Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment

This page, a part of the Good article talk page collection, is archived by MiszaBot II. If your discussion was mistakenly archived feel free to go retrieve it. Current Archive location: Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive4

Archives
2006 2007: January - May 2007: May - December 2008: January -

need a reassessment

I would like to request a reassessment of Slut Night for reasons I just explained on the talk page. I don't think I can actually request one through this process as I don't have an account. Can anyone create the reassessment page for me? I am a very occasional editor to Wikipedia and even if I did have an account, I don't understand the process. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started the process. There is now a big template at the top of Talk:Slut Night. Without an account, "individual reassessment" is not permitted, but you can use "community reassessment". Just click on the "Follow this link" for community reassessment. This will present you with an edit box. Explain your concerns about the article in the edit box and save. That's it. Geometry guy 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

THank you so much, but to actually create the community reassessment page you need an account (I just tried and it wouldn't let me). I can make an account for this purpose but I don't want to seem like I'm abusing multiple accounts, since I started this debate under my IP identity. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've created the community reassessment page for you to edit. Geometry guy 05:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --74.138.229.88 (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delisting

Hey there. I have just nominated Veronica Mars (season 3) at FLC, although it is currently a GA. Is there anyways this could be delisted without going through the regular process? I nominated the article at GAN myself, so there is no problem with the nominator. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want it to be delisted? Because it's a list? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here is the FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got to go out now. If it hasn't been delisted by the time I get back I'll do it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 02:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Central Intelligence Agency

Would the good folks here pls figure out how to best deal with this GA? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Central Intelligence Agency/archive1 Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

For those who don't want to read the FAC, there has been a long-term sock problem which has tainted the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If so, then it probably fails the stability criteria. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we don't remove GA status just because someone who edits the article has been blocked for sockpuppetry, as RLevse suggests!

The article can be reassessed at any time by any editor starting an individual or community reassessment. The reassessment should be based purely on whether the article meets the good article criteria. It might be useful to do this, as the original GAN review was almost non-existent. Geometry guy 12:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as a question of procedure, since an article is no longer a GA once it becomes an FA (as I understand it), would the correct procedure be a reassessment of GA status or a GAN if it fails FAR? If no one is interested in the article and willing to follow it and address any problems, neither process seems worth the effort. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The notion that the main CIA article (or any other that I have edited over the course of the past two years) has been "tainted" by sockpuppetry is a specious argument. Yes, I crossed a line in the FAC discussion on the main CIA article by nominating it and then casting two votes in support of the nomination, but no edit to content that I have ever made to any Wikipedia article has been made with either the intent or effect of biasing the factual content of that article. Plus, the Wikipedia checkuser program seems to be techincally flawed - the page at this address (as edited by RLevse):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_No_barometer_of_intelligence

... says that these contributions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Misleadingsource

... are "definitely" made by the same person. Flat out not true. My guess is they were made on an IP address associated with a shared computer system at a public library. Is it customary to "out" experienced editors who use multiple accounts to protect their anonymity and delicate personal interests in such a public way? The set of Wikipedia articles in question aren't exactly as trivial as say, those about Pokemon characters. I fully expect this log-in to now be blocked as well and added to the aforementioned page[1], but please, remove the outright false allegations when you do so. First draft of history (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Mattisse, failed WP:FARs are a grey area. If the article had GA status prior to becoming an FA then that status could in principle be restored after an FAR fail if there were no objections, but I'm not aware of this happening in practice: the article usually has to be renominated at GAN to recover its GA status.

For FAC, however, the issue is clearcut: an FAC fail has no impact on GA status unless someone initiates a GA reassessment. Geometry guy 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First draft of history (talk · contribs), thanks for admitting you're another sock of No barometer of intelligence (talk · contribs), this time a block-evading sock. GAR editors-I didn't say delist it, just take a look at it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your thanks, Rlevse (talk · contribs), but once again ask that you (or some other admin who has access to the imperfect Wikipedia checkuser tool) remove Misleadingsource (talk · contribs) from the page linked to as confirmed sockpuppets of No barometer of intelligence (talk · contribs). It's just not true. And while you're at it, check the dates each disputed account (included the one I am using right now) was created on. Technically, they are all sockpuppets of An unattributed source (talk · contribs). Be sure to check the discussion page for that original account while you and the other admins are poring over this. Then look at case number three at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Segregation_and_security

At least get your facts right. And then add then add Apparent public relationship (talk · contribs) to the newly created page, "Sock puppets of An unattributed source." Apparent public relationship (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Gladly adding you too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Rlevse (talk · contribs), I reiterate my honest request that you remove Misleadingsource (talk · contribs) from the "Sock puppets of No barometer of intelligence" category page, because both you and checkuser are just factually wrong on that point. I have never even looked at any of the articles edited by whoever was using that particular account. I would also ask again that in the interest of factual accuracy that a new category page titled "Sock puppets of An unattributed source" be created, and that No barometer of intelligence (talk · contribs) (as well as Sixth degree of separation (talk · contribs)) be added to that page. Despite the apparent consensus of the Wikipedia admins on this page, I steadfastly maintain that I had ample "real-world" security concerns for creating the initial "office of independent counsel" alternate account (which was later renamed "no barometer of intelligence") for "an unattributed source," and that disclosing the connection of the two accounts at that time, even to Wikipedia administrators, would have fundamentally compromised those personal security considerations. If I elect to edit Wikipedia again after my three month block is lifted, it would be under the original an unattributed source (talk · contribs) account, and it would be appropriate that all of the past edits made under its defunct socks be clearly visible.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/in-taipei-wikipedians-talk-of-fundraising-and-wikiwars/?scp=28&sq=joel+rennie&st=blog#comment-2490

Sixth degree of separation (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I believe Geometry guy has said the following: if you want GAR/GAN editors to "take a look at it", you must nominate it for GAR or GAN, just as you would for FAR or FAC if you wanted those editors to look at it. If there are sockpuppets involved, then the article would probably fail the stability criteria. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• I don't see what alleged sockpuppetry has to do with an article's stability. If anyone wants to make a case that the article no longer meets the good article criteria, which do not include any restrictions on which kinds of editors are allowed to edit an article, then they should open a GA Reassessment. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think the worry was that Barometer had vote stacked the original GAN as well. I can't seem to find the archive of the GAN discussion (it was 2 years ago), but a review of the article's history shows no edits or comments by Barometer or any of his currently known socks at any time during the original GAN, so I doubt he was involved at all. (Morethan3words (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

  It didn't worry me. Before my comment at the start of this thread I checked several things. For one, Barometer's earliest edits postdate the GAN review. There wasn't an in-depth GAN review: I've linked what I found in ArticleHistory. I broadly agree with Malleus and Mattisse, except that I do not see why there should be any presumption of instability (as seen by Ohana and Mattisse). I do not see any instability here. Geometry guy 22:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I did not see any instability. I was making a hypothetical "if" statement. (Sorry! No more hypothetical statements from me!) —Mattisse (Talk) 22:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Delisting

I came across Social Security (United States) while sweeping the articles with broken references category and realised this isn't meeting the GA criteria on a number of fronts. Despite the fact that I've been busy with GA noms and reviews in the past, I've never done a delisting. Do others agree that this should be a speedy delist? The current controversies section is but one section which exemplifies the problems that this article has. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with a speedy delist. Even though much of the article is uncited it's probably not controversial, and an interested editor might well be able to fix it up pdq. I'd recommend that you opened an individual WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus. There's no such thing as a "speedy delist". If you are confident, open up an individual reassessment and conclude it as swiftly as you believe is appropriate according to the response from article editors; if instead you want others to make the final decision, use a community reassessment. Geometry guy 23:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Backlog

Currently there's the backlog template on this page, despite there only being seven articles here right now. Do you think we can just remove it? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It automatically lists reassessments more than 2 weeks old, and automatically removes itself when there are none. Geometry guy 08:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)