User talk:SilkTork

Old dusty archives

Modern dusty archives

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

— Barack Obama

To do

Reminders

WP:SAL No one has actually objected to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I'll take a look at the page shortly. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I guess the real question is whether to declare consensus and WP:BOLD it, or do merge tags and open a merge discussion at WT:MOSLIST. I'm all for going with the bold direction, since it seems unlikely to be controversial that the MOS page on lists should actually contain the MOS advice about lists.  :-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC) There's been a deal of activity on the page recently. I've not had a chance to absorb that yet. I may just potter around this evening doing light stuff, then take a closer look over the weekend. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC) No hurry! I meant "bold" not "reckless". :-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC) I still have this in mind - on hold, but not forgotten. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Fae case

Extended content

File:Kristian Digby 2009.jpg Hi SilkTork, I want to comment on your statement at the arbcom case regarding Fæ: The source of this upload is this Flickr image and we had so far no doubt that this one is genuine. The only confusing thing was Fæ's upload history where the crop was first uploaded to Flickr (with a proper attribution), then transfered under the account of Ash to Commons. I worked with Fæ through some of these old uploads where we fixed some of these confusing uploads which were transfered from Flickr (see ticket:2012061710003771). In this case, Fæ re-uploaded that file to have it as upload of Fæ and it properly refers now to File:Kristian Digby, Pride London, July 2009.jpg which is the unaltered Flickr image, also properly attributed and reviewed. As I do not have reason to believe that Matt Crockett's Flickr account is involved in Flickr-washing, I do not see this case in any way related to Flickr washing. It just had a confusing upload history. I went through some of the other uploads, too, and found some cases which had to be deleted as has been done in the past. Some of these cases are subtleties of derived works and freedom of panorama, in some cases the permission was not documented through OTRS, some could be saved through a late confirmation, but nowhere I have found yet so far a case where Fæ has set up a case of deliberate Flickr-washing. Evidence for this is still missing and I am following this case closely as Commons admin. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you, that is very helpful. Have you mentioned this on the case talkpages, because it would be useful there. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC) No, I haven't dared yet to enter the holy halls of the arbcom :) Honestly, I do not know where to post such comments at a stage where the evidence section has already been closed. Please feel free to refer to my comment at your talk page on the arbcom pages as it seems appropriate for you. And I am open here and preferably at Commons for questions in regard to Fæ's contribution at Commons. Independent from this, I invite everyone with evidence to post this at the appropriate admin board at Commons. Then we will take care of this. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. I was not aware of this DR when I wrote the explanation above. I've, however, found the corresponding OTRS-ticket (see ticket:2010030110058288) where Fæ forwarded the Flickr mail correspondence with the copyright holder. It shows exactly how such exchanges look like when OTRS processes and the requirements of a formal license declaration are not known. But most of these cases get caught through tagging or deletion requests like this one. In this case the license problem was apparently solved by the copyright holder tagging that image with cc-by-sa at Flickr. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for looking into this, Andreas. One case that was mentioned offsite and on the Workshop talk page was this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barrowman_and_Gill_-_30_June_2007.jpg http://webcitation.org/68LKlAOWB http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Barrowman&diff=183227701&oldid=182881262 Apparently, Gayspunk was Ash's Flickr account at the time. It appears that Ash took the image – a still from someone else's YouTube video – uploaded it to Flickr, made it available under a free licence there, put it on Commons on the strength of that licence, and then added it to Wikipedia. The image was deleted by Russavia as non-free last month, during the present arbitration case; it was in use on eight projects at the time. --JN466 17:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Gayspunk was indeed Fæ's Flickr account and was, as far as I can see from the upload history, mainly used to upload photographs he took himself. One example is File:John Barrowman at London Gay Pride 2007.jpg which was at a lower resolution and without EXIF data at Gayspunk's Flickr account, then transfered to Commons, and now re-uploaded in the original resolution. The image you refer to was uploaded in 2007 — this is now five years ago, at the beginning of Fæ's career under his former account at Commons and at Wikipedia. It was on my list of to be researched images but Russavia was faster in deleting this such that I did not research it much further. We must, however, keep in mind that OTRS was not a well-known process at that time, in particular for beginners. A strict asking for OTRS permissions was something that started c. 2008, if I remember correctly. We have a significant number of images of the early period where permissions where given just informally. Now, after five years, it is usually quite challenging to dig out old emails, to contact the copyright holder again etc. Fæ tried apparently the latter now but without success. In my opinion, this isolated case does not make Gayspunk a Flickr-washing account. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC) The logs for File:John Barrowman at London Gay Pride 2007.jpg do not show it as having been deleted. Is that the file you deleted? Was it under another name, or have the logs been altered? I am puzzled about something else - why did Fæ not simply upload new versions of the images with a higher resolution and EXIF data? What was the reason for deleting the original images? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC) The original upload history is here. This image was first transfered from Flickr to Commons from an account which is not related to Fæ. The new uploads were done under new filenames as it is apparently difficult or impossible to re-upload new images over already existing images with the UploadWizard which is prefered by Fæ. Whenever this happened, I left redirects at the old filenames after they were speedied as low-resolution duplicates. This process is summarily covered by ticket:2012061710003771. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Extended content So, has Devil's Advocate's observation below been answered? Cla68 (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC) This is well known since it was noted by Pieter Kuiper and was commented to in this thread by me above. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Fae says he has permission from the original owner to upload the still? Cla68 (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC) It appears Borchert is confusing the image we are talking about with a different image of Barrowman.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC) My comment that starts with The image you refer to in this edit refers to this deleted image Jayen466 was talking about. The other image of Barrowman I refered to was just an example for a picture of the Gayspunk Flickr account that Fæ took himself. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC) AFBorchert, thanks for your reply. The files File:Horniman Museum interior.jpg, File:Kristian Digby 2009.jpg, and File:Breakfast of pills.jpg were deleted by you and new files were uploaded with the same name, not a new filename. It may be that Fæ, who runs an image upload bot on Commons, is unable to puzzle out how to upload a new version of an image, but I think a more obvious explanation would be that this series of deletions and uploads was a way for the connection to the "gayspunk" Flickr account to be severed (although this has been nullified by your unwise statement here that this account was Fæ's). The deletion of File:Dulwich Picture Gallery interior.jpg was presumably to obscure the connection to another Flickr account, although you deleted it with the summary "Per COM:PEOPLE and OTRS ticket 2012061710003771". I have little doubt that had a person shown in that image asked for deletion, that request would not have been granted. I am not suggesting that your actions were wrong, but I question the ease at which a well-connected editor can effect such self-serving changes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC) I think that we shouldn't stretch SilkTork's hospitality on his talk page too far. If you have further concerns regarding my actions as Commons admin I suggest to contact me at Commons or to open something at one of the administrative boards. Please note that I will not disclose the detailed reasoning where I refer to COM:PEOPLE to the public for obvious reasons. Anyone with OTRS access to the permission queues can verify the reasoning for that deletion. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC) I was careful to note that I was making no suggestion that you did anything wrong. Here is a link to a copy of the Dulwich Picture Gallery image, which presumably counts as a public place for photography purposes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC) On that Barrowman and Gill image, the actual source was noted by Peter Kuiper to be this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fooAVXpdVE. The image is a cropped screencap of the video at around 0:42. Note that YouTube did not allow for Creative Commons licenses back in 2007 so this was released under a Standard YouTube license with the uploader of the video retaining copyright and its license limited to distribution through the YouTube service. The large time gap between the upload of the video and the upload of this screencap does not suggest to me that this was a video belonging to Fae. So this would appear to be a very clear-cut case of flickrwashing and the image was, as noted above, added to an article here on Wikipedia. The image was also quietly deleted on Commons during this case by User:Russavia, who has been a frequent defender of Fae there and on this project.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I'm collapsing the extended discussion as I feel it has the potential to sidetrack the main issue. If there are images in addition to the ones already mentioned I would welcome hearing about them, though I prefer facts and evidence to opinions and accusations - so if wishing to contact me about this issue, please be as neutral as possible. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Response to one of your comments http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decision&diff=501800431&oldid=501790277 – I left a comment in response to one of your comments. That edit summary was a reference to my distaste of censorship. I don't harass people. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC) I've commented on the case talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Concerned by your statements in the Fæ RFAR SilkTork, I am sure that ArbCom members have been flooded with email from both sides of this dispute. In your statements here and here, you appear to have accepted the narrative offered by Fæ and his supporters. That is your perogative, but you would be well advised to check into any claims being made, and if you are using them in comments in this RFAR I would hope that you are prepared to support those allegations with diffs or links as per the stated rules of evidence. I have made a statement here, but I had only seen one of your comments at that time. I will ask the clerks to look at the comments also. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC) You're right - I'm sorry - I have conflated you with another user in regard to interest in Fae's occupation when looking at evidence, though you have mentioned his partner. That you have personalised the issue, is indicated in your response to seeing Fae's name in the list of Wikimedia UK trustees. I will strike the comment about "where he worked" SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Canvassing? Posting a notice of a WP discussion on WR or WPCY is not canvassing, because everyone can see it. In my experience just as many, if not more, editors with open animosity towards WR and WPCY monitor those sites than those who actually participate there. WMF staffers have admitted they monitor those sites to help them keep up with what is going on in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC) That's an interesting observation which I will take on board. My understanding is that alerting people to a vote in a partisan venue with a biased comment, is canvassing, as indicated at Wikipedia:Canvassing. Among the wordings for inappropriate notification are "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner", and "selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". Given that DC had by this point recently started three other threads on WR about Fae, and had received support for his negative views, he was knowingly posting in a venue hostile to Fae. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC) A few thoughts on your rationale: It sounds like, in the future, if WPCY participants see a problem that WP's administration isn't addressing, we need to PM each other and make sure all the threads on it are started by different people so that no one person taking the lead on addressing it gets accused of "harassment." What's the problem with one person taking a lead role on trying to get a problem fixed? From experience dealing with the "mailing list cabals" of 2006-2008, I can attest to the fact that, when it comes to established uers with admin friends, you have to yell long and loud for a sustained amount of time before anyone will act on it. The squeaking hings gets the attention. There are more than 100 registered users on WPCY, and several hundred on WR, but only a handfull actually participated in the threads about Fae in which they said someting negative. So, your statement that it was a venue hostile to Fae is unconfirmed. Many of the participants there likely observed and reserved judgement. Also, there are the several hundred WP regulars who regularly read WR and WPCY. How can we assume they were all hostile to Fae? The reason given by many as to why they were criticizing Fae is the same reason that the Committee just gave, the appearance of a cover-up. Why is it ok for the Committe to harshly criticize Fae for his actions, but repeated comments in threads off-wiki about the same issues are considered "harassment?" Speaking of hostile venues, I think the current proposed decision page is actually more hostile towards Fae than 90% of what was ever posted on WR or WPCY. You guys just called him a liar and said he doesn't deserve to edit WP. That's fairly hostile. You all, including yourself, have made repeated, critical comments about Fae on that page. You all have contacted Commons admins asking for more information on Fae. Are you harassing Fae? In summary, you are saying, "DC was right that Fae was a problem editor. However, by repeatedly trying to get the problem addressed by complaining about it on WR and WPCY, DC was harrassing Fae. Nevermind that WP's administration was not addressing the problem, that Fae was ignoring the dispute resolution process, and he and his supporters were using ad hominem tactics against other editors involved. DC was harassing Fae. All future whistleblowers take notice. If you find a problem that isn't being addressed in WP, don't keep complaining about in off-wiki venues. The problem may eventually be dealt with because of your efforts, but we will, in turn, ban you for being so obsessive about it, as we find such behavior unseemly and it offends our wikii-sensibilities." Cla68 (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Your comments have been read and noted. Thanks. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle I've just added a principle and FOF (as well as a few comments) to support the argument for a ban.  Roger Davies talk 10:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fae and Philippe

For much of the Fae case you appeared to be making an earnest investigation of the issues. As one of the supporters of the Fae ban, is there a way that you can explain what was so bad about Fae talking to Philippe for a few minutes that would justify such a thing? Because some other people haven't persuasively justified the ban, and your own comment that "My view is that it is inappropriate, and that it put the WMF member in an awkward position." doesn't sound like something you would vote to site-ban for. Wnt (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If it was just about that one conversation I would say that a stern warning that such behaviour is clearly inappropriate would be enough. However, the finding is: "Fæ has attempted to deceive the community", and the ban is for "numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies". The incident in Washington, and the message from the Commons admin that he couldn't assist because Fae had asked him not to, were simply part of the pattern, and effectively brought my investigations to halt. I was working to get at the truth, and Fae was working to prevent me from getting at the truth. There are gaps here and there, and there are times when one must make assumptions. In investigating sourcing and copyright concerns I saw nothing alarming about the original incidents. Yes, they could have been deliberate. But they could also have been mistakes. I have assumed (and still do) that they were mistakes. I have made similar mistakes. Where Fae has gone wrong, however, is in his response to queries or challenges about his mistakes. He has been unhelpful. I wanted to see how much the unhelpfulness was due to underlying privacy concerns, or simply to avoid facing up to making mistakes. I have been unable to detect that Fae had genuine privacy concerns. It may be true. But I have not been able to find it after a reasonable search. I think it would be inappropriate to conclude from that, that Fae's claims of privacy concerns were untrue, simply that I couldn't find them. However, we are then left with nothing to counterbalance Fae's obstructive behaviour: avoiding a RfC, creating alternative accounts, getting file histories deleted or overwritten, deleting Flickr accounts, not listening to reason, clouding the issues with inappropriate counter claims, asking a Commons admin not to assist me, and asking a Foundation staff member to pass on a message to ArbCom to stop listing alternative accounts. It's too much. And it's all so silly, because the original incidents were small - but the attempts not to admit to them and move on, have led to this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I may have found some connection between Fae, privacy concerns, and other aspects of the situation. I think your point is strong that many things are contributing to the outcome. NewtonGeek (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see Fae's behavior as disruptive merely because he wanted to maintain his privacy, regardless of whether he had a "good" reason for it. Traditionally, keeping alternate accounts for privacy reasons has been an acceptable use, even if admins have seemed to push hard against it in recent years. And I don't think it should be a crime on en.wp to ask a Common admin anything, nor for him to act on one's behalf on Commons.

Will you agree at least that, not if, but when the WO/WR people finally find out whatever it is that Fae has been trying to keep secret, and make it and this whole sorry story a top search hit for the name of whoever is involved, that then, when the impact of retroactively revoking the privacy of the contributor and his associations becomes apparent, you'll vote to rescind and efface this penalty as if it never occurred? Wnt (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

When Fae was refusing to accept that there were errors in his sourcing, he was not doing so because of privacy concerns. He later closed or renamed his Ash accounts on WP and Commons due to privacy and safety concerns possibly connected to WR threads linking his real life identity with those accounts. The grey area here is that Fae has himself linked his accounts to himself, though he has found such links problematic while there has been ongoing concern regarding his sourcing. Take away the conflict regarding sourcing, and I am not seeing hard evidence emerging regarding privacy and safety concerns. It looks very much like the privacy concerns are centered on the sourcing issue. I can see that attempting to address such persistent concerns, and facing ridicule on WR, would be very uncomfortable, and that Fae would no doubt feel harassed. Where I am less certain is that this is genuinely a safety or privacy issue. If through my activity on ArbCom I or my relatives/friends get hassled in real life I would regard that as a privacy issue, and I would be interested in hearing if that has happened to Fae (other than emails to Wikimedia UK relating to his position there, as that is associated with Wikipedia) because that would take this to another level. But at the moment we have nothing solid. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In my recent statement I addressed this point by offering to review my privacy concerns of Commons material with a representative of Arbcom. I am unsure why that way of addressing any lack of belief that my privacy concerns are real is not suitable. Perhaps this is something you can expand in reply to my statement on the proposed decision talk page? Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll be taking a look at that page shortly. It has been a long morning just working through the emails and my talkpage messages. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that discussion about "fraudulent sourcing" is that I don't see any refutation of the main point that we have an article section about Dave Awards, the text cited was taken from there, then probably double-checked by a company directly involved in the relevant industry when it put it up on their own web site, before being cited by Ash; and to respond to concerns, he apparently tried to cite the sources directly given in the original WP article, which presumably were good enough there, so they must be good enough for the other article. What's fraudulent about that? At worst it would be a good faith sourcing mistake, if you accept the opposing opinion. The thing I find remarkable about that conversation is that we see three editors in agreement - User:Benjiboi, User:Cirt, and User:Ash, all of whom were subsequently targeted for great troubles by DC and cohorts. And I'm skeptical that there was any good reason to take such harsh action against any of them. Also, I don't see why there would be a relationship between that conversation and Fae's current privacy concerns on Commons. Wnt (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither The Culture of Queers nor More dirty looks provide the support for the statements in Vladimir Correa that Fae felt they did. This was pointed out to him. He argued it. The books do not support what Fae says they support. He may have made an initial mistake (which is my assumption - it's possible to get sources confused), but when the mistake is pointed out to him he continues to argue. He argues about the placement of the cite, feeling that someone may have added incorrect information about the top/bottom role to his citation. You cannot see the page history because it has been deleted, but he added the page 105 cite to this: "He was known for his almost-hairless, tanned muscular body. He performed exclusively in the top role in anal sex with men, but performed in both the top and bottom roles in oral sex." The citation he adds is <ref name=Gibson2004 >{{citation | last=Gibson | first=Pamela Church | year=2004 | title=More dirty looks: gender, pornography and power | editor1=Pamela Church Gibson | edition=2 | publisher=British Film Institute | isbn=9780851709390 | page=105 | url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=klsbAAAAYAAJ}}</ref>. Page 105 in the book doesn't mention the actor - it mentions the film Inside Vladimir Correa, but the page is actually about Ryan Idol. That he is unable to admit to his mistake is problematic enough. That he goes to such lengths to avoid admitting it is a cause for concern. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have moved on, a long way, from 3 years ago. I have run UK and international workshops on best practice against Wikipedia policies and promote best practice. I now advise institutions and recently helped organize and run a Workshop with Jimmy Wales on addressing copyright legislation issues in the UK. If my sourcing from 3 years ago was a bit crap, fair enough, I put my hands up to it. Why I should be sanctioned now after so much personal progress, spending so much of my time supporting the open knowledge movement and promoting the best GLAM projects that Wikimedia has ever seen, would seem excessive for mistakes in sourcing so long ago that I have no memory of the details (I have made over a quarter of a million edits in the last two and a half years, you cannot expect me to remember everything or to not be changed and improved by the experience[1]). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with your citation mistake Fae. What I have an issue with is the manner in which you failed to acknowledge that you made the mistake. Let me repeat so we are clear: You are not being sanctioned for your sourcing errors. You are being sanctioned for your conduct. Let me also be clear. You are not being sanctioned for your conduct in that sourcing issue from three years ago. Same as you are not being sanctioned for asking a Foundation staff member to pass on a message, or for asking a Commons admin not to assist us. It is a combination of these things and all the other things. You are being sanctioned for your overall conduct. What would be helpful is instead of arguing each little point, you took on board what is being said to you, and you make a statement in which you apologise to the community for your conduct over the years, and state that you have learned from the experience, and whatever happens in the ArbCom case you will make attempts in future to listen calmly and reasonably to queries and criticism. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am entirely willing to apologise for my poor conduct. In my evidence I lead with a general apology and I explained how I had specifically apologized to those who had good reason to complain about my inflamatory replies in the past. I also explained that Errantx, Youreallycan, Jimbo and Jayen466 I had previously reached out to with personal apologies which had been accepted. In a later meeting with Jimbo he hugged me and thanked me for the fulsome apology and understood something of my emotional upset due to recent bereavement. If you feel that apology was not sufficient, perhaps you can help me understand what else could be added or how it can be made clearer.

I feel there is a perception by some that I am a kind of pathetically bad Machiavelli figure trying to manipulate Arbcom, the Wikimedia community and the Foundation. I have some skills that are useful to the chapters in leading meetings, workshops and board level experience but the fact that this is not a career (not at my age of 47) and I receive no financial benefit would indicate that such a characterization is unfounded, extreme and appears to be based primarily on speculation, including false allegations, generated by the many months of negative off-wiki lobbying against me. My failure is that I have genuine concerns as to privacy relating to some Commons information on past accounts, such as examples of bondage photographs now made indelibly public on EncyclopediaDramatica. I can do nothing about these past mistakes of mine made some years ago or the current massive embarrassment this causes me, but please give me some room to be able to avoid further embarrassing or damaging (to me and the organizations I volunteer for) public exposures when these involve deleted photographs of family members or candid photographs of myself, or other photographs relating to gay culture but with identifying issues, which were released anonymously off-wiki, some unusual images uploaded anonymously to Commons and in some cases uploaded by others without my consent. I have 25 years of an active gay life, please understand that I am not ashamed of my life, but I see no reason why it needs be made public for the dubious interest of those now drawn to following me and publishing any material they find on attack websites, removing any possibly of having them removed or even put in context. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you know how I feel about you as an individual, and that I don't think you intend to harm Wikipedia. But your conduct has caused problems, and though you indicate you have apologised, I don't think you realise the extent of the problems, concern and disruption you have caused. I have spent considerable hours on this case looking into your concerns, and balancing that with the concerns of others - attempting at all times to be neutral, fair and balanced. It's not something I have enjoyed, but it is what I volunteered to do, and I am willing to do it because I feel that Wikipedia is one of the most significant and important projects that the human race has been involved with, and I want to be a part of that, and to help make it run more smoothly. The dispute between you and DC (though also involving others, you two are at the heart of it) has consumed so much time that this - "Such claims have been made, sometimes foolishly in an emotional outburst by me, for which abnormal behaviour I regret" and this " It was a personal error of judgement for me to be drawn into and inflame such discussion on Wikipedia, for which I apologize to Jimbo and Jayen466", don't appear to me to show understanding of the level of distraction you have been to the project, nor to be an appropriate apology to the community. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me take that on-board. I am prepared to make a better and clearer apology, inviting others to help me understand what it has been about my approach to editing Wikipedia that the community are most concerned about. I have understood the arguments being put, but still find it unclear what needs to change about my editing or interaction apart from being extremely sensitive to anything that might be interpreted as inflammatory, ensuring that I do reply to questions but avoid conflict. I think that letting the debate about Delicious carbuncle (as I have not responded to him/her all year, it is hard to consider it an active dispute) or about my being hounded off-wiki become a distraction is unhelpful, and out of my possible control when off-wiki. Much of the evidence being provided to the case is from more than two years ago with most of the recent evidence relating to my unacceptable behaviour dating since suffering from hounding and off-wiki harassment. It would be very helpful for people to come forward and reassess recent evidence where they see my behaviour problematic. Where my unacceptable behaviour is related to my perception of off-wiki activities then we can suggest better ways of mediating those issues, where my unacceptable behaviour seems unconnected to off-wiki issues then I would be happy to address this head on and do my best to understand the issues and permanently change my behaviour. Again, I have changed a lot in the last 3 years, I would hope to progress just as well in the next 3 and having positive as well as negative feedback might help the process of improvement and assure the community by making firm commitments to specific changes they can expect in my behaviour and agreeing how our normal processes can apply to keep things on track so we can focus on editing the Encyclopaedia rather than disputes that we all find upsetting.

Where would an apology be best placed, on my user talk page? --Fæ (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that perhaps in the same manner that you posted your statement - both on the case page and on your user talk page. In my experience, the Wikipedia community reach out to people who show understanding of the problems they have caused, apologise sincerely, and indicate what steps they will take to improve matters going forward. It is acceptable to give some rationale for poor conduct, though the community do not like the rationale to be the focus of the apology, and they particularly dislike it when individuals are named and blamed. Though they do like it when individuals are named and praised and/or named and asked for forgiveness. An apology is a time to be humble and contrite, which can be very hard to do, though you seem to be in a position to move forward on that. I can't tell you what to say, or what areas to focus on - hopefully you will have picked up the areas of concern people have. I'm not sure how much impact it will have on the decisions the Committee need to make - but an apology is, anyway, something that should be made with no thought of self gain, but of making amends. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to do more than that. I appreciate something of what has just been posted and reverted from your page[2] as needing a place to be logged and may justify a thoughtful response from me. I would like to issue an apology to the community, and be frankly honest that I realise there is more that I don't understand about how others see my edits, and, perhaps, some of my personal views being a problem for Wikipedia. To address that aspect I would like to establish a structured feedback page where those with criticism *and* suggestions for how I can improve can explain their point, without becoming a negative back and forth debate as they can be free to say whatever they want as a position and put forward recommendations which I will commit to taking uncritically, even if a bit difficult to take or personal, but can ask for clarification if there is something I do not understand. The idea would be to focus on what I need to change in my edits in the future. Hopefully this will result in a series of commitments from me that those watching my edits can refer back to. I would also be prepared to refrain from editing articles or writing on noticeboards for an indefinite period until that process seems sufficiently exhausted or at least stable to the majority of those that want to contribute. Do you think that this would be realistic and better than just a one off apology? To be honest, even if I am banned or blocked I can see the benefit in such a process so that if I request an unban in the future it could be far more meaningful. --Fæ (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What you are describing is a form of mentoring. There is a school of thought among some experienced Wikipedians that mentoring does not work. I had limited success with Dilip rajeev - I helped him work successfully on two articles - restoring the highly contentious and previously deleted Kilgour-Matas report back into mainspace in a stable form, and in bringing Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China to Good Article status. Unfortunately Kilgour-Matas report is showing signs of instability, Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China has been delisted, and Dilip has since been indefinitely blocked. And the Matisse mentoring resulted in me withdrawing from it, and Mattisse being indefinitely blocked. My experiences there have led to to side with those who feel that mentoring is a lot of work and time with little evidence of success. I think that in order to improve, you need to become more self aware, and more in control of yourself. You don't need to be told directly - you can learn from the examples of others. And, essentially, we are here to build an encyclopaedia rather to coach others on how to behave. You can produce excellent work. Focus on the work rather than the politics or game play. If someone challenges what you have done, take it on board as being for the good of the project. You and I don't matter. This is not about petty slights and insults. This is about creating the largest and most accessible information resource in the history of mankind. The scale of what we are doing is enormous. Your ego, my ego, DC's ego should not get in the way of that. Something every good Wikipedia should ask themselves now and again - "Am I a net gain to the project or a net drain?" If you yourself cannot bring yourself back to the state you were in when you were editing Hoxne Hoard, then please don't ask the community to spend time and energy on it. You know if you can do it. If you can, great. Let's have more of those articles. If you can't, then leave the project with some dignity intact, and help out in other ways - such as with Wikimedia UK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I have started User:Fæ/Feedback, the intention is that this is not mentoring, but a feedback process so folks can positively see if I am getting the message and their criticism is visibly logged rather than lost on my talk page archives. In essence this would be up to me to manage rather than expecting a mentor to advise. We have seen frustrated people repeat the same or similar points in many discussions, presumably they do not feel I am hearing them properly. I would hope that a process like this means I can "log" their position and then refer to a commitment on my part on that page if the issue raises itself again. For example, Peter Cohen has raised the perfectly valid problem that existed with the Steffans article where I deeply regret pursuing my point rather than just letting it go. It would be great for Peter and myself just to agree a wording for my genuine commitment to not making a similar mistake and we can both move on and concentrate on editing the Encyclopaedia. Similarly if someone raised a good recommendation for me on my user talk page, it would seem a good idea to log it on the feedback page for anyone to reference in the future. Late here, so I'll think further on the apology tomorrow. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I also live in the UK. I live in Rochester, so we share the same time zone! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record...

Not having jumped in on Noetica's desysopping straw poll one way or the other doesn't necessarily mean the "community" agrees with him.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this is in relation to this. Each Committee member will vote in their own way. I think the amount of influence that PD talkpages have on Committee members will vary from individual to individual, case by case, and the nature of what is said. But yes, the awareness that most of the community remain silent on these matters would be common to most Committee members. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please Unblock Me

This is Colton Cosmic. Dear SilkTork, I am asking that you look over and unblock my account. I wanted to put this on the administrator's noticeboard but it won't accept IP edits. I decided to post it on three admins' talkpages instead. I picked you three for no reason other than I noticed you had made recent edits. Colton Cosmic.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.199.240 (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Appealing a block. You cannot edit Wikipedia while you are blocked. That means you mustn't either create a new account or edit as an IP. As your talkpage is blocked you need to first ledge an appeal here. If that fails you can email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org explaining why you were blocked, and what you intend to do to avoid causing problems in the future. In the meantime I am blocking your IP account for block evasion. You must not edit on Wikipedia at all while you are blocked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for input

I really don't like asking this of you, because you have enough stuff to deal with as it is. But with the departure of Ohconfucius, and the recent apparent institution of MER, I do think that the Falun Gong related content could use a few more eyes, and I get the impression from previous contact with you that you might be both among the more knowledgable editors out there about the content, as well as being among the more respected editors here. I don't think the difficulties are likely to decrease with the departure of Ohconfucius; actually, I think that fact, and the emotional responses to it among those involved, are quite possibly going to increase the problems with the related articles. Right now, there are only about 40 articles all told, so it won't be that much of an imposition, I hope. If you do choose to involve yourself, I think the recent discussions and changes relating to Sima Nan, The Epoch Times, and the somewhat related article John Liu might be the among those that merit most immediate attention. Anyway, I think everyone involved would welcome having some more eyes involved, particularly if they belong to someone who doesn't have a clear bias, like you, and knows the rules around here well enough to help ensure that noone involved crosses the line too much. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I am certainly in no position at the moment of being able to take on any more commitments. There are writing projects I would like to get back to. I haven't brought an article to GA or FA for some time now, and I miss doing that - but it requires some time and space that I don't have. And there are other requests to help out that I have put on the back burner. But I will bear what you say in mind. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

NewtonGeek's block

SilkTork, you mentioned several hours ago you were attempting to identify if NewtonGeek's block was an Arbcom block or an administrator block. It should not take 10 hours to establish this. As NewtonGeek's unblock request was declined 30 minutes ago on the basis that Arbcom implemented the block, could you please, urgently, indicate the status of this block. If it is indeed an Arbcom block, please include detailed rationale on why this block is within the scope of Arbcom as detailed at WP:Arbitration/Policy. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 02:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I did raise the question on the email list, and when I last looked before I went to bed, the answer was not clear, and Risker was not available. I hope the matter has now been resolved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So, a couple matters I am curious about. First, with regard to the NewtonGeek situation: does it seem odd/unusual to you that a block would be made where nobody seems to know whether it was an AC endorsed block? Can you see how this would lead to the idea that the blocking admin's actions might be given undue weight? Or how it might seem that individual arbitrators are unintentionally arrogating special super-block status to themselves merely by being unclear about the nature of the block? Does the AC even do blocks without a motion?

While I am here, I have an unrelated question. A while back, iridescent was involuntarily removed from the AC for inactivity. Now xeno has been almost totally inactive for many months. Why is he still a member (nothing against him, just curious about seemingly disparate treatment)?

Thanks for your time and opinion on both counts. 174.253.196.224 (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Iridescent was before my time. You'll need to speak to another Committee member if you wish to know more about that. Without digging through past emails, I have a memory that Xeno informed everyone that he was going on a break and wondered if he should retire, and it was agreed that as he intended to come back, that it would be better to mark him as inactive. He also does keep in touch - I recall an email from him last month. As for NewtonGeek's block. I don't think I have anything useful to say on that. I have neither supported nor opposed the block. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

re: Iridescent. It was purely administrative because an election was imminent and it affected the numbers of vacant seats. I expect that should the same situation arise with Xeno it would be resolved in time for the next election.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Cameron's Brewery

Rats. I concede that fair is fair though, much as that low resolution logo offends my aesthetic sensibilities. Farrtj (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Belzona

Hi SilkTork, i need some clarifying of a statement about the ref marks at the bottom of my page. I have edited the article and added some references from where to get confirmation of the said organisation. However, i cannot get this removed? Would you please have a look and tell me what is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choccyfly52 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You've placed references in a list after the {{reflist}} template. The template picks up references that are placed inline (that is in the body of the article rather than at the end). See Wikipedia:Inline citation and Wikipedia:Citing sources. You need to place the citations at the part in the text where they are needed. I have done one to show you.

I note that you are creating an article in your user space. This is permitted, though you should not have the article there for long under the WP:FAKEARTICLE guideline, especially as the page is about a company. We get a number of article on companies, and we have strict rules covering articles on companies due to the fact that many of these companies do not meet our inclusion criteria - see WP:Notability and WP:Conflict of interest. The references you currently have are not enough to meet our Notability guideline as they are either from the company itself or from press releases by the company - which, in addition, only got printed in local newspapers (indicating a low level of interest - essentially purely regional). I will move the material to a subpage for you, and tag it as a userdraft, and noindex it so it doesn't get picked up by Google. I will check on the material again in a month to see what progress you have made, and if you do not have enough WP:Reliable sources to establish notability I will suggest that the page is deleted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Trev and Sight R&I ban

I am looking into the topic ban issued against these users in the R&I review case to prepare a request for amending the terms. To be clear on exactly what I should request it would be helpful if I could see some of the non-public off-wiki evidence regarding the allegations of proxy-editing. Unless I am clear on what served as the basis of the allegations specifically against these two editors I would not feel completely comfortable requesting an amendment to the terms. Do you happen to have access to that evidence and would you be willing to e-mail it to me?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)