User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 121 as User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Sorry for being tardy on this, but am almost ready and have called in a heavy to give a look.[1]. I would appreciate, a lot, if you went through before the final voting. Thanks as always Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: I'm sorry not to have gotten there yet. I'm not ignoring this, but I've busied myself elsewhere, as this discussion almost killed off what little is left of my interest in trying to rebuild FA content and processes. I'm hoping the muse will return soon, as she usually does. But one of the undisclosed reasons I retired originally as FAC delegate (besides my promise to Colin from years before to return to medical editing at a certain point) was that I wearied of working to advance prima donnas and their thankless entitlement. And now we are seeing that entitlement becoming entrenched, endorsed and accepted. So I've detoured for a bit into my old areas of interest, waiting for the muse to return. I'm also really discouraged to see Hog Farm's FAC retirement, to the point that I haven't found words, particularly since the process for replacing him is now corrupted and non-transparent and that hasn't been fixed in ten years. As always, it is the friends made in the non-prima-donna work at FAR, whose work is more selfless and who usually bring me back, so please poke me again if I don't weigh in soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "I wearied of working to advance prima donnas and their thankless entitlement" is a rather wonderful way of phrasing this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, about the FAC retirement - the short story is I got a promotion at work back in June that has meant I am a lot busier than in the past. Work/life balance got so out of whack that I've been having trouble keeping up with stuff IRL much less on wikipedia to the point where I couldn't keep up at all and it was becoming quite stressful and reaching very bad burnout both on and off wiki. So I've stepped aside at FAC since I don't have the time or energy right now to keep up with it to the extent to which I feel like a coordinator should be (basically, I don't think I could have patrolled the FAC list more than once every month or two), I'm no longer an administrator, and will not be returning as a MILHIST coordinator. I certainly didn't enjoy stepping away from it all like that but the idea is to spend a few months just doing low-level "lurking" (read: vandalism/unsourced content cleanup on articles I'm shepherding) and maybe a few stray reviews but to get things straightened out IRL and then come back once I've got more of a handle on things. The alternative was probably keep going, burn out entirely, and never come back. I guess maybe I could have told FAC that I was stepping away entirely for an indefinite few months and stay on the rolls there as inactive, but it didn't feel right to leave FAC shorthanded like that and I would have felt frequent pressure to try to devote time I truly didn't have for that on a regular basis. Hog Farm _Talk 23:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and half expected that to happen, and congratulations on the promotion and all that ! But still sad to see you go, and the depressing part is that I've been raising for years the problems in how Coordinators are appointed now, and yet no Coord takes that bull by the horns to launch a discussion. It's a total closed circuit now, and they used to call Raul a dictator. At least he broadly consulted everyone involved; that stopped after I left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy and sad that Hog is leaving - happy because he can...some of my FAs are older than I guess 20% of the current admin corp :) Sad because his gentlemanly and can do conduct on FAR esp will be missed. Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I was looking over the Jackson FAR and was wondering how much work you think it still needs. Obviously there's been a lot of drama going on behind the scenes, but in terms of the article itself, what's still missing at this point? If the problem is mainly just prose quality/wordiness, I can see what I can do, but I don't want to waste my time if the fundamentals are still weak (neutrality issues, source misrepresentations, etc.). Hope you're doing well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, EW! Great to "see" you. The muse has left me when it comes to the FA process; it usually returns, and I hope it will, but for now, I've had my fill of prima donnas. From memory, the article is nearly ready to keep, but the verbosity was more than I could take on. I believe it's worthy of a save, and close, if a good writer (like you and not a prima donna :) will take it on. All the bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good—I'll take a look when I can. Hoping to see you back at FAR soon: things don't run the same without you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SG. This was listed as a Good Article in 2010. I have had a couple of occasions to visit it lately, and every time I do, I see some pretty loose prose and, in one case, the recent addition of what I thought was non-noteworthy/undue content. I don't have a good frame of reference for this. Would you please take a quick look and see if you think it is still close enough to GA quality? If you don't have time, can you recommend someone with experience at judging these things? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ssilvers, I am on a road trip (eclipse viewing), have exhausted my data limit on my hotspot, and can only catch up at night from the hotel. Very brief glance ... overquoting. AirshipJungleman29 is well versed in GA standards, but maybe another TPS will take a look, since a Palestinian bio is probably a top priority these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No rush. I'll be grateful whenever someone looks in on it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back from the Eclipse? How was it? No one seems to have looked in yet on Said. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We had perfect eclipse viewing and amazing other stops along the way. I will be home tomorrow and will need to immediately get down to my non-profit volunteer "job" to do the payroll and catch up there, so my time will be tight for a few days. I completely do not understand GA standards, so am sorry no one else has looked in yet; it's hard for me to understand how such an overquoted article can be a GA. I see Aza24 may have an interest in the topic and may be able to help. And I see an inline comment of concern, but understand that people may be reluctant to take on a Palestinian topic right now. If no one else looks in, you could put {{GAR request}} on the talk page. Or perhaps Iazyges or Trainsandotherthings will look in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a little more time, and if no one wants to take it on, I'll go to GAR. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, would love to work on Said, but it would have to be in late November for me to find time to do so. Aza24 (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssilvers, sorry my internet has been mostly absent these past couple of days. Keeping in mind that the the GA criteria are never as high as you think they are, I think the article's around that point where I wouldn't promote it to GA, but it's not so bad that I would open a GAR for it. Removing those lengthy quotes and tightening the prose a little would probably be enough to keep the green blob. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sounds good. Would you kindly go ahead and do that where you think best? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...not sure if you have seen any comparable example of a topic being defined on Wikipedia leading to said topic being picked up outside of it, but I defined a topic Arizaro volcanic field and it's being picked up by scientists. Strictly speaking not citogenesis since they are not using our information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that description pretty well sums up female genital mutilation. I was quite troubled by that article and its FAC, as similar had happened at another medical article (relating to fetal alcohol syndrome, can't remember which, where the author wanted to promote a definition based on private contacts with doctor friends), but I had to keep quiet because of previous interpersonal issues there. In hindsight, it's now called female genital mutilation, so the article can't be challenged at FAR, but Wikipedia is supposed to follow, not lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is also largely responsible for the perception of 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt, and its treatment as a "coup attempt", when what happened is that Chavez ordered the (then professional and respected) military to fire on peaceful protestors, they refused to break international laws, Venezuelan laws, and commit human rights violations, that led to top military asking for Chavez's peaceful resignation, which he gave. But then other stuff happened ... anyway, tendentious editors made sure it was treated as a coup on Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia article (back in the day when it was hard to get info about Venezuela without Wikipedia) fed the event being generally treated as a coup attempt even today, in spite of reliable sources that question this definition of coup. Venezuela had a coup in 2002 pretty much thanks to Wikipedia; had there been more knowledgeable editors involved then, the event would have been more properly treated as an insurrection, and that perception would predominate today, as the facts are now pretty well established. The problem of accurate information about Venezuelan topics still exists today, as the international media glosses over complexities like this, and there has been a determined attempt to get Spanish-language reliable sources branded as unreliable-- which makes it harder to source anything comprehensively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can count myself happy that a few lava flows in the middle of nowhere in Argentina don't have BLP or MEDRS issues. Although I am kinda surprised that FGM didn't exist as a category before.

Although lately I am thinking to go into BLP area to improve Rupperswil murder case - pretty sure we aren't supposed to spell out the perp's name, are we? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 19:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think FGM as a construct/word existed before the edits to bring that article to FAC began, but there was a period pre-FAC where Wikipedia was decidedly leading on the terminology, not following, and using opinions rather than MEDRS sources to push that envelope. I tuned in because of previous related correspondence on fetal alcohol syndrome. Then I decided it was expedient for me to put my head in the sand; fortunately, by the time it was promoted, I had resigned at FAC.

Murder case, name of perp, I dunno ... I am not well versed on BLPcrime, although I'd be most grateful if someone would fill me in, as I've been meaning to deal with a BLP issue on that for several months now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be usual to report the names of convicted criminals (if known) and usually the victims (if dead, if published in multiple reputable sources, and unless the list is long).

As different countries/cultures have different styles, this can lead to regional differences in articles. For example, in the US, it is normal for the police to provide a public list of every person they arrested and why, but in the UK, it's apparently sometimes okay for them to say that it's "not in the interests of justice" for the public to know which citizens they've secretly put in jail before a trial. In Germany, the accused have privacy protection before their convictions (e.g., this war criminal, whose name was not released) and after their sentences have been served.

As with most things, if you think the normal thing to do is ____, and Wikipedia does something else, it'll feel unusual and probably worse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Swiss press, it seems like the convention is to use pseudonyms for the perpetrators, or at least for their surnames ("Thomas N.") - when Blick used the full name, they got at least one complaint. Dunno about the victims, it seems like we usually spell out the given names but I've seen both shortened surnames and full surnames.

Granted, the name question is only one thing in that article. I think given the extent of coverage, one could easily write a FA out of the Rupperswil case but I know nothing about FAs on notorious crimes - anyone got experience in the field? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bath School disaster is User:Shearonink and Ted Kazynski is User:AviationFreak. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, perhaps Buidhe has come across issues with use of names in crimes in Europe in their work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't heard of the Rupperswil case before, but it looks interesting. I don't know that I'd be of much use as far as improving the article as I'm in college at the moment (hoping the summer will provide some opportunity to get back to editing more consistently, but we'll see). I don't think there was much procedural difference between the Kaczynski FA and my other FA due to the first's being a notorious criminal. Kaczynski and his crimes are very well-documented, and the article is a biography rather than something like "Ted Kaczynski bombings", so a lot of the article is about his upbringing/ideological development and how that might have contributed to motivation for his crimes.

I don't know what details have been reported in the Swiss press, but it seems that a lot of FAs on (perhaps less-notorious) crimes discuss the logistics in detail, especially when it's a single crime rather than a string of them like the Kaczynski bombings (Baker Street robbery comes to mind as an example). AviationFreak💬 16:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany they don't publish the full name of the perpetrator even if convicted. If you're researching in public records you have to censor all names you discover there. But you can publish the name if it appears in another source. (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I am in the middle of a move right now and don't have the bandwidth to help very much. One thing...these type of articles sometimes attract...ummm...let's just say "interesting" people, many with a particular bone to pick or a particular POV. My main concern with Bath School disaster is that I wanted to enumerate the humanity of the people who were affected with verifiable reliable sources & facts, that this wasn't just numbers on a page but this event happened to real people and sometimes that aspect gets lost in the maelstrom of "true crime" aficionados & murderers' fans. And a sort of heads-up warning...it is kind of an unsavory thing to pick through all the reports of a mass murder, one can get a little bit of a PTSD echo-effect from reading through what these types of events cost those who are left behind. Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's one of the things I worry about, not just the murders but also the other things (rape) that preceded them. That and the fact that there are mostly newspapers sources. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 21:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, here are some academic sources as well Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Kaczynski is semi-protected and that seems to deter most vandalism/POV pushing. Don't really tend to have problems, especially considering the subject's notability. AviationFreak💬 23:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being made after some serious reflection after days away (also after reviewing WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:CIVIL to check up on my own behavior). This is not meant as an attack, but these explanations are necessary since you seem to be more frustrated with editing too.

You appear to be engaged in ownership edits with Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis, Operation Gideon (2020) and other Venezuelan topics. Pondering on the issues at hand, I reviewed WP:OWNBEHAVIOR to see if any of my concerns were founded.

Below are examples of ownership behaviors that you may have performed:

Actions

1: An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article.

• With both talk pages, you have bludgeoned discussions and have taken control of the paths in which users must take. You have told users to follow the timeline that you created which you have cited multiple times as objectives to obtain on Talk:Operation Gideon (2020). While this may be with good intentions, it appears that unless the objectives of your timeline are not achieved, then the article is not correct.
• You disputed the word "forcibly" in the article about an armed group trying to remove someone from power.
• Multiple WP:REMOVECITE edits towards my work.

5: An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions.

• In an ANI discussing my regrettable comments/edit summaries and my new participation in Venezuelan topics, you persisted on getting me blocked (even creating a "Case Study") despite the user and I already making amends. Some of this will be discussed below in "Statements". In one edit, you cast aspersions towards me saying "a polite POV pusher is the most concerning kind".

Statements:

1: Are you qualified to edit this article? (pulling rank)

• Saying "I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near a Venezuelan BLP. You don't know enough about Venezuela"

2: "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that)

• Stated "I'll be happy to go back through this article and do some trimming; that is, since I wrote a lot of the content", then going forward and taking over the discussion process.

4: "Please do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval."

• Saying "gain consensus on talk if you want to add an opinion from a very obscure paper, which no one else thinks worthy of citation", even though no one else said anything about its worthiness except for you.
• Said "you made a messy move, didn't clean up after yourself, didn't seek consensus" even though it was an initial edit, which does not necessarily need approval.
• You said "please gain consensus if you intend to continuing introducing content", later saying I must "convince everyone here" for edits regarding sanctions pursuing regime change in Venezuela. You even agreed that this was the case, though still prevented its addition.
• Arguing that "consensus needed for this addition to the lead, as it is not a summary of what most sources say at all", though this was a scholarly source and you portrayed yourself as an arbiter of what "sources say".
• Such behavior demanding "consensus" and to "convince everyone here" creates an us/them situation, which is not conducive for productive editing.

9: "You're vandalizing my hard work."

• Complaining about "rapid-fire editing has moved beyond what I can keep up with" when you should sit back and trust the process.

In addition, you have persistently been engaged in possible hounding edits, following my edits here (you never edited the article before), here (you had not edited the article since 2010), here and here (you had not edited the article since 2019).

You have a deep history with Venezuelan topics since they were some of your first areas of focus. When allegations regarding Súmate appeared, you began editing heavily on Venezuelan topics. This included you participating in original research, labeling the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt as "a 2002 popular uprising" (seems familiar) and editing the 2002 coup attempt article with information unattributed to sources in an apparent attempt to attack an individual making statements about possible US involvement (though their standing is much more clear now). Looking at your previous edits (and recent ones), it appears that you have had a clear bias against the Venezuelan government since your first edits and that you may have more direct links to the topic due to your seemingly fervent editing on Venezuela. Seeing how you cited bias as a big no-no in my ANI discussion, it looks like you should be mindful of such behavior too (especially with labeling).

So look, I respect you as a user and you've clearly been around the block a few times. But please be careful with how you are editing; your behavior towards me makes it clear why many users don't want to edit Venezuelan topics. It looks like we have both began editing on different topics in an apparent effort to disengage and to avoid the brink. And for anything that I said that may have seemed personal, I'm sorry about that. I'm really looking forward towards finalizing some of these long discussions with you. Just please remain civil with me; I know that I will do my best for you. WMrapids (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]