Jump to content

User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 →

Miss Supranational

Please take a look at the Miss Supranational article. I think the article needs page protection for continuous vandalism of an editor who is the Chief Operating Officer of the pageant. He has threatened to bring the matter into legal action as indicated in his edit summaries. I asked him to participate in the discussion either in his talk page or at the Miss Supranational talk page but he refused to do so. Thank you.--Arielle Leira (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have locked the page for 24 hours, and sent you both a notice about edit warring. I have also left a notice on the talkpage. Please attempt to resolve your dispute by discussion. If the other party does not engage in discussion, but continues to edit the article in a manner that concerns you, please read WP:Dispute resolution and follow the advice there. If you do not get prompt assistance and are growing frustrated you may contact me again, and I will look more closely at the matter. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration requests

Hello SilkTork. Would you please clarify the meaning of what you said here, that the committee would accept a case about race and intelligence if someone requested it in 2013? Newyorkbrad's reason for declining the request is that problems are not continuing, but they still are. Future Perfect at Sunrise is still making admin actions while involved, and refusing to respond to other editors' queries about them, and Mathsci is still gaming The Devil's Advocate's one-way interaction ban with him. I offered to present some evidence about that, but nobody asked me to, and now it's too late because the case is being declined. This issue has already been through arbitration enforcement multiple times, and the committee also declined to make the interaction bans mutual, with the reason that it required a full case. If that was their reason to reject the motion to do that, but they also won't open a case, it's not clear how they expect that to be resolved. Akuri (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've looked at that arbitration request yet. As regards what one member of the Committee says - we are a group of individuals, so we will have differing opinions. Added to which, our own views will change in line with changing circumstances and new information, or perhaps even just private reflection. Sometimes we speak as fellow site users; sometimes we speak as individual members of the Committee (which - without looking at the link, but bearing in mind the context - is probably what I was doing at the time), and sometimes we speak for the Committee. It can be difficult at times for others to know what voice we are using! I'll take a look at the link and the case request at some point today, and give you a more considered response later. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked. My comment, that you quote, was in relation to the trolling of Mathsci, not in relation to the editing of the race and intelligence topic. They may overlap, but they are not quite the same thing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed it was all the same issue. Is the situation in which you would support opening a case if it were focused on how Mathsci reacts to others, instead of about the race and intelligence topic in general? Akuri (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked earlier and saw the case request is being declined. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know it's being declined. That's why I'm asking. Dbate1 did not present his request in a way that Arbcom thought should be accepted, and neither did I. But you and a few other arbitrators said that Arbcom should accept a case about some part of these issues if someone requested it in 2013, and the reason Arbcom didn't pass a motion to turn any of the one-way interaction bans into mutual bans is because they decided there should be a full case instead.
The one-way interaction bans still are in effect and still are being gamed. I assume Arbcom still doesn't approve of that happening, and I also assume they won't pass a motion to make them mutual, because both of the times that was proposed the motion failed because they decided a full case was necessary. Therefore there must be some type of case request that Arbcom WOULD accept, even though Dbate1 and I presented it the wrong way. I won't make another request right away, but I might make one sometime next month if the same issues continue, so I'd like guidance on what type of request Arbcom would be likely to accept. Could you please clarify what type of request you would support accepting? Akuri (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simply present the problem as you see it. If ArbCom declines to take the case you've formulated, then you should probably accept that it's not a problem ripe for Arbitration. Your comments give the strong impression that your primary goal is not to solve a specific problem, but rather to find the magical set of words which will allow you to prosecute an ArbCom case - that is, you're interested in wiki-litigation for its own sake, and you're resorting to gamesmanship to get a case open. You are doing a very poor job of concealing your intent, which is probably why you're getting the brush-off from the Committee. But that's simply my perspective as a talk-page watcher. MastCell Talk 21:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly I want to ensure Future Perfect at Sunrise won't block me again without explaining the reason. After Arbcom has said multiple times that these issues require a full case, but also has declined eight (soon to be nine) requests about it in the past year, I can't avoid wondering what specific wording of a request they're waiting for. But if SilkTork has no more advice to give, then I'll try to figure it out for myself. 101.0.79.6 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI template for user pages...

Please check out the template I created as a companion to Template:Connected_contributor. Still needs documentation and what not, but I wanted to get consensus that it is a useful template first (I've had a lot of them called useless lately). Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is what you are doing not already covered by {{Connected_contributor}}? A user can add "|declared=yes", and this produces:


This looks similar to your notepad. Declaring COI can also be added. with "|otherlinks=COI declared at link", producing:
If you intend something slightly different, it could probably be worked into {{Connected_contributor}} rather than creating a new template. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's intended to be a separate template that the editor can put on their User/User_talk page to declare there may be a conflict of interest on pages a, b, c, etc... The current template is designed to go on the talk page of the article. At least that is my understanding of the situation. I came up with the idea and created it in response this response to a Teahouse section. Technical 13 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may be more helpful to simply amend the template documentation to allow users to place it on their own user page if they so wish. If you wish to show articles, then the template might need some attention, as it appears that the line to display articles is not working. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Technical_13/Templates/Contributor connected/testcases <-- What it renders as... Technical 13 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was thinking about the {{Connected_contributor}} template when I wrote the above. Get agreement on the talkpage to change the documentation to allow personal use on user pages. And also look into displaying the name of articles, as it doesn't appear to at the moment. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Both seem bitey. The template that ST was thinking about is much better in tone. :P my2¢ Mlpearc (powwow) 22:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the change in documentation would be that it should be placed on a user's page only by the user themself. I don't think it would be advisable to allow another user to put such templates on someone's userpage as that would, indeed, be quite bitey, and could provoke an incident. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Connected contributor lists the users that may have a COI of an article on the article's talk page whereas Template:Contributor connected lists the articles that a single user may have a COI with on the user's talk page. Template:Contributor connected has the automatic function of adding the user's name (in most circumstances) to the page (using {{#titleparts:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|1}}. I'm not opposed to the idea of merging the templates, I'm just afraid it may make the template heavy. I've changed a large section of the |text= parameter, which is mostly all I changed between the two. I agree that it should be added by the individual user on their own pages for the most part. This is how it would render here simply typed as: {{User:Technical_13/Templates/Contributor_connected|User:SilkTork}}

Adding a few more pages results in: {{User:Technical_13/Templates/Contributor_connected|User:SilkTork|User:Technical_13|WP:COI}}

Anyways... I've been asked to step away from templates by Thumperward‎‎ (talk · contribs) for a bit. I'm going to respect his request until I have more time to discuss it with him a little more, and perhaps get a mediator in the discussion. Templates are actually one of the few things I am good at. Technical 13 (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in following up on this idea, check out "Tag" suggestions on Twinkles page. Technical 13 (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, but I'm not a code writer, and struggle with creating templates. I tend to simply copy and fiddle. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whitby

It was 4792 days ago that you protected Whitby due to persistent vandalism. If you are willing to unprotect it now, I could use this ref to update the article with changes related to the town's economy. I'm hoping you'll boldly unprotect it, but if you have questions that need answers before you agree to my request, start a new section on Talk:Whitby and I'll follow up there. Thanks in advance. 68.165.77.48 (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC) P.S. FWIW, I just noticed 50.46.113.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a similar request a few days ago, so I guess I'm not the only one who thinks its time to unprotect the article.[reply]

I just took a look. I don't like articles being protected from editing, however, that article - perhaps because of the topic's association with Dracula - attracts a fair bit of harmful edits. Protection had been previously placed, then lifted, and had to be placed again. It is unfortunate, but some articles are best left protected. In addition, that article is a Good Article, and is in decent shape. You could register an account, or make an edit suggestion on the talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you must be busy, but since you are looking that the scenario anyway, I thought you might assess this User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#Re:_.22Anti-immigration.22, as it seems to me that certain behavior patterns are recurring or replicating; however, my grasp of policy is somewhat limited in this regard.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 08:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, frustrations are showing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Frustrations can sometimes snowball if not checked.
Any idea when the discussion relating to remedies will take place? You may not be in favor of sanctions, but it seems to me that, even since the Arbcom case, some of the editors there are intractably bent on advocacy.
P&W isn't involved in the Arbcom case, and I'm not sure if other editors in that Talk page discussion are engaged in canvassing, but such forms of--for lack of a better characterization--cliquish defense mechanism collaboration cause others to spend time and effort that not only detracts from editing the article, but imposes a psychological burden that is somewhat taxing.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 17:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted that frustrations are growing. Which is partly why I have volunteered to help out by moderating a discussion. I think that after several years of attempting to get the article right and not succeeding, people are going to get a bit antsy. Let's see how the moderated discussion goes. If it falls apart - which it might - that's not the end of the world. There is still mediation. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ubikwit, embedded within your posts above are implied assertions that others are engaged in advocacy and "cliquish defense mechanism collaboration" and that you aren't. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, take your comments on "originalism", for example, in relation to the constitution. The fact that you have at least ventured a response says something in your favor, with respect to being up front and open about your thoughts; however, as I detail in my response on the Talk page, it would seem that you have not read the sources, or even the Wikipedia article on originalism. We work here in relation to sources, even if we do have our own opinions.
Also in relation to the edit regarding the TPm agenda with respect to the constitution, there is nothing WP:OR or "unbelievable POV pushing" in it, as far as I can tell. I have asked Malke and Arzel to explain the rationale for such assertions, but of course received no response. They don't even venture a response, which is suspect, as I don't believe they can substantiate the accusations they've made in their respective edit summaries regarding the policy disposition of the content of my edit.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 14:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, but I think it would be too confusing to branch the general conversation to here. I was noting what was happening above. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't agree with what?
I have previously characterized this phenomena as affinity group editing, so the above is basically an elaboration on that.
Since you haven't read the sources, and Malke and Arzel can't supply a logical rationale with respect to the claimed policy violations, your positions are collectively and severally at odds with Wikipedia content creation methodology.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 16:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits contain various incorrect accusations and swipes knitted in as implied premises. I'm going to be gracious and simply say that I don't agree. North8000 (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will

Hi, I left a reply about Will for you here, in case you don't see it. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not watching a page, and you have a question for me, could you ask it here. It saves me having to dart about and keep an eye on extra pages. I have no objection to you copying my response to any venue of your choice if you feel that others may be interested. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'll post the question below that I asked there, but others have commented on that page too, so it would be helpful if you could post there. There's quite a bit of concern about this and how to move forward with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Silk, thank you for supplying this information. The problem I have when reading your posts is that they just don't describe Will in a way that would be recognized by Wikipedians who know him well. He just isn't like that, and the meme that's being created about him is making ordinary actions of his seem underhand and Machiavellian. If he has contacted individual committee members about his appeal, there's surely nothing wrong with that, given the lack of clarity around how he should proceed.
The question now is what he needs to do to have the ban lifted. In three statements, [1][2][3] he has apologized to TG and to other affected editors, has said he won't make COI allegations against individuals in the future, and that he won't edit the way he did in the past. And the NRM topic ban will still be in place. What additional assurances does he need to offer? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"If he has contacted individual committee members about his appeal, there's surely nothing wrong with that, given the lack of clarity around how he should proceed."
His appeal was declined and he was told he could appeal again in six months. Granted, in the time I have been on the Committee, some other people have not quite understood this, but to be frank, such instances have been limited, and have involved users where such confusion might be understood, such as being immature or having limited knowledge of English.
"just don't describe Will in a way that would be recognized by Wikipedians who know him well"
It may help to look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2, Teachings of Prem Rawat, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal, and to also bear in mind that stuff happened behind the scenes. So, I accept what you say, that Will is reasoning and intelligent and has worked hard on the project but, sad to say, he seems to have fixed views on some issues which he wishes to assert in a manner that is not always in the spirit of rigorous balance. I also accept that he may not be aware of this himself, and may feel that what he is doing is right.
"What additional assurances does he need to offer?"
For me. To show understanding that what he did was to fight against another user and get him banned because he disagreed with that user's edits (which were within policy), and to indicate that he is aware of this and to make an effort to avoid doing it in future. I have mentioned this, and I think I have indicated that restrictions on COI or on topic areas are not getting at the heart of the problem, which is that (consciously or unconciously) WBB sometimes has a fixed view, which he believes is right, and in this case he went out to destroy "an opponent" rather than negotiate with them and examine their point of view. If he indicates that in the future he will be more open and less hostile, then I would feel more comfortable. Anyway, my objection is only part of the story. There are other Committee members, and also, next year I won't be part of the Committee, so I am not that important. But people are curious about this appeal, so I have been open to both Will and the community as to my position and why I have taken it. My position on the Committee is not an extreme one - there are views either side of mine. I think the bulk of the Committee are in a position, like myself, where we can be persuaded by an appropriate appeal, made at the appropriate time. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I think it would not be reasonable to ask Will to wait another six months. He has been a productive editor for eight years or so, has been banned for a year, respected that ban, and has now asked to return. I would ask the committee to give the appeal its fullest attention now, with a public discussion and vote that involves the whole committee, not only BASC. Then at least Will will see who is requesting what. As things stand, he really has been left in the dark. I've made the same request to AGK here.

I think Will would not agree that he sought TG's ban because he disagreed with his edits. He sought the ban because he believed that TG had a serious COI at the TM articles. The committee can ask Will to change his behaviour – e.g. not to make that claim again, and indeed he has offered not to make COI allegations in future against any editor – but not his beliefs.

AGK has expressed concern that Will has a tendency to engage in email discussions about editors rather than sticking to on-wiki processes, and I believe you expressed this concern too on the other page. Would it help if this were addressed by restricting him from engaging in off-wiki discussion that could lead to sanctions against other editors? I have no idea whether he would agree, but if he did it would leave something like this:

  • Will is restricted from making COI allegations against individual editors;
  • he remains topic-banned from articles related to new religious movements;
  • he must not engage in off-wiki discussion about other editors with a view to seeking sanctions or restrictions against them, or persuading them to disengage from Wikipedia; any such discussion must take place on-wiki within the framework of formal dispute resolution;
  • he must agree to make efforts to be less rigid in his approach to other editors and points of view that he disagrees with.

Would these assurances be enough to persuade you to reconsider? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WBB can reflect on all that has been said, and follow due process by appealing direct to ArbCom at the appropriate time. At that time the Committee as a body will consider what he has to say. I will be unlikely to respond further on this issue as I don't think it is helpful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator

Hello Silk Tork, If you are still willing to moderate discussion on the Tea Party Movement article, I have no objections and am happy to support you. I will comment on the article talk page as well. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's all right with you, I was going to open a thread on TPM talk asking editors to comment on what they'd like to see improve between editors (civility, etc.) and what content they'd like to focus on first. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite comfortable with people taking the lead in discussions. I think that is helpful. I have just suggested a subpage for the discussions - this keeps things on one page, and makes it easier to keep track of what is going on. As regards discussing civility, that could open sores and create tension. I find it helps to eliminate personal comments completely. Discuss and work together on the content with no personal comments, and we achieve our aim. I have found that animosity can get left behind when people work together on a task, and do not make any personal comments. Not always. But sometimes a new respect emerges. If you folks agree on content, the tension should go. There may remain some lingering wounds. but that can't be helped. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient libraries

Regarding the category you created: I am having a hard time separating a between ancient and non-ancient defunct libraries as antiquity is not a well bordered concept. I ask that you either define what ancient means in the context of this category or simply remove it and migrate the contents to Category:Defunct libraries. My preference is the latter option. Thanks, DGtal (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your difficulty. However, ancient is not quite the same as defunct. Ancient means that something existed before the Middle Ages, while defunct means that something no longer exists. Something could be modern and defunct, or ancient but still in existence. The Great Pyramid of Giza is ancient, but still exists. I don't think there are any ancient libraries which still exist, but they are still, however, a distinct and separate group, and one which is studied and written about - [4], [5]. I am pleased to say that I have visited the ancient library which is used as an illustration in both those links! SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happily I am well aware of the fact that somethink can be defunct but not ancient and vice versa. However, in the case of library history, there are (to the best of my knowledge) no examples of an ancient library surviving from antiquity until 2013. There is also another problem with defining antiquity from a global POV. The middle ages are a European era, not relevent to Asia, so a library in China or Iraq is considered ancient by some other criteria.
Also, editor mistakes are not much of a proof, but the author of Raglan Library categorized it ancient even though Raglan Castle isn't ancient. DGtal (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the category is appropriate and helpful. However, as it does trouble you, you could raise the question at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion to see if others agree with you. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience. I'll update you when I have time to open a discussion. DGtal (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

In the interests of transparency and courtesy I am noting the following:

Perhaps you already have that watchlisted, and I haven't read through your talk page or contribs, but I thought it proper to inform you. — Ched :  ?  00:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I won't be going there to look at what has been said. Either Will accepts what he has done or he doesn't. Either way, the time to make another appeal is in six months. WBB should step back now, and allow the community to get on with the project. That would gain more respect from me, and indicate that he is prepared to put the project before himself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here

A while back during an Arb request, I took exception to one of your posts .. which you did strike and clarify. It has been on my mind that I think I owe you an apology. I think perhaps I was overly defensive in respect to your comment about my being "helpful". I honestly do have great respect for you, and would and will support you as an Arb. Perhaps because you and I have never interacted, my comments were unjustified. I think maybe there is both a cultural divide, and an unfamiliarity that led to some of the tensions that I've felt. I honestly do do my very best to be helpful, supportive, and advance the goals of this project, and I do take my efforts here very seriously. I should be more open to criticism, but it is difficult for me because I honestly do care so much. I actually do have a lot more I'd like to expand on, but I also realize that you have much to deal with, and that's just on wiki. In the end, I just wanted to tell you that I am sorry. My very best to you and yours. — Ched :  ?  00:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Utilization Theory

Hi SilkTork. It is not easy to communicate clearly, and it seems that you and I have had some sort of disconnect. I read your questions one way, but you intend them another way... and you seem to get annoyed when I don't grasp what you are saying or intending to say. You asked me if there is important information "suppressed" from the article, and I responded Yes. But you did not ask me what important information was suppressed. So I merely tried to explain why that is so in broad terms. I had already given you two examples of important information that was omitted - the five fundamental principles of PROUT and the four dimensions of economics that PROUT introduces. Similarly, PROUT's theory of history is oversimplified and hence misrepresented. Other than that, the only other aspect of PROUT that even gets some mention in the current article is the concept of "sadvipra leadership" (although that too is grossly misrepresented). There is virtually nothing in the article about PROUT's concept of property rights, women's rights, education, justice system, democracy, political decision-making, progress, and so on.

Regarding your second question, you asked me whether there is information on this topic that only Sarkar can provide. My reply was Yes. But then you seem to have treated your own question as irrelevant by asserting that "Wikipedia's articles provide a brief summary of what neutral, balanced, third party sources have written about a topic. We prefer third parties in order to remain objective and unbiased." SilkTork, I know the rationale. My position is that this rationale only applies in specific situations, but not in all situations. Indeed, I had already given you examples where exactly the opposite is the case - articles where the only way to remain objective and unbiased is to employ primary sources, articles where relying on secondary sources is only likely to reduce the level of objectivity and introduce bias. My guess is that there are many more articles like that on Wikipedia than you would expect.

I think it is important to keep in mind that the PROUT article is about 9 years old. It has a long history, and my involvement with the article is relatively recent. The current version of the article is perhaps the least informative and the most biased to appear over the last 9 years, at least in relation to the main topic of the article - the main topic for which I expect most readers would access the article.

Regarding myself, my involvement on Wikipedia may date back to 2010, but I only became active in November of 2012. Since then I constructed two articles, one new one and one old one (both articles well received on the portals that rated them). I also built a template for Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar that has since been mostly discarded. I have also done copy-editing on various unrelated articles (some DYKs) and contributed to discussions on the Talk page of unrelated articles. Recently, however, I got bogged down in endless debates on Sarkar-related AfDs (like the three-week AfD debate on the Prabhat Samgiita) article and the 2-3 months of wrangling about the PROUT article. Now, failing to find a sympathetic ear from you, I am more inclined to withdraw from Wikipedia than to resume my involvement. Anyway, thanks for the time that you spent on this matter, even if we never did seem to communicate effectively. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Unblocking Colton Cosmic. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed at how much time is being wasted on a nuisance user. I don't want to know about any further developments. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party

Although the concept of a moderated subpage to discuss the article sounds good, some of the editing behavior hasn't changed. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just logged on to take a look at what is happening. I'm going over there now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Realised I was ambiguous, I was referring to article editing. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look into the editing. I only looked at the discussion. (I made a comment, but didn't get around to posting it - I just did it now.) Do you feel the editing behaviour is such that the article should be locked while the discussion is taking place? SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I just looked, and have locked the article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was creating this new section Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Expanding while you were posting the full protection notice on the normal Talk page. Please advise. I could move it, and I gather that DR/N is not the recommended avenue.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 16:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took the initiative and placed this Talk:Tea_Party_movement#content_dispute_.2F_slow_moving_edit_war on the norm Talk page. Maybe the other should be hatted?Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 16:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem with taking the initiative. However, we are more likely to make successful progress if we deal with one issue at a time, and agree in advance what that issue is. If individuals set up alternative discussions in different venues, then the moderated discussion process breaks down. I will hat both discussions shortly. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what about the content dispute? I'm rather frustrated with that situation, as I've made a substantial effort to edit in a collegial manner on the article, taking the time to make specific queries to the two editors blanket reverting my edits. It would seem to me that there may be some sort of recurrent behavior issues with respect to the blanket revisions there. As Doug mentioned, "some of the editing behavior hasn't changed", and that is why this article has a case at Arbcom.
It seems to me that you've put "wrong version" and "full protection" notices up that say discuss any changes to gain consensus for the edit, and have subsequently stated that the content dispute is not at issue and don't specifically commit to addressing it in the immediate future, while basically telling me not to discuss it now on the Talk page. I'd be more comfortable with the request to be patient if I could get a firm commitment to deal with the content dispute, at any rate.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 16:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The moderated discussion is attempting to deal with the content dispute, and the protection is to deal with the reverts. Unfortunately these things do not get dealt with quickly, so while the matter is dealt with, the article will be in somebody's wrong version - if it's not your wrong version, it will be somebody else's. If we work our way through the discussion, getting consensus as we go along, and stay on track, then all the main points will be dealt with, and - hopefully - the main aspects of the dispute will be resolved. Can you work with me on that, and see where it takes us? SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm working with you. Those reverts are just really frustrating, and since the main point of the original dispute on the Talk page related to immigration, this is sort of another issue, an additional issue, as it were. At any rate, I didn't mean to give the impression that I am not fully on-board with the moderated discussion.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 17:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Yes, the immigration issue will also be covered as we go along as that does seem to be significant. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam cinema

Hi SilkTork

Please do not take Malayalam cinema page off your watchlist, probably the troubles are not over yet. Requesting you to be around at Talk:Malayalam cinema page for some more time. Prathambhu (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Account blocked for one week for creating a sock puppet. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
You did a great job in the dispute resolution on Malayalam Cinema page. Thanks for your patience, perseverance and rational attitude. The moderated discussion initiated by you turned out to be fruitful. And here is my appreciation in the form of a colourful barnstar  :-) Aarem (Talk) 02:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I always appreciate a barnstar. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article move

Hi mate. While I don't have any particular objection to this move, such a proposal had been discussed, in detail, on the talk page including here in particular. Might be worth a note on the talk page to explain why a move-protected page was moved after a couple of discussions had resolved the question to the contrary. Stalwart111 03:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Did you see my explanation in the move summary? SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did, yeah, which was what prompted me to leave my note (and here, rather than there). I understood entirely what you meant by "Non controversial" in the context of the guidelines but I thought some might find it strange that after 5 or 6 declined name-change requests, the article name was then changed anyway. But that said, nobody has since raised any concerns so maybe I was just being over-sensitive at the time. And I should say (for those of us who did catch it) thank you for that extended edit summary. Cheers, Stalwart111 09:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London marathon

Well said. Wishing you the best on Sunday. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What they said. Now, just hypothetically, if a person was going to be there, say, providing a er er ahem service in a sort of way, would they know if they had seen you? Are you doing it dressed as a banana or a Ferrari or in the raiment of a charity or something?? (I am not in fact planning an assassination attempt, but thought I might try to wave at you ... maybe this is impossible anyway with 10000000 people running though ... I've never seen it before) DBaK (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... I might take this to email before it becomes too embarrassing, mind you. :) DBaK (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be wearing a blue top with the name Steve on it, and my lucky blue cap. Other than that, nothing obvious. I have at times posted pictures of me running on my user page. There is one still there (in the personal details section) with me in my lucky blue cap running during a snow storm. Bloody cold day that! SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, excellent, thanks. I have emailed you. Good luck!! Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Blue hat and top in attendance as promised ... great to see you. DBaK (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Hello. As part of general housekeeping, I have unblocked 166.205.137.58 (talk · contribs · block log) and 166.205.138.159 (talk · contribs · block log) based on: the apparent dynamicity of the range, the length of time passed, the apparently non-enduring nature of the vandalism, and the current semi-protection of the apparent target article. Let me know if you object. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I just looked. I'll email you. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Tea Party

I've become a little involved at the TPM page over the past week or so, but I just write to say that I am now butting out. There is some serious POV pushing going on, where a couple of users are advancing ludicrous interpretations of policy that basically set WP:NPOV out of function. The strategy is classic civ-push where the movements' own writings are seen as the only authentic unbiased description and every outside analysis is rejected as biased against them, to the degree that academic sources are being rejected with arguments such as "there are often errors that go unnoticed in academic books whereas news media have fact checkers that filter out most errors so they are more reliable", or "500 news articles describe them as grassroots so that outweighs the analysis by the academic expert writing that it is hotly contested whether they are a true grassroots movement". So I am unwatching now, just wanted to let you know my perspective as a reasonably uninvokved editor who has only participated briefly in the page. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that there are other matters going on which has delayed the ArbCom case, and also my involvement in the discussion page, so I am unable to monitor it as closely as I would like. But I will try to get over there later today. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say "I told you so," but I gave you a heads-up about this several days ago. There are two words, "grass-roots" and "anti-immigration," which have attracted an enormous amount of heat and barely sufficient light. Civility and WP:AGF are wearing thin. I asked for you to close these two discussions as a previously uninvolved admin and, with all due respect, I'm asking again. Please have a look at the "Help template" at the bottom of the article's regular Talk page, and close these two discussions with a finding regarding consensus. We simply aren't going to be able to move on until these two issues are put to rest.
Thanks, and best of luck with your marathon run tomorrow. By the way, they did catch the two creepy cowards who bombed the Boston Marathon. Two brothers from Chechnya. The 26-year-old was killed just after midnight on Friday morning local time. The 19-year-old was wounded, and last night they found him hiding in a boat in someone's back yard, and he surrendered without further incident. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be the fastest to respond at the moment due to other commitments. But I will take a look later today to see what is happening. Though I have a couple of other things to finish off with regards to the Tea Party which should have priority on my time. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the news on the Boston bombings. I have been keeping up to date with it. It's big news here in the UK, and the London Marathon organisers and runners showed their respect in various ways. Most of us wore black ribbons, and there were a lot of placards and banners - my favourite, about two miles from the end: "Run if you can, walk if you must, but finish for Boston!" SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How lovely. Thanks for posting that. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a photo of that banner with my mobile phone - I was going to upload it, but just did a search online, and found loads of stories which mention the banner, and have much better images. Here's one. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My two other favourite banners were: "Mo Farah never ran a marathon" and "Who needs toenails anyway". SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Inactive on Sexology or Tea party?

Did you mean to make yourself inactive on the Sexology or the Tea party case? Your edit summary says Sexology, but you made yourself inactive on Tea party. Incidentally, if you are going to move yourself inactive, you also need to update the numbers in Casenav/data, or the majority calculations won't tally up. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was Sexology. Could you do it for me? I had mentioned a little while ago to the Committee that I was withdrawing from the case because I felt that because the result I was expecting wasn't there, that I might be biased toward finding that result, but I had neither actioned it, nor let the Clerks know. Then as time went by it seemed as though the case would close without me needing to recuse. But after the weekend there was a feeling that it might be clearer to everyone if I went publicly inactive - especially as I am rather inactive at the moment anyway. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note

hi there. there have been some comments recently at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests regarding the Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion. I noticed that you were one of the original people who participated in the discussion of that item. we would like to get your input if possible. we have been finding it a bit difficult to obtain any input or even any replies from any of the folks connected with this. we really appreciate your help. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, I opposed the idea. You might try one of the Committee members who supported the idea. If you are unable to get assistance, then please come back to me. Though I suspect the others may know a little bit more about how it should be working. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The motion is here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hi there. well, thanks so much for your reply. I do understand. however, i've really been having some odd problems with this whole thing. i have left a number of messages for members of Arbcomm. none of them have replied. even worse, some of them have had NO activity on their talk pages, AT ALL, since I left my messages. I'm talking about several talk pages with no activity, and also no activity at the Arbcomm page.
so yes, I understand, but I think I already need your help and assistance with this now. Arbcomm seems to be having a period of a prolonged hiatus, of some sort or another. so I could really use your input. and by the way, yes, this whole thing seems to be odder and odder to me, speaking as a long-time editor. anyway, I really appreciate your help.
by the way, you can look at my contribs history if you want to see some of this for yourself. be sure to page back in my history to see the relevant material, before today's edits. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What may appear inactive in regards to on-Wiki editing does not always mean inactive as regards doing work for the Committee! Less activity on Wikipedia may sometimes mean LOTS of activity behind the scenes! So much, that getting onto Wikipedia is not always possible, because there is always something else to be done. I have a number of other things that take priority at the moment which I must attend to, but when I do get some time I will look into your query if nobody else has responded in the meantime. I am hoping to have some spare time early next week. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues

Hi, SilkTork -

Several different but related recent events have prompted me to stop by and drop a note here; hopefully you'll be able to give me some input and guidance. At the same time, maybe I can help to clear up a few things.

  • How did I make your list of 3 editors, and why just 3?
I think you must be referring to those editors who are parties in the case, who were edit warring on the article since the case started. You made the list because you were named in the case and you were edit warring on the article since the case started. Three, because those three were parties in the case, and were edit warring on the article since the case started. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could I have done things differently?
Not used reverting as a method of dealing with content dispute. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you able to do some 1-to-1 dispute resolution between 2 editors?
No. I edit Wikipedia in my spare time as a hobby. Because I believe in the importance of the project, I have been willing since early on in my involvement with Wikipedia to help out in dispute resolution. But I do find it distracting and draining, so I try to limit it in order that I have some time left for my self, and to attend to some of the articles that I have been working on. There's an article that I nominated for GA recently, which is going through a review, but I've not been able to work on as I've had various ArbCom matters which have taken priority. It's not a big deal, as if it's failed, I can tidy it up and nominate it again - but I would have preferred to focus on the review rather than waste people's time. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the "difs" provided thus far substantiate anything close to the hyperbolic accusations?
I'm not sure what you mean. And I'm not sure it's worth you explaining it to me. While I am drafting the initial PD - the final PD may well be different, as different members of the Committee have different views. Other findings or remedies may well be added. This is not my single decision at all. I am one member of the Committee. And in my experience on the Committee, most members do tend to look at the evidence rather more than on arguments put forward, though there are some who do value a well presented argument - especially one that shows reflection and understanding on what has happened, and makes commitments to not allowing mistakes to occur again. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wall of Text version

Most recently, this edit of yours has caused me some concern. I'm curious as to what prompted your selection of those three specific editor names (mine in particular) to note as "continuing to edit war ... contributing to the article being fully protected". There have been well over a dozen editors "edit warring" (in the broadest sense) on that article since the March 6 acceptance by ArbCom of the case, including most of the "named parties" to the case. My total of 12 edits since the ArbCom case began is dwarfed by the number of edits and reverts by other editors, so I have to conclude that I've been singled out for some other reason. I had not edited the article for a week before you protected it, having ceased once you proposed moderating a discussion between editors. I wasn't involved in the mini-revert-war that broke out immediately prior to your page protection. Even the 14-edit snapshot from the article edit history that you appended to your comment doesn't give me a clue to your reasoning, since I see other editors in that snapshot revert-warring (Arthur Rubin, Phoenix and Winslow,...) without being specifically identified by you in your finding of fact. Yes, I was involved in the editing disagreement, I can't argue against that. But you worried out loud that if these 3 specific editors, "are prepared to edit war against the spirit of the community sanctions even when ArbCom are closely watching them, then there is a big question about how they will behave once the case is closed." That's a strong charge, and I respectfully take issue with it. My editing efforts are toward article improvement, and are compliant with both the spirit and letter of policy, community sanctions and project standards to the best of my ability. As such, my answer to your "big question" as it relates to me is that I will likely behave the same once the case is closed, because it is unclear to me what behavior I should change. I would make those same edits again. I did reinstate the long-standing content per WP:BRD, and first raised the issue on the Talk page for discussion; the content source had already been vetted at WP:RSN a couple months prior. I also reinstated the content several more times while incorporating the concerns expressed on the Talk page (added more sources; added the 'generally' qualifier; coupled it with proposed "illegal immigration" wording, etc.). Even so, I didn't push the 1RR community sanctions (or even 2RR); making only 6 such edits total to that content, spread over a 14-day period. Contrast that to Phoenix and Winslow's 10 reverts over the same period, which included unreported 1RR violations. Of course I'm not perfect, and I know there's always room for improvement, but I'm not seeing the same thing you apparently see that prompted you to post this "finding of fact" naming me apart from the others. Hopefully you can help me out here; can you pick an example or two and explain how I should have edited differently? If I should be doing things differently, I'd like to get a better grasp on that.

Second issue: I've disengaged from Malke2010. Discourse with her on Arthur Rubin's Talk page, and then on my own Talk page, had degenerated into insults, reverts and other petty unpleasantness. I've requested that she not visit my Talk page anymore (a request she promptly ignored), and she has since taken to leaving baiting remarks to me on Rubin's Talk page, and several unsubstantiated character smears at the TP ArbCom case under my name/header. Since she is the most prolific editor at the Tea Party movement article, productive editing will be hampered if we can't get to the bottom of this animus and resolve it. I'm not sure if there is anything you can do to help in this matter; maybe some kind of third party mediation. At first I thought she was just blowing off steam after our disagreements, but now she appears to have come completely unhinged:

Xenophrenic's comments consistently show a lack of respect for other editors. His lengthy and repetitive arguments wear out editors. He often uses trivial comments in sources he finds on Google books to source his arguments. Right now he's claiming sources show that the tea party movement is "anti-immigration," yet he offers no reliable sources other than trivial mentions in Google books searches. And even where the author doesn't even use the word 'anti-immigration' he will claim that is what the author is really talking about. The archives are filled with these same arguments about racism in the tea party, which Xenophrenic takes the lead on whenever that topic comes up. I have several other examples of disruption, incivil comments, and battle, but I don't have time today due to RL work obligations. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've posted my behaviour. I've not tried to minimize what I've said or done. I agree that it takes two to edit war, but Xenophrenic always starts the edit wars. He has a long history of edit warring on Tea Party movement and elsewhere, including talk pages. Look what he does to other editors. He is without a doubt, the single most disruptive and incivil editor at Tea Party movement. The article would definitely have a chance to improve in his absence. Absolutely it would. There's no need to topic ban anybody else. Nobody else is doing what Xenophrenic is doing. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Seventeen sentences of pure bollocks - all without substantiation, as usual. You asked her for difs, she provided you with 6 links to whole discussion threads. I trust you've read through them. I know for a fact that you did not find substantiation for her mischaracterizations in those links. She claims one shows a "personal attack"; it doesn't. She claims, "Xenophrenic became upset with Malke’s edit that said the real issue is “Immigration reform”"; no, I never did. (In fact, I applauded her for coming at the problem from a new angle - "thinking outside of the box".) What a difference a couple weeks and an argument over immigration can make: User_talk:Malke_2010/Archive_3#TPM_ArbCom_case_Workshop Actually, looking at all of the above, her one claim that I can make lengthy arguments might have some merit -- so I'll wrap this up now.

Any assistance would be appreciated, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interac (Japan)

I could use some help with editing Interac (Japan). Could you please check it and my notes on the Talk page?Taurus669 (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a quick look at the article, and it seems unbalanced and highly critical of the company. I have put some tags oin the article. It does need attention, but I won't have the time to do that now. I'll leave a note on the talkpage. If you have found nobody to assist with the cleaning up in a month's time, please give me a ping then. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH

The TPM discussion is going a lot smoother than the Rick Warren did a few years back, or the one on Judaism (with BusStop being involved in that one). I sure hope the folks will understand just why Wikipedia uses "consensus" as the mechanism for solving disputes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think some people have more difficulty with the slow process of consensus editing than others. Wikipedia can accept all forms of editors - even those who really prefer to work on their own (many FA editors are like that); where we have problems is when an editor who is uncomfortable with the slow process of consensus, gets involved in a contentious topic that really does require discussion, negotiation, and moving slowly. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moderated discussion question

Really going well, I think. In these question you've posed:

  • 1)Is the draft acceptable to be put into mainspace.
  • 2)What is an appropriate title?
  • 3)Should the ground game/GOTV material be discussed as part of the current election material discussion, or should we put that aside for now (and temporarily remove the "Tea Party shifts focus..."

Do you want separate voting for these questions? At the moment there's not. Also, I was thinking it might be better if you pick the title or offer suggestions we can pick from rather than asking others to come up with something. Would be faster and more likely neutral. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look shortly. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive_15&oldid=1138920904"