User talk:SilkTork

Old dusty archives

Modern clean archives

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

To remove the sandbox link add #pt-sandbox { display: none; } (or li#pt-sandbox {display: none;} for MonoBook users) to your common.css page.

To prevent the "Your edit was saved" message add .postedit { display: none; } to your personal CSS.

To prevent site notices add #siteNotice { display:none; } to your personal CSS.

To prevent the MediaViewer follow these instructions

Use {{Reflist|30em}} instead of {{Reflist|2}}

Renaming an article (U.S. intervention in Venezuela)

Discussion moved to article talkpage

Best greetings to you. Some days ago, I had created an article by the name of "U.S. intervention in Venezuela", but a user (Jamez42) renamed the title to "Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis" although there was/is disagreement for such change, from first. And even I mentioned in the AFD that: "...this title ("U.S. intervention in Venezuela") is the best related-subject to present the concept of the article; and such phrase is notable enough based on news/media to have an independent page..." On the other hand, another user (Mhhossein) expressed his disagreement for this change, and mentioned (in AFD [1]) about the necessary of request for such rename (to see others' view). E.g., in reaction to such rename, Mhhossein said: "This is not how we decide on the titles. I suggest you make a move request after the AFD is closed" --but-- Jamez42 renamed it without starting to survey the view of others. Afterwards, I'd undo this rename (to return it to its first title), but seemingly I hadn't/haven't such option to undo that. So, I appreciate your help --to solve the discussion (to return its first name). Thank you. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @Ali Ahwazi:, what you are doing is called "forum/admin shopping" and it is a discouraged practice. You were already asked in the talk page of another uninvolved admin if you discussed the issue with me, which you have not. I can continue the discussion that we had at the talk page and the AfD before, but I feel it would be easier if we talked this directly. Best regards, --Jamez42 (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC) The name of an article should reflect the contents. If the article is about U.S. intervention in Venezuela, then that would be the appropriate name. If the article is about Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis then that would be the appropriate name. It may be appropriate to have two articles - one focusing on U.S. involvement/intervention in Venezuela/ the Venezuelan presidential crisis, the other focusing on Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis. These are matters for editorial discussion on the talkpage of the article. SilkTork (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @SilkTork: To be frank, Jamez42 hijacked the article by moving the former title, despite the clear objections, and then changing the title. Anyway, we can now have two separate articles. @Jamez42: You had to start a discussion before making such a contested move, specially when you are advised not to do so before making the move. @Ali Ahwazi: I suggest re-creating an article focusing on the previous title. --Mhhossein talk 13:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC) This conversation needs to take place on the article talkpage, not my usertalkpage. I shall move it there now. SilkTork (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks Before leaving, I just wanted to give thanks for the move. Best wishes, --Jamez42 (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The Rama arbitration case

As you noted Rama did something that is in effect unsanctionable, and largely what is expected of an admin. That's the purpose of my text on the role of admins in the fight against vandalism, and that it feels to me that there is much in this case about the duties of admins but very little about their purpose.

You express concern about what you call the battlefield mentality Rama exhibited. But I think this concern is overwrought and open to abuse. Rama was effectively the victim of a pile-up, (which Fram admits using such circumlocutions as 'ill advised actions'). The pile-up could have been coordinated, or just happenchance, it's not really possible to know. It should have been the role of other fellow admins to show support for Rama and try to defuse the situation, and absent that, and the extremely rapid escalation to the arbcom, anyone would have felt tense, and indeed Rama was pretty chill about it.

If this is found to be a fault, you are then saying that any group of vandals (and I'm not saying this is the case here) being boldly blocked should pile up on the admin in the hope of making them write unkind words and then use that to have the admin in front of the arbcom within a couple of hours, with some odds of getting them desysopped. That's not a good system to minimise vandalism in the encyclopedia. And this is particularly problematic when more and more political interests try to tweak the encyclopedia in their favour.CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we put aside talk of vandalism, as that doesn't relate to anything I said, and is anyway not remotely connected to this case.

I don't think we are seeing Rama's responses in the same way. But that's OK - there are always varying ways to interpret what someone says.

If you feel others are victimising or harassing Rama, then please bring evidence to me of that, and I will look into it and give my views.

I have already done so and indeed Fram got admonished in Commons for their cross-wiki behaviour. The timeline also shows Rama facing aggressive questioning from a surprisingly large number of users given the topic's apparent non-notability. (One has to have found oneself at the receiving end of a pile-up to understand how it feels. It's much worse from the inside...) There is also Sitush suggesting that Wade's contribution should be scrutinised more and 'she ain't seen nothing yet'. It's all in the arbcom page.CyrilleDunant (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I am having difficulty following what you say. Are you French? If so, you could post to me in French. My wife is French, and would help me with the translation. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I could write it in French but I don't think this would help :). But I believe in trying to make my views clear, so let me try again.

When Rama re-establishes the article because they think it was removed in error, this is indistinguishable from re-establishing the article because they think it was removed as a form of vandalism. It has to be: the actions taken by Rama are the same and the reason they give is the same ('the topic is notable'). If that's OK -- I think it is, it's the job of an admin -- then we must be very careful about what follows. Imagine, if you will, that you are a vandal. What would be the best outcome for you? I would argue it is that you get rid of the admin who foiled you.

It means that if there is immediately following a controversial use of admin tools a very low threshold of error for an admin to get arbcomed and perhaps desysopped (you know, they used the wrong words, or they replied in more than 10 minutes to queries) as a result of this cases, then every vandal will try to provoke every admin and in fact, in many cases will succeed and obtain a desysop. This outcome would not be helpful to the encyclopedia.CyrilleDunant (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

When you talk about vandalism you completely lose me. Can we just leave vandalism out of this because it is not relevant and is diverting attention from what you are saying. SilkTork (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What's the purpose of an admin? What are the conditions that allow admins to fulfil their purpose?CyrilleDunant (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Rephrasing previous: If there is immediately following a controversial use of admin tools a very low threshold of error for an admin to get arbcomed and perhaps desysopped (you know, they used the wrong words, or they replied in more than 10 minutes to queries) as a result of this cases, then every unhappy contributor with an axe to grind will try to provoke every admin and in fact, in many cases will succeed and obtain a desysop. This outcome would not be helpful to the encyclopedia.CyrilleDunant (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

If you are concerned that Rama has been inappropriately treated by someone, please use diffs to indicate where this happened so I can look at them. SilkTork (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it not be inappropriate for me to repost the diffs already provided in the arbitration page?CyrilleDunant (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No it would not, but you could also direct me to the place on the arbitration page where those diffs are. Up to you. Just as long as I know what you are talking about I can respond. SilkTork (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

A piece of advice

Because you seem so keen on advising others in the most inappropriate way. A man with a gun cannot advise, he can only threaten. As an arbitrator, you cannot advise people you are to pass judgement on, only threaten them.

You don't get to tell yourself you only tried to help, because you did the reverse, which was obvious to anyone outside your bubble.

I don't know that you are capable of understanding this piece of advice, but I have hope.CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Bot created articles

I've now made some drafts for bot articles at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current), User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Listed buildings and User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Scottish CPs and have notified the projects. Notice that for the English civil parishes that I have suggested a low creation rate of 10 a day of which I could check (and possibly improve) the articles. As far as the listed buildings articles go I'm far less concerned if that's done and if is isn't they could just be added to the parish article anyway. In order to be able to do the bot created articles efficiently and properly at least I would need to have the move restriction (and be allowed to create DABs and redirects in mainspace) removed. IMO this is a relatively low request on my behalf since I would clearly like to create many articles with bots but CPs should be the absolute minimum. As far as my AFC submissions have gone, every one of them have been accepted (the only issue there was was at North Clifton, see User talk:Eagleash#North Clifton copyright but was simply some long-standing text in another article). Obviously there will be many articles that I can't have created with a bot but if we just allow me to move pages and create DABs/redirects in mainspace that would be sufficient at least for the bot articles. Given that I'm allowed to create pages in other namespaces now and DAB pages and redirects in the article namespace aren't subject to the same rules (but rather those similar to content in other namespaces) I can't see an issue with allowing DAB pages and redirects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) SilkTork, see my comments here. Unless I'm wildly misreading this proposal, I'm inclined to block this bot on sight if I see the slightest indication that it doesn't have approval both from BAG and from the relevant projects; this looks like yet another attempt to crapflood the wiki with stubs. (Begoon, you were there last time around, do you have any thoughts?) ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be an existing bot (say like User:BotMultichill) I don't have the skills or understanding anyway to create a bot and am restricted to 1 account anyway. @Iridescent: you did misunderstand in that you thought I was intending on creating an article for every building, there shouldn't be, just one list for the entire parish. Yes it will need approval from BAG. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent, I haven't looked deeply into this particular case, but I do share your concerns about "crapflood[ing] the wiki with stubs". At a minimum this would need BAG approval and that of the projects concerned, yes. I'd also like to see an explicit statement from Crouch, Swale that they would STOP the second ANYONE asked them to - for the protection of the wiki, and the protection of Crouch, Swale from reimposition of blocks. I confess that, given the history, I'm uneasy about Crouch, Swale exercising sufficient judgement in this area. -- Begoon 23:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon: the process would be something like (1) I make suggestions and form ideas for the articles (which I have done at the subpages) (2) I ask for feedback from the relevant projects (which is going on now) (3) it would go through BAG (4) a bot operator would use a bot to preform the creations, as opposed to me! unless the community though it better for me to use a script to semi-automatically create them in which case yes I would stop the moment anyone asked me to. And yes if there was even the slightest concern the I'd ask the bot operator to stop (or change) the process. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for Crouch, Swale to present their ideas to others such as Begoon and Iridescent. As well as not being in favour of articles being created by a bot, I am not familiar enough with bots and bot approval to be able to give appropriate advice on the matter. SilkTork (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)