Tara Teng's ultra-detailed BLP & the admin who wrote it

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:48 am

Lukeno94 wrote:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name (T-H-L) is causing a kerfuffle. Note how people are already coming out of the woodwork saying "Keep, it's an FA with lots of references" without once actually looking at the article properly. Then again, I'm not surprised.

I read the article, and spot-checked the references. Needs a haircut. With a machete.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:05 am

I know. It must be one of the worst examples of an FA (certainly the worst I've ever seen myself), and as I said in the AfD, I wouldn't call it a GA; far too much promotional bollocks and misrepresenting of sources (in big and obvious manners).

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:30 pm

And sure enough, the list of people who say "Keep, it passed FA so is therefore untouchable" just keeps on growing. Hopefully the closing admin will disregard those as not being policy based, but I bet they don't.

* '''Keep''' - well writen ...all looks fine. -- Moxy (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 5:33 pm

Lukeno94 wrote:And sure enough, the list of people who say "Keep, it passed FA so is therefore untouchable" just keeps on growing. Hopefully the closing admin will disregard those as not being policy based, but I bet they don't.
* '''Keep''' - well writen ...all looks fine. -- Moxy (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I voted, Luke, in case it helps.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:31 pm

Lukeno94 wrote:I know. It must be one of the worst examples of an FA (certainly the worst I've ever seen myself), and as I said in the AfD, I wouldn't call it a GA; far too much promotional bollocks and misrepresenting of sources (in big and obvious manners).

Has it changed much since it became an FA? That's one of the (many!) troubles with the system. Even if the article is indeed excellent when it becomes an FA, it immediately gets loads of edits, and may continue to be edited extensively afterwards, which is more likely than not to lead to a deterioration.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:06 pm

Poetlister wrote:Has it changed much since it became an FA? That's one of the (many!) troubles with the system. Even if the article is indeed excellent when it becomes an FA, it immediately gets loads of edits, and may continue to be edited extensively afterwards, which is more likely than not to lead to a deterioration.

It doesn't appear to have changed much at all, but that's the point, actually - this article was written by an admin, someone who knows all the rules and all the potential "gotchas" intimately. All the sourcing, external links, categorization, etc., is as close to perfect as he can get them, and more importantly, he could use his admin rights to bolster his chances in the FA process, and brush off any challenges afterwards.

My guess is that aside from the FA win, the categorization was his main point of focus - it's possible that he wanted to maintain a personal "walled garden" in Category:Abolitionism in North America (T-H-L), which historically speaking is quite problematic in itself. It's as if he literally wants to redefine the word "abolition" to refer to the effort to get women out of sex-work, and primarily in Canada. This despite the fact that this word (as it relates to North America, at least) has had a very well-defined meaning that's far wider than that one limited context for about 200 years.

My conclusion would be that whether or not they delete the article is immaterial - they should instead concentrate on preventing the hijacking of words (i.e., Google search terms) that are extremely meaningful to large numbers of people.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:29 am

The passage of text I referred to in the AfD was in there when it passed FA. Looking at it closely, it actually cited three sources, but conveniently, the quotations came from an offline source whilst the other two bits, which had been pieced together in an OR manner and would probably be redundant anyway, didn't say those things.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:11 pm

Jim wrote: I voted, Luke, in case it helps.

OFFSITE CANVASSING!!

Anyway, how can anyone in their right mind say this article should be deleted? Andrew Kooman won the 2012 Outstanding Alumnus Provincial Award Celebrating Excellence from the Alberta Association of Colleges & Technical Institutes and the Alberta Ministry of Enterprise, for God's sake.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:44 pm

Hex wrote:Anyway, how can anyone in their right mind say this article should be deleted? Andrew Kooman won the 2012 Outstanding Alumnus Provincial Award Celebrating Excellence from the Alberta Association of Colleges & Technical Institutes and the Alberta Ministry of Enterprise, for God's sake.

Okay, I admit it! I only started this thread because *I* deserved the award! I was frickin' robbed, dammit!

Actually, if you dig into the details, the whole thing starts to look a little fishy. Earlier in that same paragraph his BLP says, "In 2009, the script of She Has a Name was given the Scripts At Work/Alberta Playwrights Network Award." Both Scripts At Work (T-H-L) and Alberta Playwrights Network (T-H-L) were written by Mr. Neelix of course, but it would seem that the award in question was only given that one time, in 2009, and that both of these "organizations" are informal at best, and quite possibly bogus. The first of those two articles mentions that "Gina Omilon, who was Miss Teen Red Deer in 2012, has won the award twice," but the source for that is clearly not reliable, and the link is currently unreachable.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:04 pm

Hex wrote:
Jim wrote: I voted, Luke, in case it helps.
OFFSITE CANVASSING!!

Anyway, how can anyone in their right mind say this article should be deleted? Andrew Kooman won the 2012 Outstanding Alumnus Provincial Award Celebrating Excellence from the Alberta Association of Colleges & Technical Institutes and the Alberta Ministry of Enterprise, for God's sake.

You're right. I didn't do my WP:BEFORE. It clearly passes WP:MINORTOUROFAMINORPLAY. I'll withdraw my vote if it's a draw.

I think he more than likely "won" it for his own sake, though...

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:16 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:"Gina Omilon, who was Miss Teen Red Deer in 2012, has won the award twice," but the source for that is clearly not reliable, and the link is currently unreachable.

Wait.
She was Miss Teen Red Deer.
This changes everything.

They don't look at your height, or weight, you know, they just check you are a good person inside, and have the whole entire package.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:39 pm

Jim wrote:Wait.
She was Miss Teen Red Deer.

Ridiculous. If you watch the video, she's clearly not a deer at all, and I doubt she's ever had any affiliation with the Communist Party whatsoever. I'm willing to accept that she's a teenager, but that's as a far as I'll go.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:59 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
Jim wrote:Wait.
She was Miss Teen Red Deer.
Ridiculous. If you watch the video, she's clearly not a deer at all, and I doubt she's ever had any affiliation with the Communist Party whatsoever. I'm willing to accept that she's a teenager, but that's as a far as I'll go.

Misses the point entirely.

Jim wrote:They don't look at your height, or weight, you know, they just check you are a good person inside, and have the whole entire package.

You think such a fair, egalitarian contest would be swayed by species affiliation, gender, age, shoe-size or political leanings?
That would be as crazy as suggesting that short, chubby folks won't win.
It's the "whole entire package" they are looking at. Sheesh...

Peryglus · Unread post by **Peryglus** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:09 pm

Jim wrote:I'll withdraw my vote if it's a draw.

It's not a vote; comments are weighed by argument, not number of keep/deletes.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:25 pm

Jim wrote:
Midsize Jake wrote:
Jim wrote:Wait.
She was Miss Teen Red Deer.
Ridiculous. If you watch the video, she's clearly not a deer at all, and I doubt she's ever had any affiliation with the Communist Party whatsoever. I'm willing to accept that she's a teenager, but that's as a far as I'll go.
Misses the point entirely.
Jim wrote:They don't look at your height, or weight, you know, they just check you are a good person inside, and have the whole entire package.
You think such a fair, egalitarian contest would be swayed by species affiliation, gender, age, shoe-size or political leanings?
That would be as crazy as suggesting that short, chubby folks won't win.
It's the "whole entire package" they are looking at. Sheesh...

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:31 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: video

Excellent.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:36 pm

Jim wrote: It's the "whole entire package" they are looking at. Sheesh...

Apparently it's not a vote; they weigh the value of the argument.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:41 pm

Notvelty wrote:
Jim wrote: It's the "whole entire package" they are looking at. Sheesh...
Apparently it's not a vote; they weigh the value of the argument.

Apparently.

They should maybe measure its circumference, or albedo, too.

With a tool of some sort.

Can't be too careful these days.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:10 am

Jim wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Jim wrote: It's the "whole entire package" they are looking at. Sheesh...
Apparently it's not a vote; they weigh the value of the argument.
Apparently.

They should maybe measure its circumference, or albedo, too.

With a tool of some sort.

Can't be too careful these days.

They're going to measure the libido with a tool now? If that's the case, shouldn't this be in the Jimbo sub-forum?

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:18 pm

Notvelty wrote:They're going to measure the libido with a tool now? If that's the case, shouldn't this be in the Jimbo sub-forum?

Quite.

Anyway, where were we before the irrelevant "tool" stuff diverted us? Oh yes - AFDs.

Well the AFD led to accusations of socking, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang, wherein upwards of a dozen users and/or IPs are accused of socking to vindictively destroy Mr. Neelix's body of loving work.

Everyone and his dog pops up to have a say, in a typical shoutfest, and it descends into the usual ruck.
Noticeable here, at the AFD, on all the talkpages, and, it turns out, as the "Good Article" reviewer, no less - our old pal Cirt, defending fringe content contributors everywhere.

It's going to be ok, though, officer Harry has arrived to steer proceedings.

Chief Petty Officer Mitchell wrote:Hawkeye asked me to take a look at this, so take a look I have. Precisely what the hell is going on here I have no idea, but something is rotten in the state of Denmark. There is considerable overlap between the editing interests of all the accounts. What it boils down to is that all have removed the same content or reverted the same edits across three or four different articles, and the connection between the articles seems to be their primary contributor. It's possible that there's more than one person behind all this, but my gut instinct, like Hawkeye's, Cirt's Laser brain's, tells me that there are not as many people as accounts involved here. I've blocked one account that was clearly created with the sole purpose of making these edits and another was blocked before I got to this. While I'm well aware of the limitations of the checkuser tool, I think we need a technical investigation to help us get to the bottom of this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The insight and instinct, the swift, telling action, the cutting mind, like a steel trap, and clever analysis. I swooned.

Something is rotten in the fucking State of Denmark. Please.

So many words, so many trite platitudes, and yet... so little said that wasn't already on the page...

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:38 pm

Overwhelming evidence of a propaganda effort spread across dozens of articles by a Wikipedia administrator and one of the most prolific contributors of all time VS. OMG!!! Sockpuppetry AND outsiders! (In effort to clean up a tiny portion of Mr. Purdy's mess)?

No contest. "We must protect teh communitah!"

They all look pretty stupid. But the fact that one of the defensors de la fe calls himself "Laser brain" puts this over the top as a Wikipedia comedy classic.

Oh, and this from Mr. Mitchell's userpage taken at the Wikimedia bat cave:

"Precisely what the hell is going on here I have no idea"
Photo credit? LauraHale (T-C-L) (Another valued communitah insider whose prolific, uhm, "article writing" is just a tad problematic).

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:49 pm

DanMurphy wrote:But the fact that one of the defensors de la fe calls himself "Laser brain" puts this over the top as a Wikipedia comedy classic.

Yeah - saw the HJ pic - he used it on various userpages.
"Laser brain" needs to have an anime comic strip and article - no, I'm not looking it up, so if they already exist, they already exist.

"Comedy classic" is spot on, though, I liked:

Okay, I just checked back in and saw one of the pieces of evidence was that I edited the Comedy Bang Bang page and the sockpuppet guy has the words "bang bang" in his username. Guys, Comedy Bang Bang is an incredibly popular comedy podcast (and television show) and if that's what's being used to toss me into this, that might be the most insane thing I've ever seen.

And, I know, but I have to: Yakety Sax

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:11 pm

The Teng article has now been reverted back to being as long as the Wikipedia article on Florence Nightingale and to being much much longer than the articles on the abolitionists Garrison and Stowe through the good offices of Ms. Hale's former roommate Hawkeye7 (T-C-L).

And Mr. Mitchell says it's going to stay that way.

A masterclass in the Wikipedia way.

23:55, 15 January 2015‎ HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,172 bytes) (+62)‎ . . (Adding {{pp-protected}} (TW))
(cur | prev) 23:54, 15 January 2015‎ HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (71,110 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected Tara Teng: I don't know what's going on here, but it's not beneficial to the development of the article. Protecting until we get to the bottom of it. ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (expires 23:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only admin)
(cur | prev) 23:44, 15 January 2015‎ Wolbo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,110 bytes) (+20,257)‎ . . (Undid revision 642668966 by Yaktaur (talk) Rvt blocked account)
(cur | prev) 22:51, 15 January 2015‎ Yaktaur (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,853 bytes) (-20,257)‎ . . (Undid revision 642592668 by Hawkeye7 (talk) Suspected doesn't equal proven)
(cur | prev) 11:39, 15 January 2015‎ Hawkeye7 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,110 bytes) (+20,257)‎ . . (Remove edits by suspected sock)
(cur | prev) 11:33, 15 January 2015‎ Hawkeye7 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,853 bytes) (+33,510)‎ . . (Revert edits by suspected sock)
(cur | prev) 11:32, 15 January 2015‎ Hawkeye7 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (17,343 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Hawkeye7 (talk) to last version by 2601:C:5F00:8FC:E8326649:840B)
(cur | prev) 11:31, 15 January 2015‎ Hawkeye7 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,348 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 2601:C:5F00:8FC:E8326649:840B (talk): Rv edits by suspected sock. (TW))
(cur | prev) 22:36, 8 January 2015‎ 2601:c:5f00:8fc:e8326649:840b (talk)‎ . . (17,343 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (→‎Personal life)

Ah, and feel the crushing blow of my ban-hammer, you swine!

23:34, 15 January 2015 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) blocked Yaktaur (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (harassment account; see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cactusjackbangbang)

"Hey, no fair!" says "Cirt," one of Wikipedia's most successful long-term abusers of the so-called encyclopedia for his own political purposes. "I want to have some fun too." So he does at the page of the "harassment account" Yaktaur (T-C-L).

This account is a suspected sock puppet of Cactusjackbangbang and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to editing habits, contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful.

Loving and thoughtfulness. Thoughtfulness and loving.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:15 pm

DanMurphy wrote:The Teng article has now been reverted back to being as long as the Wikipedia article on Florence Nightingale and to being much much longer than the articles on the abolitionists Garrison and Stowe through the good offices of Ms. Hale's former roommate Hawkeye7 (T-C-L).

And Mr. Mitchell says it's going to stay that way.

A masterclass in the Wikipedia way.

23:55, 15 January 2015‎ HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,172 bytes) (+62)‎ . . (Adding {{pp-protected}} (TW))
(cur | prev) 23:54, 15 January 2015‎ HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (71,110 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected Tara Teng: I don't know what's going on here, but it's not beneficial to the development of the article. Protecting until we get to the bottom of it. ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (expires 23:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only admin)
(cur | prev) 23:44, 15 January 2015‎ Wolbo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,110 bytes) (+20,257)‎ . . (Undid revision 642668966 by Yaktaur (talk) Rvt blocked account)
(cur | prev) 22:51, 15 January 2015‎ Yaktaur (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,853 bytes) (-20,257)‎ . . (Undid revision 642592668 by Hawkeye7 (talk) Suspected doesn't equal proven)
(cur | prev) 11:39, 15 January 2015‎ Hawkeye7 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,110 bytes) (+20,257)‎ . . (Remove edits by suspected sock)
(cur | prev) 11:33, 15 January 2015‎ Hawkeye7 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,853 bytes) (+33,510)‎ . . (Revert edits by suspected sock)
(cur | prev) 11:32, 15 January 2015‎ Hawkeye7 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (17,343 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Hawkeye7 (talk) to last version by 2601:C:5F00:8FC:E8326649:840B)
(cur | prev) 11:31, 15 January 2015‎ Hawkeye7 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,348 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 2601:C:5F00:8FC:E8326649:840B (talk): Rv edits by suspected sock. (TW))
(cur | prev) 22:36, 8 January 2015‎ 2601:c:5f00:8fc:e8326649:840b (talk)‎ . . (17,343 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (→‎Personal life)
Ah, and feel the crushing blow of my ban-hammer, you swine!

23:34, 15 January 2015 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) blocked Yaktaur (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (harassment account; see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cactusjackbangbang)

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:24 pm

"Get your grimy little hands off [i]our [/i]community processes, you dog! No !votes for you!," says Hawkeye.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:34 pm

DanMurphy wrote:"Get your grimy little hands off [i]our [/i]community processes, you dog! No !votes for you!," says Hawkeye.

Heh. I'd seen that because I made a comment at that AFD which will be subsequently disqualified for insufficient blue letters.

They truly have no clue or care how this looks to the outside world, do they?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:12 pm

Jim wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:"Get your grimy little hands off [i]our [/i]community processes, you dog! No !votes for you!," says Hawkeye.
Heh. I'd seen that because I made a comment at that AFD which will be subsequently disqualified for insufficient blue letters.

They truly have no clue or care how this looks to the outside world, do they?

This should be a question entirely separate from how it might look to the outside world...

RfB

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:17 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Jim wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:"Get your grimy little hands off [i]our [/i]community processes, you dog! No !votes for you!," says Hawkeye.
Heh. I'd seen that because I made a comment at that AFD which will be subsequently disqualified for insufficient blue letters.

They truly have no clue or care how this looks to the outside world, do they?
This should be a question entirely separate from how it might look to the outside world...

RfB

Because?

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:19 pm

The jdh9 account predates the AfD by a day or two, so I reinstated their AfD vote (twice) based on that. They also had edits elsewhere, so it was entirely inappropriate for their comments to be removed before they were found guilty of being a sock. (And this comes from someone who is more than willing to remove obvious sock votes)

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:21 pm

Lukeno94 wrote:The jdh9 account predates the AfD by a day or two, so I reinstated their AfD vote (twice) based on that. They also had edits elsewhere, so it was entirely inappropriate for their comments to be removed before they were found guilty of being a sock. (And this comes from someone who is more than willing to remove obvious sock votes)

You did the right thing. Luke.

I'm waiting for tim to explain why this should all be separate, or secret.

I don't think it's the "pang of guilt" which happened when Tim popped Mr Neelix for tool abuse, and he unexpectedly retired because of that, but how could I know?

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:30 pm

Jim wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Jim wrote:They truly have no clue or care how this looks to the outside world, do they?
This should be a question entirely separate from how it might look to the outside world...
Because?

These aren't even "questions." It looks creepy and weird to the outside world, and they don't understand that and wouldn't care if they did. Those are answers, not questions.

turnoffthenews · Unread post by **turnoffthenews** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:11 pm

hey dudes. I'm the guy mentioned in the op, @turnoffthenews, aka "generic" on hipinion

the thread has been moved to our members forum, but if you'd like an extremely condensed summary, go here http://forums.hipinion.com/viewtopic.ph ... &start=270 and scroll halfway down the page

you guys have a pretty good handle on what's going on; after Neelix retired, several of our users set about cutting his articles down to a sane length, which attracted attention from some kind of nerd brigade.

there is no sockpupettry going on here. as one of our guys put it, "we're just a bunch of damn friends who have been talking about how awful these wikipedia pages are and some of us decided to take matters into our own hands, as one fucking does on wikipedia"

anyway, just wanted to pop in and say hi. we're all enjoying your commentary (especially you danmurphy)

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:23 pm

turnoffthenews wrote:hey dudes. I'm the guy mentioned in the op, @turnoffthenews, aka "generic" on hipinion

the thread has been moved to our members forum, but if you'd like an extremely condensed summary, go here http://forums.hipinion.com/viewtopic.ph ... &start=270 and scroll halfway down the page

Haw haw. Great images.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:29 pm

I liked this one

turnoffthenews · Unread post by **turnoffthenews** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:11 pm

my favorite quote from this recent drama has been

This is a clear coordinated attack on Neelix for some reason, either a sock or meat farm.

because a) there is actual wikipedia jargon for a group of humans interacting outside wikipedia and b) that jargon is "meat farm"

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:17 pm

Had a peek at Wikipedia to see what was going on (procrastinating this evening, obviously).

Came across this particularly ghastly version of "Wikipe-tan" on Ross Mallet's (Wikipedia alias: Hawkeye7) userpage. It's like opposite world day, every day, over there.

Yes, they're all a bunch of cordial, "neutral" folk over there who would never use their byzantine rules and procedures to play games, particularly when they get in the way of improving their toy-encyclopedia.

iii · Unread post by **iii** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:19 pm

turnoffthenews wrote:my favorite quote from this recent drama has been
This is a clear coordinated attack on Neelix for some reason, either a sock or meat farm.
because a) there is actual wikipedia jargon for a group of humans interacting outside wikipedia and b) that jargon is "meat farm"

You're already speaking my language!

:welcome:

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 1:50 am

Jim wrote:
Lukeno94 wrote:The jdh9 account predates the AfD by a day or two, so I reinstated their AfD vote (twice) based on that. They also had edits elsewhere, so it was entirely inappropriate for their comments to be removed before they were found guilty of being a sock. (And this comes from someone who is more than willing to remove obvious sock votes)
You did the right thing. Luke.

I'm waiting for tim to explain why this should all be separate, or secret.

I don't think it's the "pang of guilt" which happened when Tim popped Mr Neelix for tool abuse, and he unexpectedly retired because of that, but how could I know?

I'm a huge believer in the AfD process as objective and rule governed. It shouldn't matter "how it looks" whether something passes GNG, it should be an objective question of whether a topic is generally encyclopedic and whether sufficient sources exist to provide verifiability for an article.

I wish Neelix stuck around and I feel badly that he feels like he was badgered away. But we all make our choices about whether or not to edit and i don't feel that I did anything excessive or wrong towards him. I was the straw that broke an overburdened camel's back, apparently...

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 2:12 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Jim wrote:
Lukeno94 wrote:The jdh9 account predates the AfD by a day or two, so I reinstated their AfD vote (twice) based on that. They also had edits elsewhere, so it was entirely inappropriate for their comments to be removed before they were found guilty of being a sock. (And this comes from someone who is more than willing to remove obvious sock votes)
You did the right thing. Luke.

I'm waiting for tim to explain why this should all be separate, or secret.

I don't think it's the "pang of guilt" which happened when Tim popped Mr Neelix for tool abuse, and he unexpectedly retired because of that, but how could I know?
I'm a huge believer in the AfD process as objective and rule governed. It shouldn't matter "how it looks" whether something passes GNG, it should be an objective question of whether a topic is generally encyclopedic and whether sufficient sources exist to provide verifiability for an article.

I wish Neelix stuck around and I feel badly that he feels like he was badgered away. But we all make our choices about whether or not to edit and i don't feel that I did anything excessive or wrong towards him. I was the straw that broke an overburdened camel's back, apparently...

RfB

He's a religious POV pusher. Good riddance.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 2:47 am

Vigilant wrote: He's a religious POV pusher. Good riddance.

He did good enough work. The POV needs to be fixed, but all in all he was a net positive.

RfB

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:03 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: He's a religious POV pusher. Good riddance.
He did good enough work. The POV needs to be fixed, but all in all he was a net positive.

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:08 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: He's a religious POV pusher. Good riddance.
He did good enough work. The POV needs to be fixed, but all in all he was a net positive.

RfB

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:48 am

SB_Johnny wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: He's a religious POV pusher. Good riddance.
He did good enough work. The POV needs to be fixed, but all in all he was a net positive.

RfB

Yoda should have said, "Son, disappoint I am".

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:51 am

This one's cute:

JC's Girls (T-H-L)

JC's Girls (short for Jesus Christ's Girls, also called the JC's Girls Girls Girls Ministry) is an American evangelical organization of women who evangelize to female workers in the sex industry but does not try to persuade them to leave the sex industry.

That ticks all the boxes...
The GA review got abandoned when Neelix retired, so it just needs a good, wholesome editor to polish it up.

JC's Girls booth at the 2007 AVN Adult Entertainment Expo

From the lead:

In reaction against JC's Girls, adherents of Raëlism, a UFO religion, founded an organization called "Raël's Girls" to tell women in the sex industry that sexual pleasure is intrinsically valuable and that they should maximize their own sexual pleasure while servicing clients.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 6:30 pm

Jim wrote:
In reaction against JC's Girls, adherents of Raëlism, a UFO religion, founded an organization called "Raël's Girls" to tell women in the sex industry that sexual pleasure is intrinsically valuable and that they should maximize their own sexual pleasure while servicing clients.

Why doesn't "Raël's Girls" have its own article?

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 6:39 pm

Poetlister wrote:Why doesn't "Raël's Girls" have its own article?

You just wanna snag a profile pic. Admit it.

Yeah, I wondered that too, Probably because nobody's ever taken the faintest bit of notice of them. Maybe.

AL1 · Unread post by **AL1** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 8:18 pm

Off-topic, but I stumbled over another Teng-esque BLP last night: fifteen-year-old singer and America's Got Talent contestant Jackie Evancho (T-H-L). Different characters, and a different fanbase, but Katydidit/Demiurge levels of creepiness.

Anyone can dig in, but I'll do a full write-up when I'm on a computer. It's...weird.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:52 pm

AL1 wrote:Off-topic, but I stumbled over another Teng-esque BLP last night: fifteen-year-old singer and America's Got Talent contestant Jackie Evancho (T-H-L). Different characters, and a different fanbase, but Katydidit/Demiurge levels of creepiness.

That's pretty lengthy all righty, but at least the author of 95% of that verbiage, User:Ssilvers (T-C-L), is not an administrator and doesn't seem to have an overarching agenda. He's got the same sort of thing going with the article on Jessie Bond (T-H-L) for example - someone who died in 1942 and was also not especially involved in social causes. (And to be extra-fair, Jackie Evancho is way more famous than Tara Teng.)

I just think the root of the problem here is the FA process - it seems to specifically discourage concision and brevity in favor of dumping as much detail and verbosity into articles as possible. I guess that's fine when the article subject isn't a living person (or something else where reputations and such could be affected), but when it is, they've just got to learn to cut that shit down. Quantity and quality are just not the same thing. Mr. Ssilvers claims to be a professional editor, too, so he should know better.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 10:01 pm

AL1 wrote:Off-topic, but I stumbled over another Teng-esque BLP last night: fifteen-year-old singer and America's Got Talent contestant Jackie Evancho (T-H-L). Different characters, and a different fanbase, but Katydidit/Demiurge levels of creepiness.

Anyone can dig in, but I'll do a full write-up when I'm on a computer. It's...weird.

The article appears to be mostly written by NYC attorney Samuel Silvers, known on wikipedia as Ssilvers (T-C-L).

He does seem to have an obsession.

Oh look, he's posted the copyright violating photo of the macaque on his user page.

AL1 · Unread post by **AL1** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 10:14 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
AL1 wrote:Off-topic, but I stumbled over another Teng-esque BLP last night: fifteen-year-old singer and America's Got Talent contestant Jackie Evancho (T-H-L). Different characters, and a different fanbase, but Katydidit/Demiurge levels of creepiness.
That's pretty lengthy all righty, but at least the author of 95% of that verbiage, User:Ssilvers (T-C-L), is not an administrator and doesn't seem to have an overarching agenda. He's got the same sort of thing going with the article on Jessie Bond (T-H-L) for example - someone who died in 1942 and was also not especially involved in social causes. (And to be extra-fair, Jackie Evancho is way more famous than Tara Teng.)

I just think the root of the problem here is the FA process - it seems to specifically discourage concision and brevity in favor of dumping as much detail and verbosity into articles as possible. I guess that's fine when the article subject isn't a living person (or something else where reputations and such could be affected), but when it is, they've just got to learn to cut that shit down. Quantity and quality are just not the same thing. Mr. Ssilvers claims to be a professional editor, too, so he should know better.

I guess I didn't know she was that famous, then! I saw her page was about 140kb, twice that of Justin Bieber, and about 20kb more than John Lennon IIRC, and everything just seemed creepy to me. (I mean, her popularity doesn't change my squirm levels, but it does put things in something of a perspective, I reckon.)

I don't think it can be disputed, however, that this diff of a talk page comment from one CycloneGU (T-C-L) to the article's creator (who is evidently young Ms. Evancho's mother) is equal parts weird and hilarious.