User talk:Whitehorse1/sandbox

__NOINDEX__

To Do - me
(not necessarily in this order)

Update: Also, address other stuff there. Update: Changed slightly. Now intend to add article-specific detailed comments on the articles' talkpages or on original reviews themselves. Update: Rolling this one around in my head a bit more.
 * 1) Reply to User:Jacklee.
 * 2) Make those polishing c/e changes on his article I mentioned when I get a chance.
 * 3) Read and give considered reply to various points made by Kathyrncelestewright.
 * 1) Reply with findings and views on wt:ga discussion after deeper research completed. Today. (98% done)
 * 1) _Possibly_ comment on del-review (ick), as it seems to be getting more complex with concurrent recreation plus redeletion/merges, etc.

Timeline (partial only)

 * User:ItsLassieTime
 * 5 April 2009 blocked for one month
 * 8 April 2009 changed to 18 months 'per community consensus' cannot edit own talkpg (would've been to 8 October 2009)


 * Discussion resolved to indef-block account. 30 mins later ban discussion opened.
 * Ban proposed: 10:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposer noted intention to leave question of ban open for few more hours in case compelling reason to do otherwise brought: 11:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposer resolved discussion as 18 month ban: 17:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The user maintained the different accounts were created for efficiency, to allow them to separate article work thematically.
 * The block/ban proposer noted the ItsLassieTime account had a good record 'up until the shenanigans on AI/V'.
 * Discussion records the alternate accounts were not flagged as such by the operator, that a secondary account appeared to be used for non-neutral mainspace edits; and, activity included contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts (likely the block discussion at AI/V).


 * About a month after main account blocked, User:Kathyrncelestewright account created (6 May 2009). That account was blocked, with an expiry time of indefinite, on 12 November 2009, a few minutes before the main account ban was reset.
 * The main ban would have expired a month ago, had the user not edited under a new account.
 * The ban reset itself was of course compliant with policy. (On an incidental point, it could also have been reset to 17 rather than 18 months for time served, arguably.)
 * 12 November 2009 ban reset for sock puppetry, to expire 12 May 2009.

Rough notes on GAs & the reviewed articles

 * Eleven GA articles created or developed prior to user's ban (as User:ItsLassieTime). These were checked when that occurred, 8 April 2009.
 * Result: Clear consensus among multiple experienced reviewers, many of whom have substantial good & featured content, that all reviewers were unrelated editors in good standing and without previous involvement in the articles. (i)
 * Additional: A further article they'd written and nominated for GA shortly before their ban, was unreviewed at the time of the ban. Quickfail of the nomination in response to the ban provoked strong disagreement. An established editor who's developed substantial assessed featured and good content, conducted nearly 80 reviews, plus almost 300 Sweeps assessments, for the good articles project, obtained the offline books it used, and re-nominated it for GA. It was successful. Their brief comment is worth reading in full: (ii)

There's a certain irony, perhaps only in an Alanis Morissette way, that our Verifiability core Policy stipulates "the most reliable sources" as "books published by university presses, and books published by respected publishing houses" yet, it is because these make up the bedrock of this editor's article contributions that fewer are prepared to let those contributions stand. Online sources like websites, while more quickly available, may not translate to our articles being the quality we desire.


 * Eight articles written by others, that Kathyrncelestewright reviewed for GA. Two are now featured, leaving six. I've commented briefly on these above. Detailed comments, if any, will be left on the original reviews. As an itemized list:
 * Boys' Ranch. This review is still open. As Kathyrncelestewright had made larger changes to the article, she sought a Second Opinion. The usual approach of the editor who supplied a second opinion taking over when the primary reviewer cannot complete it doesn't apply, due to their taking a wikibreak. I'll complete the review.
 * Rex Shelley. Thoroughly checked. I recommend it remains GA, and agree with the review and pass. Upheld.
 * The Fox and the Hound (novel). It adheres to the GA criteria. I would have passed it. The review as well as the GA status appropriately reflect the article. Upheld.
 * First Presbyterian Church of Marcellus. I agree with the reviewer's pass of the article and with their comments. Upheld.
 * The Fabulous Moolah. A visibly in-depth review of a long article. I agree with the reviewer's pass, and with their comments. Upheld.
 * Irene (play). I agree with the reviewer's pass of the article; the article meets all GA criteria. Upheld.

I've now examined all good article reviews performed by Kathyrncelestewright, as well as the articles themselves, often with extremely close scrutiny. What I found, was all the reviews said what they should, and gave the same conclusion as any capable reviewer should come to if assessing those articles. All underlying articles are worthy of the GA status the user awarded them.

Apparent while examining the clear GA-worthy articles at times, was that they were not passed and at their respective quality level in spite of the user, but because of them. The review process means working in tandem with main contributors to request and recommend improvements. Some nominations require more than others. Often shorter and particularly well constructed articles leave little opportunity to say much beyond "Pass". The Irene or Rex Shelley articles are such examples. It's likely this which gave rise to the impression reviews were superficial or closed as pass regardless. In contrast, many reviews conducted by the user were extensive, such as Nancy Drew much earlier and above-listed The Fabulous Moolah.

Conclusions: ....

Three elements: reviews they conducted, the reviews of the articles they substantially wrote, that article content itself.


 * 1) The problems were behavioral. Nothing we can point to supports the belief the problems extended or diverged into content.
 * 2) No evidence of introducing incorrect material or hoaxes ever appeared.
 * 3) Shortly before their ban, the user said one good thing they did was to never use one sock to review another's GA. External link (i) confirms the factual accuracy of that claim.
 * 4) We've established the reviews they did conduct check out.
 * 5) They've also said the content they produced was valid.

....