Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73/archive1

Moved

Support. An excellently written article about an interesting piece of history. Will Beback (talk · contribs) is to be commended for the excellent work he has put into this article and also for his extreme patience throughout the editing process in dealing with and addressing concerns of other editors. There are some very minor {{Harvnb}} issues that I will work on fixing. Closer and other voters may wish to be aware that an objector to this FAC, Jossi (talk · contribs), has a conflict of interest with regard to this article. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your characterization, Cirt. My declared interest in the subject did not stop me to working with you in getting related articles to GA and FA status. I would really appreciate it if this is the last time' that you bring these issues to bear in such discussions. It simply reflects poorly on you (given my position in your recent RFA, you may not be the unbiased observer here) and is disrespectful of the FAC process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat, on 10 February 2008, Jossi (talk · contribs) declared a self-imposed restriction of his intention to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles - however he has directly edited this particular article up for FAC twenty times. A few of these edits appear to be edit-warring. I consider myself obligated to raise this specifically for the benefit of other editors and the closer, since he has neglected to do so. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh... Read the Arbcom decision: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat#Jossi_has_a_self-imposed_restriction which states that The Committee commends Jossi's voluntary restraint, and notes that it is not strictly required by the policy on conflicts of interests. So, please stay on topic and play nice. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic on the FAC: Cirt, you might consider striking the comment about Jossi from the main FAC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), thank you for your attention. I rest a bit easier knowing that the folks who run FAC have their eye on the situation. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually have my eye on everything; if you're concerned that I don't, a note on the talk page is preferable to bringing off-topic issues into the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern was how other editors might react who were not aware of the relevant background. I want to keep the FAC on focus and hope that dispute resolution is not necessary, but if any is, I will go through the appropriate channels rather than continuing here. Cirt (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If other FAC reviewers aren't commenting objectively on the content, I usually notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, Sandy, please consider refactoring the ad hominem above as well. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Cirt to do that because I hesitate to refactor a declaration of Support or Oppose on FAC; it's part of Cirt's Support declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I come in peace... I don't know the context of Cirt and Jossi's dispute, but I'd still invite Cirt to remove or at the very least rephrase his comment supporting the FAC. Regardless of the intention, it reads like "support because I oppose Jossi" and that's just not what FAC is about. Pichpich (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for misspeaking. Refactoring 'voters' to 'reviewers'. Regarding the other refactor request, I agree with Karanacs and Awadewit that it is important for other editors to be aware of direct conflicts of interest, and hope in future discussions Jossi will take the initiative of raising that himself. Perhaps from his closeness to the situation, he may have lost perspective and forgotten that most people don't actually click two levels deep into user space and discover his COI disclosure statement unless they already know about it. I trust in good faith that in the future he'll be more proactive about avoiding confusion, and for my own part I'll make every effort to keep FACs focused on the articles. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Jossi should have disclosed his COI at this FAC. As the WP:COI policy makes clear, such an action promotes transparent editing and good faith. Unfortunately, it looks worse for someone else to have to point out such COIs than to come forward from the beginning and admit the COI. I would also disagree with Pichpich's characterization of Cirt's statement; I read Cirt's statement as a support with a fact attached to it - I did not read it the same way Pichpich did. I would also like to reiterate my confusion over why Pichpich is even commenting on this page, when his/her userpage announces that the User:Pichpich account is a sock only for wikignoming and that he/she will "never participate in community decisions...talk page disputes". Awadewit (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Awadewit for your comments and suggestions. Sure, one could argue that disclosing a COI is important and I have done so when needed, but this is a FA nomination in which we are looking at assessing an article for its readiness to be amongst the very few which have reached such coveted status. What a potential COI has to do with this process? I would argue: none. Cirt has his/her own strong views on the topic given her past involvement in his current and previous Wikipedia accounts, and we are not discussing his/her POVs here, and we should not. The focus should be in assessing if the article, at this stage, has reached the level of maturity, stability, and brilliant prose that we have come to expect from a Featured article; any other subject is just poisoning the well and unnecessary ad hominem. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI has everything to do with a transparent reviewing process. At FAC, reviewers declare if they have been involved in editing an article, reviewing an article, etc. Any possible COI needs to be revealed since one's views on the article's merit might be influenced by one's POV. Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, thanks. Will do that in the future. I would appreciate if Cirt also discloses her prior involvement with related articles, as his/her views on the article's merit might be influenced by his/her POV as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved 2

Who's Tony? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony. Pichpich (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Pichpich, your userpage says your account is a sock that only wikignomes and "will never participate in community decisions". Isn't FAC a community decision? Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly do FAC copyediting, most recently on the Albert Speer FAC. I consider that wikignoming and so, yes, I do participate in FACs. Correct me if I'm paranoid but you seem to be doubting my objectivity in this debate or at least viewing this as an improper use of an alternate account. If you're losing sleep over this, I'll email you the identity of my main account but trust me, you'll be disappointed by the uselessness of that information. Pichpich (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking why you declare you are not going to get involved in "community decisions" and "talk page disputes" on your userpage but then proceed to do those things. Sock accounts are not to be taken lightly. If you intend to get involved in FAC and talk page discussions, you should remove that claim from your userpage. Stating that you are not going to participate in something that you are most obviously contributing in cuts into your credibility, particularly since you have chosen not to publicly reveal the connections between your two accounts, as recommended by WP:SOCK. Awadewit (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're so overreacting, I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. Just go and read WP:SOCK again. My credibility is doing just fine, thank you and if you think I'm using this account abusively, just say so. Pichpich (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you are fast losing credibility with me: you have not even acknowledged the contradiction between the statements on your userpage and your actions at this FAC. Awadewit (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. Pichpich (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]