ripe age’ to marry (under seven they could contract only ‘espousals,’ or betrothals). Four-year-olds could make wills to give away their goods and chattels. Children of any age could bind themselves into apprenticeships. Eight-year-olds could be hanged for arson or any other felony. Teenagers were routinely elected to Parliament. Children who owned sufficient property could vote. And custody as we know it did not exist....In Pennsylvania in 1811, two-year-old Phoebe Stuart still placed her mark at the bottom of an apprenticeship contract, indicating that she consented to her indenture." (1)" A cross-cultural analysis of how "childhood" is defined across the world would more than likely reveal even more variations than these brief historical examples. It is thus first worthwhile considering that not every society has accepted that children are "less mature" than adults and incapable of participating in society. Wikipedia has challenged this notion, one which has embedded itself in Western society. Such challenges are often met with resistance. Before we decide to what extent we want to join this resistance, we should be aware of what ideas precisely we are challenging. There is a lot more to be said on this topic, but I doubt most people want to read long paragraphs on the history of childhood. So, let me just add that being aware of the history of this concept will help us understand our own predispositions and reactions.

In looking at the arguments above for why children are a drain on content review process, I was struck by several issues. "Children" seemed to be defined by age (an outgrowth of the idea of the "age of reason"), but the characteristics listed for these child editors, such as reward-seeking behavior, lack of ethical reflections, and ignorance, are clearly problems not limited to people of any particular age. Some of the editors above want to claim that children under the age of 12 are particularly prone to these behaviors, However, before broadly tarring such a large group with these negative characteristics, I would prefer to have some solid scientific evidence that backs up the anecdotal impressions of the editors in this discussion. Furthermore, even if every piece of the argument were true, I would still argue that we should encourage editors of all ages to participate fully in content review processes. Here is why.

Wikipedia encourages everyone to contribute. It therefore has a responsibility to educate its editors so that they can contribute reliable, well-written material. If Wikipedia wanted only educated professionals whom it did not have to train, it would not be the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" - it would be a traditional encyclopedia. I'm really quite saddened that no one here argued that we should be teaching editors to improve. Of course, teaching editors to sift through sources is difficult and plagarism is worrisome, but these problems are hardly isolated to editors under twelve. Each semester in Jbmurray's college course, which develops Wikipedia articles, we have had these problems: There is no fast, efficient solution to these problems. Teaching editors the ins and outs of research and writing is time-consuming, that is true, but if we really do not want to do this, we should dispense with the charade of saying we want this to be place where amateurs can contribute. We should recruit only PhDs, whom we will not have help.
 * Talk:Who Would Have Thought It?
 * Talk:Who Would Have Thought It?
 * Talk:Facundo/Archive 1

As far as I can tell, the problems listed by the above editors are in no way isolated to child editors. If they occur to a greater degree in child editors, I have seen no evidence of that. However, even if this were to be demonstrated, I would argue that educating children to research and write well is a time investment that we should all make. Frankly, what is lost in teaching more people to research and write?

Perhaps it is worth pointing out that one could replace the word "children" in many of these posts with the word "Wikipedia editors" and you will see what many academics think of our community. In my efforts to recruit academics to work on Wikipedia articles, I often hear arguments similar to those I have heard there: it would take too much time to teach the layperson to research and write a proper article, the layperson is just too uninformed to contribute adequately, etc. These arguments are just as spurious in that context as they are in the argument about child editors. Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Quid pro quo
I am against the quid pro quo deals that you offer your special people, like User:GrahamColm []. I suggest you try to diminsh your favoritism, or at least the blatant appearance of it. Attempt a semblance of impartiality, if you can muster that. I looked at the "200 edits" he did as part of the deal. Judge for yourself if they were meaningful. If I do a similar 200 edits, will you leave me alone. (I had to follow after him and correct his typos and wrongful wording in many cases.  Does that count?) (Oh, dear, no diffs, so trash me please.) Cheers, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 08:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, I was tempted to ignore this because it is absurd. But you cannot make these accusations and remain unchallenged. The joke I made has already been fully explained and you seem to be confusing edits with reviews. With regard to my "typos and wrongful wording", please provide the diffs—I'm always pleased to learn from having my editing corrected. Graham Colm Talk 08:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to play the diff game. I have seen how Sandy distorts them to prove what she wants. Perhaps you could show some good faith and accept my word. Some of them were very recent. However, I an effectively banned from FAC and hopefully banned from Wikipedia soon, so I have no incentive to play the FAC game anymore. You know the truth. I do not need to prove anything to you. If I had a way of locating the recent FACs, which I don't know how to do, I would find them. But frankly I don't care. You know the truth of the stupid quid pro qoes. I am using your own words. The hypocracy and self righteousness of you FAC favorites is repulsive. Why don't you provide some diffs to prove me wrong? Oh, that's right! Your are priviledged, do what you are told so you don't have to do anything except pretend to be nice. Cheers! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 08:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. You better toe the line and continue in the "niceness" role, or you will have your guts torn out. I do not blame you for bowing down to avoid the wrath of those that control. I am just not the type that accepts overriding dictatorial authority. Sorry! I am part of the 60's generation which is why I know the Harvey Milk article is POV. I was there. But heck, I am not a FAC favorite. And don't want to be. It is demeaning enough to have their petty RFC regarding me, but more demeaning would be to be considered one of them, eligible for the pat on the head quid pro quos. Your are a different generation, I think. I prefer the RFC to your role. Cheers again! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 08:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm...funny you should take the exchange so seriously...treat it like saying someone has ADD. Mattisse, this is embarrassing. Take a breather. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm....Not sure to which exchange you are referring. This one perhaps?|Kept promise kept (quid pro quo) This is one of my first posts ever on this page, and almost surely the first in more than a year since I was ostracized! Hard to take breather when your fight or flight response has been revved up to the boiling point by what has transpired.  Warmest Cheers!  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The mention of Harvey Milk got my attention, of course. I tend to blather on about the extent of research I did for that article. Instead of "the diff game", this is more of a case of the citation game policy if you're claiming the article is POV. You are more than welcome to discuss this on the talk page of the article. I'll pull all my stuff out and go through it all, and I'll take new suggestions for sources I missed or did not have access to and do my best to get them. Otherwise, if you cannot provide reliable sources with due weight, for my own blissfulness I shall skip over your further commentary on that article and engage in fruitful discussions with editors who use sources. The entire reason Wikipedia exists is to challenge a single view of knowledge; to force people to prove how they know what they know and weigh and balance it against what others know. Though I respect you were in San Francisco in the 1960s or 1970s, your individual observations are not enough to alter the article. Surely you know this with your background of article review. I was not in San Francisco in the 1960s or 1970s. In fact, I've only been there twice. Maybe that makes my ignorant approach more appropriate for Wikipedia because sources are all I have to rely on. --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The other side of the "contributor" coin
Sandy, I'll back you all the way on respecting the encyclopedic contributors here, but there is also a dark side. Have a read at Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes, which discusses on its face the difference between use of field. I couldn't find anything about in the MOS, but the references section for Yttrium seems to confirm it. Do you know this to be true?
 * Usually the URL field is only filled in if it links to the full, free text of a journal article (DOIs and PMIDs typically link only to abstracts). If the DOI already links to the free full text, there's no need for an additional URL. But if the DOI is only an abstract, and the free full text URL is also available, it could be linked.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

FCDW/TempFPreview
Is there anything else that should be simplified? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's looking much better now! Thanks for all the work; that one was a really long haul.  I don't understand this at all:
 * Technical limitations affect the depth of field, and can make it impossible to get all parts of the image in perfect focus, but any compromises made should be appropriate to the subject of the image.
 * and I'm not crazy about the lead image and the complicated formatting there, since it fights with the banner. I'd rather delete it, if you don't mind.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The formatting was mainly to allow it to be right aligned. I think it's a little weird to have an article on featured pictures that doesn't lead with one. Feel free to delete the comment on depth of field - that may be better left for a more detailed report. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On those two items, it looks good now. Can we cut the gallery in half?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The sad thing is I already did cut it by about a third, and couldn't bring myelf to cut others. If you want to cut some feel ree, just make sure it still shows breadth and variety of FPCs Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I need advice
When you were a newcomer to FAC, what did you do when someone questioned your reviewing ability? At a current FAC, a fellow reviewer said that my (weak) support was "lowering the bar", thereby indicting me and my reputation at FAC. I won't name names, but the reviewer is well known at FAC and is probably watching this page anyway. I wrote a brief defense of my position at the FAC (feel free to dump to talk page), but I'd like to know what you think I should do if I face a similar situation in the future. I'm a little upset, but hoping to learn something from this.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 17:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand being upset; most reviewers who engage at FAC are proud of their work, take it very seriously, and are justifiably upset when their professionalism, motive or intent seem to be questioned. Thank you for the consistent, productive and valuable effort you contribute to FAC.  I'd like to think I reacted in a certain way when I was a reviewer and similar happened to me, although I'm not sure I always lived up to the standard I expected of myself :-)  As a reviewer, I tried to be able to detach somewhat: to remember that the right decision would be made by Raul, it wasn't ultimately "my problem" what decision was reached, and to just put enough info on the page to give Raul what he needed to make a decision (or the nominator enough info to solve the problems), without going off the rails.  Then, when he made his decision, I forgot about it, let them go. I do try to understand the posting styles and personalities of most of the regular FAC reviewers, so that I can read commentary in context.  You're doing fine; please don't worry, and try to keep an open mind re your interpretations of comments from other editors (it could be a misunderstanding :-).   Now, if we could just get rid of that 17–14 ...  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Three more wins and it will be gone. :-) Thanks for the response; I will continue to do what I'm doing and keep an open mind. Those are probably the secrets to being a good reviewer by themselves.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Three more wins and it will be gone." You New Yorkers ... you have to learn about curses and holding your tongue until The Fat Lady Sings :-))  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you know? While I'm here, I'll look at Orval Grove later ... much later.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 22:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have I mentioned that I hate football more than I dislike basketball? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA nomination
Would you like to run for adminship? I would like to nominate you, and I'm sure you'd pass.--Patton t /c 17:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sandy, your talkpage really needs a FAQ. – iride scent  20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That could be scary; it would need to be done in jest, and I don't have it in me (now). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The first offer of the year... what is the over/under for 2009? I'll posit 11.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With the way the last month of my life has gone, I'm pretty sure that anything I do in 2009 will not turn out well; 2009 has decided to kick my butt. Oh, well.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, I take it that means that you are taking the over?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You got that right. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins never have cocktail parties with black dresses. Just saying.  :)   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In my world, they do :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well as a newer editor I don't the situation with msot editors, and whether they want be admins or not lol. Bette rlook into it in future.--Patton t /c 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was kind of you to inquire :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right Patton123, she should be an admin. One of the few editors I know who is fully qualified.  --KP Botany (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record I count 22 times in 2008 where it was explicitly or implicitly suggested Sandy should run for admin: Unfortunately this falls short of the figure of 25 for which Moni suggested we should have to do an FA of Sandy's choice. See also Special:Whatlinkshere/WP:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia :) Dr pda (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch29
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch30
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch30
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch33
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch33
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch33
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch35
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch36
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch40
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch40
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch40
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch40
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch41
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch43
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch44
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch46
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch46
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch47
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch47
 * User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch48
 * User talk:Kakofonous/Archive_4
 * User talk:Balloonman/archive 12
 * Dr pda, you are a danger to society ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the oldest mention I could find of an offer of an RFA. It seems Sandy has never wanted to be an admin. Becoming an admin is not a goal, or eventuality of wiki. There are many long-term contributors who have never desired or needed adminship. This is after all, an encyclopedia; the only goals are writing articles.
 * Even I offered to nominate Sandy at one point a very long time ago, though it was by email, and unfortunately, I don't seem to have the email any longer. She declined then too.  Majorly  talk  00:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the inquiries I've received have been via e-mail. Here's my January 23, 2007 response to you, Majorly, since you mentioned you no longer have it. "Hi, - thanks for writing, and I apologize for the delayed response - I just returned from travel.  I'm honored that you've asked, but no, adminship isn't my cup of tea.  Too much politics, too many chores to take one away from the parts of Wiki I like.  Thanks for asking, S"  More significantly, I wonder when we're going to do away with this notion that adminship is no big deal:  the number of times I've been asked (or better stated, the number of times I've seen mention that I'm not an admin) argues that it is a big deal.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checked my e-mail: actually, the first inquiry I received was on October 5, 2006, not the Jaranda link above.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked her by email at least twice, so count them. User:ArielGold is probably a close second to Sandy in rejected RFA noms.  — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, I've had WP:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia watchlisted since ~July. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  00:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had it watchlisted for nearly two years. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever asked her to run for Admin, although I've given some half way in jest offers to nominate her for 'crat... she keeps complaining about the people being promoted there what better way than breaking all the norms... skip adminship and become an 'crat ;-)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 00:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be thrilled if I had one good FAC review from every person requesting that I submit to RFA. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Good" review? I guess that disqualifies me. But (surprising?) I don't think that I've ever requested Sandy to go through an RfA. I think she would make a great CU though. XD Ottava Rima (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could create a new account, "Sandy.Georgia", redirect it here and steal Sandy's signature and run with it. If Sandy would be nice enough to tell us when she won't be online I bet we could get a hundred or so votes before someone realized it was a sham :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 02:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, David maybe that's an April Fools idea? ;) The  Helpful  One  17:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I for one would delete such an RfA on sight, even on April Fools day. It is one thing to create a faux RfA ala Kurt Weber's this past year making fun of oneself, it is a different thing to use another person.  While S.G. would undoubtably get over 1000 supports, she does have detractors, who might use the RfA setting to make attacks/comments they normally would not.  It also would be unfair to Sandy as it would put unfair and undo attention/pressure on her.  If she doesn't want it, she doesn't want it, and even as an April Fools joke, it would not be funny.  (Although as an idea for one, it did bring a chuckle to my eye.)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, now, Balloonman, don't go triggering my weakness for chuckling eyes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand Sandy's reluctance; I often wonder if running for adminship was a good decision on my part. I always thought I could put down the tools and go back to my plow, but it ain't that simple. Even so, I'd have given up the tools awhile back as more trouble than they're worth, except that I would miss the ability to see deleted revisions. MastCell Talk 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nail --> head, oh wise one :-) Yomangani is an exemplar in this respect, and I imagine he enjoys Wiki more now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thich Quang Duc
Clarified that Q on the POST. Hopefully I don't cop a stack of FARs for POV :P.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Oh dear, it looks like your talk page is being vandalized by 4chaners. I'm sorry :( Raul654 (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the only irritating part was how long it took me to figure out where it was coming from :-) (I don't know blocking policy well: should anything else be done thru the 15th with the four IPs who posted here? )  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Know thy enemy. Also, be afraid. Be very afraid. You can easily connect the nature of those entries to a discuss had above, but I wont mention which one, cause some of those above are admin. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can educate me via e-mail. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Sandy, I am sending you an email with respect to these accounts; posting on your page may be somewhat WP:BEANS-y at the moment. I'll look for your response. Apologies for the inconvenience.  Risker (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, I responded. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened to Wikipedia?
It seems as if everything is going downhill; maybe I've just been away too long. There are a few bright spots, such as the new notability guideline for fiction (it's a reasonable incarnation of my original proposal). How are things at FAC? &mdash; Deckiller 19:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Link me to the new guideline? I think you are correct that things are slow everywhere (in terms of both articles and editors); hopefully it's not a long-term trend.  You may know that Marskell is gone?  If you're back for a while, some FAC/FAR reviews would be most welcome :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm probably just passing through and having a heart attack. If I do stay, it'll be to work on fiction articles; not to sound arrogant, but my semi-retirement seems to have caused a downturn in some areas. I plan on returning fully...sometime before I go back to school for my second degree (this fall). After all, I'll need to brush up my researching and writing skills for school... &mdash; Deckiller 19:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and new guideline: Notability (fiction). Needs an audit, but it's not too bad. &mdash; Deckiller 19:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the heart attack; we need you! (Tony has also backed off on FAC reviews, to my dismay.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which subject area? And I heard that Raul is the reason why Wikipedia is going downhill - he tripped over a power cord and killed the backup servers, so they lost all of our progress. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Final Fantasy. Many of the articles need to be restored to their original glory, and the rest need to be elevated to GA status; in other words, we need to pick up where we left off if Final Fantasy is to remain the most encyclopedic area of fiction on Wikipedia. It's probably already lost that distinction; I've been out of the loop for 15 months, after all. &mdash; Deckiller 04:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodness, has it really been that long? And my house has now flooded twice since we chatted during my first flood :/  I may be growing old on Wiki!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Deckiller, I've been helping to take care of the FF topic while you have been gone. We're close to completing the topic once again. You in? :D Gary King  ( talk ) 05:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (reset)I'm back with a vengeance; I want to see Final Fantasy get back to its glory days, and I have plenty of suggestions. Not sure how active I'll be, but I am more than willing to be the moral supporter and adviser. After that, who knows. I posted on WT:FF. &mdash; Deckiller 05:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispatches formatting
That's totally fine, I thought the report could do with a tidy; I was actually reading WP:ACCESS very recently so it's odd that I forgot about it so quickly. It would be much better for layout if we could right-align images in the Signpost, but the title down the side stops us doing this without resorting to bad code. Apologies, P retzels Talk! 19:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How...
Behind am I at FAC? I plan to deal with sourcing issues for new and older FACs tomorrow morning, I just hope I haven't fallen too far behind. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure ... I'm going to start reading through now, will be gone most of the morning, and will flag you if I find anything dire. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Featured article candidates/Meshuggah needs update. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Featured article candidates/Jack Kemp needs source check. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've checked JK at least twice ... at some point I just cannot bear to check it again. It's like huge and it passed a check in its last FAC. TTT doesn't usually change much between FACs, so I'm being lazy. Same for Meshuggah, it's had a number of source checks, it's a repeater at FAC, and the last time it was a "leaving things out for other reviewers to decide for themselves" type thing. At some point I get tired of seeing the same candidates over and over and over again, and if they've passed a check earlier, I generally don't bother unless it appears that wholesale changes to the sourcing have taken place. (In other words, I'm trying to keep some time for editing my own articles, not everyone elses) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw some that were left out on Meshuggah; I guess I'll carry them forward? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that'll work. It's reached a point on that one where the nominator and I reached an impass on the sourcing for a few items, and since I'm trying to get some of the reviewers to think about sourcing and not leave it all up to me... I left the nominator's rationale out for others to look at and decide. (Yes, not only am I tired and cranky, but I'm sneaky too.) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand :-) You leave them out for reviewers, and then reviewers ignore them and your work.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not everyone does, thankfully. And I can honestly say that most of the articles coming to FAC are improved in sourcing since I started, it just sometimes feels like very slow progress. But I'm tired and cranky tonight, which isn't helping my mood. Catch me tomorrow night and I'll probably be less cranky. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But it says right here on this website that aliens built the pyramids - I mean, it's on the web, so, of course it happened. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, slashdot has an article up about UFOs wiping out a wind turbine today... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to go get food at the grocery store, but when I get back I'll tackle FAC. Anything that you need done asap because it's on the cusp of being promoted or archived? I'll try to get those done first, if you let me know you need them done. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to read through a bit later, but from what I saw last night, everything that is close is already checked. I'll post here if I find anything urgent.  Nice winter we're having, huh?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Thursday's high is supposed to be 5. With wind chills around -20. Lovely. Just lovely. And THIS is the week my horse has to get the snots and I get to go put meds in him three times a day.. joy! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Caught up. Fun stuff! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Equestrianism
Can you possibly get to the article being discussed in the last section, right now no one has access to the full text, just the abstract. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn those years of horseriding :-) Give me a PMID and I'll try to scare up the fulltext.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. abstract doi:
 * Dead link ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird. I never found a PMID, just the doi. It's "Ultrasonographic and Doppler Findings of Subclinical Clitoral Microtraumatisms in Mountain Bikers and Horseback Riders" in the Journal of Sexual Medicine published online 9 Dec 2008. The main issue is that the person wanting to insert the info doesn't have access to the original full text, just the abstract, and a newspaper/tv article that reported on the study. My understanding of the med RS stuff was that this wouldn't be the best sort of sourcing possible, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct; if the person who is inserting the text hasn't read the full journal article, they haven't accessed the source. Period.  We can't base citations on abstracts only, or on media reports.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above link may not work because of the ?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 at the end. Try without this, or go to http://dx.doi.org and paste in the doi. Also, it looks like the article hasn't been published in print yet as it appears in the 'Early Views' section of the journal webpage. (Oh, and I don't have access to the fulltext either.) Dr pda (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've seen the abstract now ... the study is based on six subjects; there are WP:MEDRS issues there even without seeing the full text. (Back to biking and riding.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I thought. I'm just not up on medical stuffs. We'll see where it goes, but I'm thinking it's not a reliable source for the article, myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a chance to look at the text (reading FAC and will be out tomorrow), but at most, the article could say "An uncontrolled study on a very small sample (six patients) suggests ... " with a few words. Not worth more than a sentence.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is a reliable source per WP:MEDRS, although a weak one. The big problem is what comes after "suggests".  The editor wants to use the article to support a statement that it cannot support.  Leave it to WikiProject Medicine?  --Una Smith (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a weak primary source, weak because it's a small sample size, unreplicated and an uncontrolled study. Per WP:MEDRS, "In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources can add greatly to a medical article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources."  The conclusion of this source, notably contains "Further studies should be undertaken to determine the clinical significance of the described ... "  So the study is of very little use.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Una Smith (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I finally got a chance to look at the full talk page discussion, and the article, and it looks to be under control. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I commented there as well, since I'd read the paper. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment
I posted at the WP:MILHIST talk page to try to get some more eyes on this stalled review. Maybe the watchers of this talk page may be enticed to do the same? :) It'd be a shame to have to archive this one because of a lack of reviews. Budding Journalist 09:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC) (Still traveling/busy)...and what's this I see on my watchlist...Deckiller's back???
 * Thanks for doing that. Yes, it seems D/K is back!  (And Laser brain, too!)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

PANDAS
I'm swamped. I'd like to help but I'm prioritizing in terms of page views, and working on photosynthesis wins out in that regard. I might have a bit of time at the weekend, but nothing soon. Sorry :( Tim Vickers (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
for your efforts, yesterday, and at other times! It has been much appreciated. --Slp1 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded on your talk, and tried to locate someone who can help :-( This is not a good sign for 2009.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (copied from my Talk) The most likely hypotheses I can think of are 1) Slp1 had her Watchlist open, tried to revert vandalism to another article, and clicked the entry above or below it instead; 2) she saw the edit, mistakenly thought it was unconstructive, and clicked the rollback button. I use Twinkle extensively and have warned a fair share of editors for its misuse, and (as someone completely uninvolved) her edit did seem very, very problematic. If I'd known Slp1's background I would have been puzzled, if not I probably would have issued a warning; it is particularly concerning that she did not self-revert after realizing the mistake (the edit was only reverted five minutes later). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This just popped up on my radar, and I'm looking over it now.--Tznkai (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both for looking: I just know that Slp1 would not knowingly have done that, and it was some kind of mistake. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi
Could you relist the FAC? This is the second time that the article did not get enough response, even though the formatting and writing style was perfect. I had intended to ask for the FAC to be relisted before the FAC had ended. I do not feel it looks good for this article to have gone through five FACs without being promoted, even though the article was perfect by its fourth nomination. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Please add the link so I can respond more quickly and completely. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Here's the link. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
 * There were no edits to the article for over a week, and ongoing sourcing and image concerns. Responses to FAC should be timely: even more so when the page is backlogged.  Taking a few weeks to assure images and sources are worked out, and responding to the FAC in a timely manner, will give a better chance at success next time through.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-drama at its best
So, let's talk baseball, because ANI has been a little bit over-the-top, even if my favorite Arb member is the target. I was watching a rerun of American Chopper, yes I own and ride motorcycles, although my style is more BMW's than choppers. Anyways, they had an episode where they were building a New York Yankees bike for Jorge Posada's charity. His son has an obscure disease, and he set up a foundation for it. The chopper was all Yankees theme, and they showed where one of the characters went to Milwaukee during a game with between the Brewers and Yankees to get the whole team and coaching staff sign the gas tank. Even though I hate the Yankees, I would have wet myself meeting Derek Jeter, A Rod, Don Mattingly, Mel Stottlemyre, and Joe Torre. You might have enjoyed it too. Except for Johnny Damon. You might have spit on him. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 02:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I almost posted to your page, thinking the same thing (we need a good baseball thread)!! Anything just to help me not reach for the popcorn and say something about Elonka's post to that thread ... which amounts to, lob unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo (like someone else used to do), oh, and if you want to know more detail, e-mail me and I'll spread my version of the truth backchannel ... which translates to ... gossip ... the worst post on that thread, and the kind of behavior I most abhor.  Those who don't learn from history and all that.  FT2 will eventually do himself in between the lack of contact with the community, the lack of article contributions, and the tendency towards arrogance; no need to add more fuel to that fire.
 * Me, spit on Johnny Damon ?!?!? Not a chance.  Love him; it's all about "know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em" and we had him when the time was right.  Without his hair, he does look like he's not fully evolved, though. And lucky for him, the Yankees seem to be teaching him how to talk (Red Sox went for the caveman effect :-).  I wouldn't cross the street to meet A-Rod ... heck, I wouldn't speak to him if I were seated next to him on an airplane ... but Posada and Jeter are good guys (they just play for the wrong team, which has bad fans).  Posada has always been a gentleman, and Jeter convinced me that he was more than a pretty boy when he dove in to the stands a few years ago. And Joe Torre, can't complain about him at all.  Just don't get me started on Clemens and his bat throwing.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like this? Bishonen | talk 04:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC).
 * A higher pass threshold at RFA might have helped (I've always believed anything below 80% should fail). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand why we all have such a high opinion of Elonka (and Bish, thanks, you saved me from getting involved with a sardonic reply from me to Elonka)--but what is SG's problem with A-Rod??????!!!!!!?????? Oh, wait a minute, it must be that he spurned the Sox for the Yankees.  LOL.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 07:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all (thank goodness we didn't get him; team chemistry matters for the Red Sox). Let's start with this (we can expand later):  have you ever watched him play?  (I mean, live, not on TV?)  How would you compare his character, demeanor and temperment to, for example, a Billy Mueller or a Mike Lowell ?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did when he was in Seattle, but that has to be 10 years ago. So, do tell.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He comes across (to me, at least) as playing to the crowd rather than for the team, as if he has some desperate need for fan attention that keeps him from being fully in the game. Perhaps that happened to him in the media glare of NYC; perhaps he was different in Seattle, I dunno, I didn't pay much attention to him then.  He has an unnatural way about the way he swaggers between plays ... lacking in confidence, trying to camouflage it with bravado, in contrast to the quiet steady workhorses like Lowell, Varitek or Mueller, who just put their heads down and get the job done.  IMO, his personality would have been destructive for the Red Sox (maybe it has been for the Yankees, too?).  And ... his issues with women seem to confirm.  I really don't care if he's one of the best players ever: it's his character that keeps the ring from his finger. Theo Epstein figured out early on the importance of the team chemistry factor for the Red Sox: the Yankees keep missing the point.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All valid points. That's why I think Epstein is one of the top GM's around, in any sport.  He understands that it's more than just RBI's and ERA's that make a team, but putting it all together into a real team.  Hence Manny's departure I suppose.  In hockey, the Detroit Red Wings are the same.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 10:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But Epstein also understands the RBIs and ERAs pretty well :-) You still haven't given me your prediction on the Yankees.  I say their acquisitions won't be enough to do the trick for them, but will be enough to keep the Red Sox down.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)