@ Jytdog:, you created a list of people who are and are not members of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People. I assume you used the list on the WP:WOP page.
Assuming or implying that non-sockpuppet-related editors who are active in the project and who didn't vote against keeping the page are so inherently biased that their contributions should be discounted can lead to problems. Likewise, implying that editors who are not "members" of that WikiProject are free of those biases, or for that matter free of the opposite bias, can also cause problems.
On the other hand, pointing out confirmed sockpuppets is a good thing. In cases where a sock investigation is ongoing and the results could shift the outcome, a neutrally worded statement requesting that the closure be postponed until all sockpuppet investigations are complete, without naming any names or linking to any SPI pages, would be in order, particularly if the discussion is within a day or so of being "old enough" to close.
One good thing I can see in your list is it invites all participants in the discussion to ask themselves two questions: 1) Am I biased on this issue and if so, is that bias getting in the way of building a better encyclopedia? and 2) Would another reasonable editor have any reason to believe that I have biases that cause me to edit in ways that make the encyclopedia worse rather than better? Both questions are "look in the mirror"-type questions and are NOT meant to be applied to anyone other than the person in the mirror. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I added a link to identify who is creating the list (just because I don't list myself as a participant doesn't mean I'm involved with the project). I agree that it's not particularly helpful as the general methodology is to identify the editors via tags on their comments, not create a separate list. This close will not be fun. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- I posted that list with some uncertainty as to whether it was a good thing or nor. We tag SPA comments in AfDs to provide context for the closers; I intended this to function along the same lines. Out of an abundance of caution, I just struck the list Jytdog ( talk) 13:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, this close will not be fun unless the closer really breaks down whether or not "she was the oldest woman = notable" as a policy or not and reviews it based on that. Which is precisely what didn't happen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Cock (I question where an NAC is appropriate there and who's notability is that she broke her hip at age 109). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Jytdog:, you created a list of people who are and are not members of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People. I assume you used the list on the WP:WOP page.
Assuming or implying that non-sockpuppet-related editors who are active in the project and who didn't vote against keeping the page are so inherently biased that their contributions should be discounted can lead to problems. Likewise, implying that editors who are not "members" of that WikiProject are free of those biases, or for that matter free of the opposite bias, can also cause problems.
On the other hand, pointing out confirmed sockpuppets is a good thing. In cases where a sock investigation is ongoing and the results could shift the outcome, a neutrally worded statement requesting that the closure be postponed until all sockpuppet investigations are complete, without naming any names or linking to any SPI pages, would be in order, particularly if the discussion is within a day or so of being "old enough" to close.
One good thing I can see in your list is it invites all participants in the discussion to ask themselves two questions: 1) Am I biased on this issue and if so, is that bias getting in the way of building a better encyclopedia? and 2) Would another reasonable editor have any reason to believe that I have biases that cause me to edit in ways that make the encyclopedia worse rather than better? Both questions are "look in the mirror"-type questions and are NOT meant to be applied to anyone other than the person in the mirror. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I added a link to identify who is creating the list (just because I don't list myself as a participant doesn't mean I'm involved with the project). I agree that it's not particularly helpful as the general methodology is to identify the editors via tags on their comments, not create a separate list. This close will not be fun. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- I posted that list with some uncertainty as to whether it was a good thing or nor. We tag SPA comments in AfDs to provide context for the closers; I intended this to function along the same lines. Out of an abundance of caution, I just struck the list Jytdog ( talk) 13:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, this close will not be fun unless the closer really breaks down whether or not "she was the oldest woman = notable" as a policy or not and reviews it based on that. Which is precisely what didn't happen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Cock (I question where an NAC is appropriate there and who's notability is that she broke her hip at age 109). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 02:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)