User talk:SilkTork

Old dusty archives

Modern clean archives

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

— Barack Obama

Van der Graaf Generator

Hi. How are you getting on with the GA review of this? I'm doing a bit of expansion on musical style, as suggested in the review, which will hopefully be done by this evening, at which point I think all existing comments in the review are accounted for.

As stated, I will be mostly off-wiki for about a fortnight starting next week, so if you've come across other problems or things that need improving / fixing, now would be a good time to suggest them! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's been off my radar. I'll take a look today and let you know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Desserts

Hey SilkTork, my name is Mary Kate and I'm a college student at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. For my freshman English class we must write/edit a Wikipedia page. I chose to work on the Desserts page since Wikipedia suggested it needed some work. I was looking at the history of the page and saw you had made changes in the past. Since this is my very first experience editing a Wikipedia page my professor said it might be helpful to reach out to other more established editors. What I have so far is in my sandbox [[1]]. I plan on moving a good bit of content to the main article sometime today or tonight and hopefully the world of Wikipedia will approve. If you have time or just feeling like helping a novice Wikipedia editor then please let me know any thoughts or suggestions you have. Thank you so much!! Mkt324 (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

hi Mary Kate. I took a quick look and made a few notes which you can read in the edit summaries when you click on history. I am not actually a contributor to that article - I consulted that page for some information, and tidied up some formatting while I was there, but I have done no research on the topic. Research is key to writing articles for Wikipedia, and that's your starting point. You can research and make notes, and then edit after you have finished your research, or you can do as the majority of Wikipedians do and edit directly as you are researching, so other editors immediately get the benefit of your research and your sources, and can work collaboratively with you to improve the article. And you can also benefit from their research and amendments - they may tell you that your sources are inappropriate or out of date, etc. Your local library - your college library, and Google Books are a good resource - see history of desserts search result on Google Books. The main contributor on Dessert is User:Nick Michael, and it may be worth contacting him. I would suggest, given the embryonic state of Dessert, that you could start directly editing it. Don't worry about your additions not being perfect - it is understood that articles are not perfect, and that we are all working towards improving them. Be bold!. If you're uncertain about how to do something, or where to find a guideline or a rule, then you could try typing in a word or phrase in the search box that best fits your query, and put "WP:" in front of it. If you are not sure about the layout of an article - try WP:layout; if you're not sure about external links, try WP:external links; if you're not sure about punctuation, try WP:punctuation; etc. Have fun, and give me a ping if you have any other questions, or when you've made a bit more progress and want more feedback. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum

Hi SilkTork. I implore you to reconsider your support vote to ban Malleus Fatuorum at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum. Malleus' intemperate comments have always stemmed from other editors being rude to him (comment from Malleus). I have been unable to find any instances of incivility from Malleus unprovoked by another editor attacking or baiting him.

At the Arbitration Requests case page, one arbitrator, AGK, called Malleus "a net negative"; another, Jclemens, said "Malleus has himself chosen to join those other groups in his self-selected banning; all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made." (He later revised the comment but his revision makes it no less hurtful.)

In my opinion, the two comments have been more uncivil than anything Malleus has ever said. These upsetting comments written by respected arbitrators are disappointing. Jclemens seems to be kicking Malleus while he is down. As Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) who supported the ban wrote, "@Jclemens ... the fact that you can't see what you wrote as entirely unhelpful to the situation is quite worrying. Are you trying to piss Malleus off so he rejects Newyorkbrad's advice and so you can get him banned?"

They are but two examples of nastiness that Malleus faces on a daily basis from other editors. As a fallible human, Malleus replies in kind. But because he uses "naughty words", he is made the target of sanctions while those who bait and attack him are unsanctioned.

Isarra (talk · contribs), who filed the initial request, asked for clarification about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Malleus Fatuorum topic banned, which prevented Malleus from posting on RfA talk pages. Malleus has participated in several robust discussions at RfAs, as have I. There have been attempts to move these lengthy discussions to the talk page. Participating in lengthy discussions that are moved to the talk page is not disruptive. However, some of his intemperate language has been found to be problematic.

At a recent RfA, he called an editor a "dishonest twat" after the editor made a baiting remark. Malleus' response was too intemperate, however, and he was banned from the RfA by uninvolved administrator Worm That Turned (talk · contribs).

As Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) wrote (my bolding): "Malleus made a personal attack, it was removed, it was not replaced, he was topic banned from the RFA, and made no more edits to the RFA. The motion below appears to be a response to the idea that the previous sanctions failed and the community can't handle this on its own... except the previous sanction did work, and the community handled it just fine on its own. If you were planning on sitebanning Malleus the first time he "disrupted" an RFA, why in the world did you go to the trouble of creating this remedy?"

I echo Floquenbeam's words: The previous sanction worked. A topic ban from RfA altogether or a siteban seems disproportionate and cruel to an editor who has devoted so many hours to helping other users with their articles.

Editors like Lecen (talk · contribs), a non-native English speaker, who thanked him for making numerous improvements during his featured article nomination. Editors like Jivesh boodhun (talk · contribs), another non-native English speaker, who thanked Malleus for his indefatigable work on Jivesh's articles.

Editors like high school biology teacher JimmyButler (talk · contribs)'s students; see "Perspectives from this side of the screen."

Feel the gratitude and glee in Mr. Butler's student, Savannah, as she writes, "I am absolutely bursting with excitement! I will make that change ASAP! Thank you sooooo much for helping me reach my goal! :)"

Feel the pure ecstasy and joy in Mr. Butler's student, Marissa, as she tells Malleus, "Thank you so much for your help on Spotted eagle ray. It wouldn't have passed without your help!"

Feel the appreciation and gratitude in Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs), as he gives Malleus a beer for his work on Chrisye.

These are but a few of the instances where Malleus has helped other editors in need. Non-native English speakers. High school students. Experienced editors.

Malleus has immeasurably improved the encyclopedia with his presence: his willingness to help others on a multitude of topics, many of which he has no interest in.

To call him a "net negative" or to say "he has never been a Wikipedian" cannot be farther from the truth.

The sanction from the Arbitration case has "worked" per my bolding of Floquenbeam's comment above. To ban Malleus Fatuorum would be a travesty of justice.

As you are the arbitrator I am the most familiar with and trust, I am making this personal appeal here on your talk page (though I will also copy part of it to the Arbitration page). SilkTork, please reconsider your support vote to ban Malleus. I will be very disappointed and saddened if Malleus is banned, as will innumerable other editors who will have lost his beautiful gifts of knowledge, wisdom, and altruism.

Best,

Cunard (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean AGK not SirFozzie, and for the record, I support the ban as a last resort, should attempts to work with Malleus fail. --Rschen7754 09:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, missed your clarification later on, but for the record, it was AGK who said "net negative". Which is debateable, but not outright uncivil IMHO. --Rschen7754 09:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections, which I've made. If an editor called me a "net negative" after I spent so many hours improving this website, I would find it very hurtful and cruel. Whether that would be uncivil or not under Wikipedia's civility policy is certainly debatable though. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this, I would urge you to examine the recent behaviour of the reviewer in question - he's made similar accusations about at least a half-dozen people across multiple venues (disclosure: I'm one of the people he's complaining about). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I draw your attention to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles, where MathewTownsend called FA writers "divas" (my bolding):

I think this is a particular problem because an editor who has written all or most of the article often seems to feel ownership especially if it has FA. They often talk about "my work", "articles I wrote", guard their watchlist, and act in every way that it belongs to them. There is an article somewhere about "diva" editors. If wp is really interested in retaining new editors, I think this attitude needs to change.

Editors with "ownership" issues typically do not edit collaboratively with the community but write the article themselves, perhaps with a few "trusted" friends. Perhaps wp needs to decide whether they are apart from WMF goals or not. Perhaps wp should be split into the existing encyclopedia, and a special "literary magazine" for FAs (whose editors choose to be in it - e.g. "diva" editors could put their articles there) with different rules. Since FAs usually have low number of page views, perhaps this could be achieved without harming the encyclopedia.

Malleus wrote later in the thread that MathewTownsend's post was "insulting". This discussion is the genesis of the dispute between Malleus and MathewTowsend. I urge you to read it closely. Malleus does not make intemperate comments unless he is provoked.

After this 10 September 2012 discussion, MathewTownsend has done GA reviews at Talk:Liberté class battleship/GA1 (passed 19 October), Talk:Illecillewaet Glacier/GA1 (passed 14 October), and Talk:Alta Airport/GA1 (promised a review 7 October 2012). He performed an FA review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Istanbul/archive3 on 15 October. He is clearly not discouraged or intimidated from performing GA or FA reviews.

In relation to a WP:TFAR discussion regarding an article Truthkeeper88 cleansed from copyright violations (see Iridescent's summary about MathewTownsend's actions here), MathewTownsend has made comments to Truthkeeper88 that are much more personal and hurtful than anything Malleus ever said to him: link and link. I will not quote his comments here as I find them too disturbing.

As Truthkeeper88 wrote, "@ SilkTork - you might be interested in how that very same editor treated me recently. It's two way street and but with double standards. Will provide diffs later. On my way out the door. Suffice to say that personal attacks had to be redacted from Iridescent's page."

In this same incident, at Moonriddengirl's talk page, Moonriddengirl wrote to MathewTownsend: "You seem to be interested in picking a fight here. I'm not, so I'll bid you good day" and "Given your persistent confusion about this, I'll try to clarify in spite of your tone. If you want to discuss it further, please remember that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are policies. Like many, I respond best to polite conversation."

I draw your attention to this proposal by Mogism (talk · contribs):

Those who bait Malleus (as opposed to those who have legitimate disagreements with him) are warned not to interact with him in any way, unless unavoidable; if there is any dispute as to what constitutes "unavoidable" any admin can refer the matter to Arbcom who will issue an ad hoc ruling as to what constitutes "baiting". ("Admin" to act as a natural choke on the number of people referring disputes, rather than as some kind of super-status—any other arbitrary group would do just as well.) If Arbcom rule that the comments are baiting, the editor in question is given an only warning, which covers the next 14 days, to desist from further interaction. If Arbcom rule that the comments are legitimate, Malleus is given an only warning, which covers the next 14 days, to desist from any comment would could reasonably be considered rude.

As Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) wrote, this is "a remedy that at least seemed to have the appearance of equity". Please consider alternative options such as this one so Malleus is not banned. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment here. Eloquently stated and humane.

I am keen to look at and consider other solutions than a ban, but until a viable solution is proposed, I will continue to support a ban, regardless of how much I respect your work and your dedication. If you can propose a solution yourself, I'll be more than happy to hear it. – I recommend this proposal by Mogism (talk · contribs), which I quoted above. Please consider it.

Cunard (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for some of the background information, and for the link to Mogism's proposal. I really wanted a full case to discuss all this. Argued for it on the Committee email list. But the consensus was against it. So be it. And now here we are with a motion. I'm not happy that it's a motion rather than a case. I didn't support the idea of a motion when we had the option of a case. Fought against it because I felt that the situation was too complex to be dealt with by a motion, and that we needed the involvement of the community. As we couldn't agree on a motion or a case, the request was closed; and now here we are with MF again involved in drama which has been brought to the attention of the Committee, I don't think in the circumstances it would be appropriate to just shrug it off. My preference is for a full case to look into the matter. I'd rather we keep on trying to find a solution rather than to give up and allow hostility to be accepted, or to give up and ban MF. But of those two extremes I would reluctantly accept the ban than the hostility. The choices in preference order: 1) A full case; 2) A workable motion that allows MF to continue working and reduces drama and hostility for everyone; 3) A ban 4) Do nothing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, SilkTork, for approaching this with even-handedness. I agree that a solution should be found rather than doing nothing or banning Malleus. At the moment, the ban is passing because SirFozzie reinstated his support. You (and many other members of the community) believe that this has been going too fast. Proposals such as Mogism (talk · contribs)'s haven't been considered. Nor has Thryduulf's at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by uninvolved Thryduulf.

Has the committee seriously considered something like Mogism's proposal or Thryduulf's? Banning Malleus should be the last resort. I would like to hear your thoughts about Mogism's proposal in particular since it seems like a viable option. It could be fine-tuned, but it addresses Malleus' intemperate comments and the baiting.

I urge you to withdraw your support vote temporarily (as SirFozzie did) so that Malleus is not banned before alternative options can be considered. The moment Malleus is banned we will have forever lost an invaluable contributor. Cunard (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Townshend

If you believe that stuff---Oh, woe is me, I have been intimidated by an editor by MF---you should send me your bank account information and passwords. I have 10 million dollars coming to me, but I need to deposit it in your account. I'll gladly give you 2 million for your troubles. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork, I would take a look at Iridescent's talk page before mentioning Matthew Townsend - there's some context you may not be aware of. --Rschen7754 19:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cunard has supplied some helpful links above. It looks like that incident is more complex than first appears, but I'm not sure how far back it goes. That's why a full case is needed, so all this stuff can be uncovered in evidence. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus' devotion to the project ready to ban him is breathtaking: "I've done all the thinking I need to do. All I'm asking for now is a 24-hour stay of execution to complete my two outstanding GA reviews."

Can the Arbitration Committee say that it has tried in every way possible to prevent Malleus from being banned? I do not think so.

Only when everything has failed should a contributor be banned.

This situation is very complex. A ban carried out within several days of Requests for clarification post is unfair and too hasty. I implore you to strike out your support vote temporarily so that other motions could be proposed: (i) open a full case, or (ii) enact a remedy like Mogism's or Thryduulf's. Cunard (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I am considering it, and have raised the issue on the Committee email list. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, SilkTork. As this is a discussion of a non-privacy-sensitive topic, I don't think there's any harm in the arbitrator's publicly discussing other options at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This will allow the community to understand the arbitrators' various positions on the issues, so the community can propose alternative options like Mogism's or Thryduulf's. Cunard (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy. In this case, I am letting the other members know that I am thinking of putting a hold on the motion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, SilkTork, for temporarily withdrawing your support vote to ban Malleus. Regarding your comment here, I think Courcelles (talk · contribs)'s motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum (2) is the best remedy at this time since it seems most on the Committee do not want to have a full case. Cunard (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not go gentle into that good night

Hi SilkTork,

I don't think I'm being as arse with this, but do you know any admins who could step in and find a peaceful solution to this childish argument. Cheers. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want all this unsourced and opinionated content to remain, why don't you take the time to source it? It has been in the article, and unreferenced, for years, and you have done nothing about it. My deletion of this unsourced opinion and trivia is in keeping with policy. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility

Why is this acceptable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. Incivility is not acceptable. It happens, and most of us have experienced someone being rude or hostile toward us, and many of us (me included) have at times said, in the heat of the moment, things that were rude or hurtful. My own approach to people being rude is to ignore the rudeness and focus on the essence of what a person is saying and respond, politely, to that. If the comment is just rude, and there is no meaningful content, then I just ignore it.

My preference is for a community that is cooperative, collaborative and civil. But I accept that we are dealing with a wide cross-section of the community, and that communication via the internet is impersonal, and Wikipedia editing can be emotional, so people do sometimes get heated and say inappropriate things.

If I am mediating a dispute discussion, I am aware that feelings can run high, so I will not be surprised at a certain amount of strong language, but will ask that participants focus on the issue rather than on personalities, and if it seems necessary I will remove or archive personal comments or attacks.

If someone is repeatedly rude and hostile, and is not responding to requests, advice, warnings, admonishments and sanctions, and their rude behaviour is in itself a cause of disharmony within the community, then we do need to look seriously at removing them.

The problem, of course, is how to signal to users early on that their conduct is inappropriate, when many users do it occasionally (so it is all around us), and when, often, the best approach is not to tackle it head on, but to ignore it!

Talkpage comments can be particularly unpleasant, and it is difficult to know exactly how to deal with them, as that depends on the circumstances, and the individuals involved. How do you feel that this incident should be handled? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes its a preference, like we'd all prefer to live in a world without wars, famine, greed, crime and corruption. But that's life. Its a sort of wiki utopia and given the massive range of editors and personalities we have on here I rarely find a situation where everybody agrees or somebody isn't angry or upset with something. Add to that the difficulties of wikipedia and content disputes and different perceptions of things at times its impossible to understand how others are feeling. In practice wikipedia is never going to be the civil website you desire. Too many restrictions and different sorts of people. I don't think making Malleus a Martyr for the Civility cause "he sets a bad example to others, ban him" to follow this principle will have any effect on others, and given what Malleus does do when he is focused on content with copyediting and reviewing would be a crying shame. I'm not excusing anything he has said which some people on here have considered "uncivil" but I'm saying that it only becomes a major issue because you make it one. I was pretty uncivil to Malleus last week over something where he really got to me and I spouted my mouth off at him about his attitude. But his reaction in the aftermath shows considerable strength of character and with his assistance and reviewing an article is now at FAC. That sort of input is invaluable.

If I'm honest I didn't take Ceocil's comments even remotely seriously because they were so aggressive and OTT and I responded light heartedly to him. I thought my argument was fair, I don't like to see time wasting. But without a shadow of a doubt his comments were grossly offensive and he made it personal by insulting my own work which frankly is not true. I'm just wrapping up a 92kb expansion of an article! But if he is like that with other people somebody somewhere is going to take great offence and leave the project. I would have liked to have seen you, Clemens or New York Brad at least comment after what he said or left a message on his page warning him but you did absolutely nothing, in fact Brad said made out as if I was equally to blame which is wrong. I've seen editors like Malleus blocked for much lesser comments. If you are going to stick to your guns with advocating good standards of civility between editors I want you to be consistent. He needed a warning at the very least that he should not be talking and attacking editors in that way. Its the double standards above anything which get to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And then there's this. Why are administrators allowed to get away with calling another editor "you serial liar", and ordinary editors are not? Can we have an end to the double standards, please? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ceocil has apologised to me now, so I accept that, nothing further needed, but do remember what I said Silk about the double standards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

• "...There is strong support on this page for MF, that cannot be ignored. And at the same time, a curious low level of participation from those who are concerned about incivility. It may have something to do with some of the comments that some of my fellow Committee members have made, and people not wishing to be associated with those comments; but that is speculation..."

I'm merely expressing my opinion, based upon what I've seen (before, during, and after other not dissimilar furors).

I think that many editors dive under the covers during such times, especially when a group of like-minded editors rise up in support of a friend.

For one thing, there are those who may dislike conflict, and see such situations as too potentially conflict-ridden to interject themselves into the controversy.

For another, Wikipolitics (as much as I try sincerely to ignore them) are very real for some. And there are those who may decide that no comment is better than commenting. Perhaps because it could serve to seem to be painting a target on one's self, and because, on Wikipedia, all comments remain in edit history, and so also fear of future target painting. (Not to mention, not everyone may be fluent in Bradspeak : )

This is multiplied when the situation may seem to appear complicated.

(Among many other reasons people may decide to stay quiet during what may be perceived as a firestorm of controversy)

I don't think anyone is suggesting WP:CIVIL shouldn't be enforced. To me, I see people wanting to support their friend who they think is being baited and/or attacked, not that they think WP:CIVIL is bad.

Though other unfortunate comments, and/or the wordings thereof, has had a perhaps not unforeseen effect as well, as you note.

Just some thoughts I had while reading your comments. - jc37 23:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I had similar ones. The situation is interesting for those of us interested in how Wikipedia works as a community. We observe and we learn and we hopefully improve. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. And nod, I agree. - jc37 01:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

some thoughts

Extended content

Please don't take the charges against me without considering context. I had no idea that the word "diva" was forbidden to be used, as I'd seen the word plenty of times reading wikipedia. Or that my idea of a literary magazine was a forbidden one. In any case, Malleus and Nikimaria could have merely explained to me their objection. Instead, please read [2] First, I apologize for a change I made because I didn't have a way of leaving an edit summary. Then I'm criticized for using the word "watchlist". Please read the whole section. where I'm struggling to understand, but I'm unintentionally saying "forbidden" words. Please note what Malleus says to me and how he attacks me for an accidental mistake I make in trying to copy the name of his article so I can use it in my post. He does not assume good faith, but says I am Puritanical and intentially screwed up the name. Then he goes on to trash all my contributions. And goes on and on about my accident in misforming his article name. I try unsuccessfully to defend myself. I no way was I trying to do wrong or vandalize an article. After the section break, others express better what I meant. This is just one example. Please pass some civility rules that stop this kind of thing. Because I proposed an article for the main page that was secretly forbidden, I was likewise trashed. There was no way to know that article was forbidden to be on the main page, as it was a FA. How can a new editor function on wikipedia with all these hidden rules that are difficult for a new editor to understand, or even know about? Truly, I have done my best to be a good editors, and many have praised my efforts, including admins such as Crisco, Wehwalt, and Mark Arsten. Please see my user page. Please advise me how to deal with this antagonism against me, promoted by two editors and Malleus. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC) p.s. Even though I was crucified repeatedly for my nomination of the FA The Story of Miss Moppet for TFA, it's been agreed upon by those who crucified me that the status of the article is unclear. e.g.[3] I think I was unfairly pillared because I don't know all the back stories of wikipedia - no newbie can. And I was accused of engaging in a conspiracy because I didn't understand and all explanations were conducted by email. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC) p.s. Probably Nikkimaria will follow me here. Hopefully my predicting this will stop her from doing so. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC) [4] [5] [6] among others MathewTownsend (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC) The situation regarding you seems rather complex. I hadn't looked fully into the situation when I mentioned the dispute you were having with MF, and took it on face value. I'm afraid I don't have the time at the moment to look into it, and I'm not sure, even, what advice to give you. Your situation reminds me of that of another user - User:Mattisse. Her problems also revolved around GA and FA, and were quite similar. If there's any advice that I could offer based on the very little that I have seen, it would be to walk away from this dispute and to concentrate instead on editing and reviewing. Sorry I can't be of any further help. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Hi Mathew! A newbie can learn by asking good-faith questions and accepting the responses he's offered. He can avoid accusing others of the same behaviours he himself has. He can realize that when multiple uninvolved editors object to his behaviour, perhaps there's a problem rather than it all being a conspiracy against him. He can avoid misinterpreting or misrepresenting statements. He can realize that when it's pointed out there's background he may not be aware of, he should try to familiarize himself with that background before saying everyone in the cabal is against newbies. He can accept that when multiple people ask him to stop posting to their talk pages, he should do so, and perhaps modify his tone in future. Most of all, he could seek the guidance of experienced editors like yourself - after all, you were given such guidance once upon a time, and you're a newbie anymore. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Hey, I predicted above that you'd follow me here, Nikkimaria. Please stop following me around and posting under my posts everywhere. Please don't do that anymore. I don't find it helpful, but rather feel that I'm being stalked by you for a silly mistake I made long ago, using the word "diva" and "watchlist". Other than that, I don't know what I've done to you that has prompted you to follow me around so, but I don't find it helpful. Please let SilkTork answer and stop answering questions that I am asking others. Best wishes to you, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Oh, I saw. I thought you weren't asking questions anymore, though? No matter. Since you're curious, I'll remind you: I dislike misrepresentation. You might have noticed I posted here before you did, too, not that it matters. Have a wonderful day! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Oh, sorry Nikkimaria that you misunderstood my post that you reference. Please read it more completely. I'm not giving up asking questions. And I haven't misrepresented. Please stop following me. Have a wonderful day also! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Oh? I thought "I won't ever ask any questions again." to be a rather definitive statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC) You removed a large section of my talkpage, so I have rolled back to restore what was removed, in doing so I also removed your last communications. I have read them though, and I think you perhaps missed my earlier response above. I repeat it here: The situation regarding you seems rather complex. I hadn't looked fully into the situation when I mentioned the dispute you were having with MF, and took it on face value. I'm afraid I don't have the time at the moment to look into it, and I'm not sure, even, what advice to give you. Your situation reminds me of that of another user - User:Mattisse. Her problems also revolved around GA and FA, and were quite similar. If there's any advice that I could offer based on the very little that I have seen, it would be to walk away from this dispute and to concentrate instead on editing and reviewing. Sorry I can't be of any further help. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry I can't be of any further help. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry to remove your talk page. That was totally accidental. Mostly I've spent my time editing articles and reviewing GAs, New Page Patrol, and edit/writing the Signpost. I haven't had trouble with any projects or any other editors besides Malleus and Nikkimaria. And I've had no trouble with FA or GA. The Miss Moppet situation is over my head and had to do with past copyvio that I was unaware of, so I didn't know it couldn't be nominated for TFA. There was nothing indicating that the Miss Moppet FA couldn't be nominated. I've had no trouble there before. Gathering from Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Story of Miss Moppet/archive1, others have trouble understanding the Miss Moffit situation also. Apparently the copyvio issues were identified in 2010 but it was left as an FA in good standing. I don't think that can be blamed on me. Sorry to trouble you. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC) "I haven't had trouble with any projects or any other editors besides Malleus and Nikkimaria." - oh? You might be forgetting a few (dozen) people. I recall you got a bit upset last time I gave you diffs to disprove this statement, but if you'd like more that's quite easy to do. And your assertion that you have had not trouble with FA seems a bit out of step with your statements here - would you mind clarifying? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Would you folks please conduct this conversation on your own talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I see what you did there, over at Rolling Stone 500

Rolling Stone lists get press, but not all get individual WP:N notability. I suggest moving instead to Rolling Stone lists of best albums, and including RS's 500, and the various International RS 100's. Basically, sticking to Rolling Stone lists. I mean the "500" article is rather freakishly short, by itself. Sticking with only Rolling Stone lists avoids the WP:COATRACK issues with non-Rolling Stone lists... --Lexein (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. I'm going to copy over your comment and respond on the article talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

One more for your collection

		The Original Barnstar
		I don't agree with everything you've ever said or done on ArbCom, but I think you're not only an extremely honest person, but brave in the forthright defense of your beliefs and reasonable in showing a willingness to amend them when a developing situation dictates. Thank you for your excellent work on behalf of Wikipedia in an extremely thankless position. Carrite (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Much appreciated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:List

Hi SilkTork, I was considering taking {{list}} to TfD, but I wanted to hear your perspective first. The main reason I question its value is the existence of {{prose}}, which has a longer history (4+ years) and many more transclusions (2353 vs. 66, according to Jarry1250's tool). I don't actually want to delete List; I'd just rather see it redirect to Prose. There seems to be very little difference between the templates, with both pointing to the same MOS section. I understand that Prose refers to a whole article in list format, as opposed to List referring to a series of lists, but I'm not sure how important the distinction is for tagging and cleanup. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I meant to add that the ability of Prose to refer to something besides the main article via parameters is what makes List look truly redundant to me. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. I cant remember why I created that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It was an (unattributed) fork of {{Prose}}, I see no reason why it should not be unforked. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC).

Works for me. "Redirect" was actually misspelled; I've fixed it so List now works for Prose. --BDD (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Rather than Civility, maybe we should start calling it Courtesy

I read your recent submission to the Editor Fatuorum talk page. I have added it to User:Buster7/Incivility (with some edits, of course) which has become more of a collection of thoughts on the subject of Civility rather than an essay. As I was naming this thread, the thought struck me that maybe a solution to moving forward with the long and winding discussion is discussing Courtesy rather than Civility. Maybe Courtesy is a broader more universal and uniformally International concept than the arguable more abstract concept of Civility. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought, but I don't think it would make much difference. Civil works for me because it is part of civilisation. When people come together for a mutual project, we create a civilisation, and in order to make that civilisation work effectively we adjust our behaviour. Humans are social animals, and on the whole we do work together well, and we adjust our behaviour to accommodate others. We are polite, helpful and welcoming. However, there are noticeable variations within this sociability. We are more sociable to those we know / like / admire / recognise as being part of our group. We tend to be less welcoming to strangers than friends and family. We tend to be less welcoming to those who don't share our values, or who may give the appearance of not sharing our values. Racism comes from that trait. It's possibly a primitive survival instinct - go toward the familiar, and you are safe. Baby elephants will instinctively follow a large moving object, such as a Jeep - this is safer, as the large moving object is more likely to be an elephant than a tiger. We are, of course, more sophisticated than baby elephants, and we have developed since the times of tribal society, so racist and uncivil behaviour is now quite unacceptable.

There are, however, going to be reasons why people occasionally react in a primitive manner, even though they are otherwise urbane, sophisticated, knowledgeable, mature and intelligent. The internet is a recent communication system which divorces people from the emotional signals that we have picked up over generations, and which warns us to modify our behaviour at tense times. It is similar to driving a car, in which we become disconnected from our surroundings. People, on the whole, do not behave the same on the internet and in cars as they would do in a close contact social gathering. Added to which there is pressure/encouragement to behave in a certain way - sometimes positive, sometimes negative. People who continue to behave poorly on Wikipedia have been allowed, even encouraged to do so. Some people get trapped in that behaviour without intelligently analysing it. They might even enjoy the attention they get from it. This is often the case with children - so parents and teachers are instructed to ignore poor behaviour and praise the good. And added to all that, is the emotional aspect of editing Wikipedia. People often edit subjects which are meaningful and important to them - they place a good deal of their self worth in the subject matter - it could be religion, politics, ethnicity, pop idols or sports teams; when others add negative material to such articles, people take it personally. And there's also the pride and self worth people feel from doing work on Wikipedia, and they feel belittled if this is attacked or undermined. It's all quite complex, and cannot be summed up or dismissed easily. How do we ensure that civility is maintained on Wikipedia? We draw up a civility policy, we try to enforce it, and when the community struggles with that, we take the issue to ArbCom. But when the committee feels unable to deal with it, then the community needs to have a serious think about the way forward. With elections coming up, perhaps the community will vote in stronger committee members, and that may create an imbalance going forward, so that ArbCom becomes rather tougher than the community as a whole actually wants.

While I don't like incivility it doesn't have a significant impact on me. I am concerned, however, for how it impacts on the wider community - the unseen silent majority. Strong debate should occur, and sometimes this will descend into hostility and cutting remarks. OK, but when those affected by the hostility raise the issue, then we should do something about it rather than shrugging it off, or excusing it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

For Giving Your Two Cents

		Cents for Sense
		Sometimes two cents is worth considerably more than it seems. Thank You for sharing and providing insight into the discussion surrounding Civility. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Interaction bans

You're one of the arbitrators who suggested making our interaction bans mutual, but I see the other arbitrators now are voting to take no action. Could you please offer an opinion on what I said here? Assuming ArbCom will take no action, I would like to know whether they have any long-term plan for how to stop this conflict continuing to spread and involve more editors. Zeromus1 (talk)