User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 18

← Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19 →

Tea Party

The ArbCom case has re-opened. The moderated discussion has not achieved what I hoped it would, and I apologise to everyone for my part in that failure. I will be away from home all next week with uncertain internet access, so I am withdrawing from the discussion as of now. As the case has reopened and the discussion has not been a success, it is highly likely that some people are going to be topic banned, and that a number of those involved in the discussion are going to be among those who are topic banned. As such it is uncertain what the best course of action would be in regards to the discussion: if a new moderator should be sought, or if it should be closed down completely. It may be best to await the outcome of the case before making any firm decisions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork, thank you for the excellent job that you have done. The challenge is due to the policy weaknesses that leave all contentious articles articles in this state. The article was chugging along in such a sad routine state when someone asked someone to light a bonfire, and they listened, including pouring gasoline on it. So there are 2 people to blame for the bonfire (who have evaded scrutiny) and nobody to really blame for the article state. We'll see if Arbcom figures that out. North8000 (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi ST. As a former contributor to this, you may wish to take a look at this. If you do, please read it carefully in order not to miss the explicit objective. Comments on its talk page. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment left. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Moves

First this - which I've since reverted, no other editors supporting your move - and now this - which seems to me to be equally debatable. Also this.... What has happened to the principle of raising concerns, and seeking consensus on article talk pages, before making such moves?? Consider me astonished. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You have different views to me. I don't agree with your views, this happens. I make several actions a week - when I feel that the action is obvious and uncontentious, I go ahead and do it. When I feel that an action may be contentious, or there is an element of doubt about it, I start a discussion. Sometimes I err in my decisions. This happens. And when it does I welcome people bringing it to my attention so we talk about it, and if we can't agree, then seeking wider consensus. I note that you don't do that. If you disagree, you sometimes approach me, you sometimes don't. And when you do approach me, you will still go ahead and revert even while we are talking about it. This does not astonish me. I accept that people of Wikipedia behave in different ways, and not everyone is collegiate. As we do appear to have differences of opinion in article naming, an appropriate route might be for you to open a move request discussion if there is a move that you disagree with, and to let me know when you do. I would much rather you did that, than to initiate a discussion with me, and then revert while we are still in discussion. You have done this twice previously, so I would rather disputes between us go to a broader consensus discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh??!! "I note that you don't do that." Where? "..when you do approach me, you will still go ahead and revert even while we are talking about it." Where? "You have done this twice previously, so I would rather disputes between us go to a broader consensus discussion." Where? Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? The accusations you are making seem to bear no relation to my actions. At Beat music, it's fairly clear that no-one else on the talk page agreed with your approach, and I can't think of any other occasion where we've interacted recently. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - you're right. I have mistaken you with someone else. My apologies. It was an incident on Album-oriented rock. It was that both were music related, and discussion was cut short by a revert, so I linked the two in my mind.

When making a move I do check for past discussions to ensure that the move isn't contentious, and then I check sources to see what the situation is. If in doubt I will start a discussion. But, as I say, I am aware I can make mistakes. Such as here with our dispute history! Do you wish to talk through with me the page moves you are not comfortable with? I am quite happy to do that, as long as you agree not to revert as we are talking. Otherwise it would be better to take the matter straight to a move request discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

OK - time for a cuppa! I'm not happy about Rock Island Line - after all, the song was named after the rail line, and in my view the link should go to a dab page. And again at My Way (which I admit I hadn't noticed until today), I'd have preferred a discussion on the talk page first, rather than afterwards. I'm not going to be around that much for a couple of days, so I'll leave it to see whether others comment, but personally I support the principle of raising the question on the talk page first, in preference to being unduly bold. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Rock Island Line is interesting, as the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad article doesn't mention "Rock Island Line", though there is an external link to the train enthusiasts site Train Web which uses that name. Dedicated websites, such as rits.org don't appear to use that phrase, nor is it used in their fairly extensive bibliography. The closest I can see is Rock Island Route. The song is believed to use the abbreviated name of the line, which was Rock Island. When sources talk about the "Rock Island Line" and mention the railway they are talking about the song. When sources are talking about the railway in relation to the song, they say "Rock Island" about the railway. A search for "Rock Island Line" will produce results for the song, not the railway. The most common phrase for the railway is Rock Island Railroad.

"My Way" previously redirected to the French song on which the melody was based. But the French song has never been called "My Way". It is not a translation, it is a different set of lyrics, written especially for Frank Sinatra. That both articles should reference each other is appropriate, but redirecting My Way to Comme d'habitude is as inappropriate as redirecting Comme d'habitude to My Way. They are different songs, sharing the same melody. And this is interesting: My Way killings. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know

This discussion is taking place. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not watchlisting that page. If you hadn't told me I wouldn't know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

TPm

That article has seen a succession of edits which do not even show a pretense of seeking a consensus. I suggest that it be locked in the pre edit-war form. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that you've locked the article. That's good. Please review the recent history of edits, particularly the edit summaries. I've just noticed that our new moderator is not an admin. I recommend an immediate topic ban for Xenophrenic, perhaps in the form of a temporary injunction, until ArbCom makes its final ruling. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been away for a week with no internet access, so I am not fully aware of what is happening. It may take me a while to catch up. But following Collect's alert above it was pretty obvious to anyone that edit warring was taking place. I have to confess some disappointment that nobody had protected the article earlier. It may well be that there is a chill effect on the article because ArbCom is involved (and that in itself is a cause for concern), or it may be that nobody is sufficiently interested (and that is representative of a wider concern for the community). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

My observations, if I may: yes, and yes. There is a chill effect on any article when ArbCom is involved, moreso when an ArbCom member becomes directly involved with the article, and two things are happening to the admin ranks over the long term: (A) many admins are becoming less active and (B) some are becoming desysopped over time, with inadequate numbers of replacements coming up. It's a war of attrition. Appropriate candidates should be actively recruited, and we should consider reviewing former admins to restore admin status. I do have a few candidates in mind. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

One other thing. Xenophrenic has violated 1RR. [1] [2] Please review those two diffs and focus on the first seven words, "The Tea Party movement focuses on reform." He reverted the same content twice within 25 minutes. There was some other content that was removed for a second time a few minutes later.[3] [4] [5] This demonstrates that it wasn't a fluke or a mistake. Accordingly, since I was blocked for 24 hours for violating 1RR, in spite of my honest belief that I was removing a BLP violation, I respectfully suggest that Xenophrenic should be blocked for editwarring. His most recent block for editwarring was 48 hours in February, so this one should be longer. Also posting this at the editwarring noticeboard. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I notice the ruling that Arthur Rubin isn't allowed to take admin actions on Cyber's behalf. Since Cyber isn't an admin, how is he supposed to edit a protected article?

Xenophrenic is facing a topic ban from all articles related to the Tea Party movement. The vote is currently 2-0. This topic ban is expected to take effect within days.[6]

He's facing this topic ban because of the overwhelming evidence against him regarding his tendentious editing.[7] This includes new evidence of recent editwarring, which led to the current full protection of the article by you. He violated the 1RR article probation with that editwar and, if you hadn't locked down the article, Xeno would have been facing an immediate block and topic ban for the editwar. Since his previous block for editwarring was 48 hours in February, this one probably would have been for 72 hours. Mark Arsten ruled at WP:3RRN that a block after your lockdown of the article would have been punitive rather than protective, and gave Xeno a final warning.

Since Xeno dodged that bullet, he's continued his tendentious behavior on the Moderated Discussion page, unabated. This post on the Moderated Discussion page [8] can only be seen as an act of deliberate provocation and mockery. I have run out of patience. Please impose the topic ban on Xenophrenic that should have been imposed when he started the recent edit war, to continue until the ArbCom ruling becomes final, as an admin taking action under community sanctions. And when contemplating this action, please recall how easy it was for North8000 and me to get a topic ban, and for me to get a 24-hour block. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave a comment on the discussion page. I didn't have time last night. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The current clarification thread re Scientology and Prioryman's name

Hi there,

I did try asking subsequent questions of the committee in my first post. Do I really have to start a new thread to get them answered when I am named as one of the parties to the current thread?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The amount of time anyone will wait for a response to a query will vary depending on circumstances. The Committee is composed of unpaid volunteers who all have real life commitments which will have varying pulls on their time so it is not to be expected that all members are available at all times. Committee members are expected to make reasonable efforts to respond to queries, though as those queries will pop up in various places, it can be difficult to keep track of them. We attempt to manage between us to be available and to respond reasonably promptly to the varied calls on our time, though there may be some delays on occasion. If you have not had a response within a few days, it is quite OK to prod an individual Committee member, or to send the Committee an email. If you'd like me to look at your questions please let me know and I'll do so - though I think I may need to look further into the situation to get a better understanding of what has occurred. My response to Sandstein's questions were general, as the questions appear to me to be worded in a general way - looking more for a general guideline than for input and opinion on the events that prompted the questions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Need help

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia, and while I was looking at dispute resolution, I noticed the editors help section where you are listed as an editor that is willing to help. I have tried to change an article 3 times, where there is no source listed.I added a reliable source, but my changes were removed three times. We have talked extensively on the Talk page, to no avail. I also tried the dispute resolution page, but the other editors did not want to be involved, so it was closed. I would like to find out what my options are at this time, because any changes I make, however minor, are removed from the article. Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!Docia49 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)71.213.14.57 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the discussion on Talk:Burzynski Clinic, and it seems things are progressing fairly and appropriately. People there are by and large giving the right advice, and are listening patiently and civilly to your comments. It can sometimes take time to appreciate the ways of Wikipedia, and to understand why things are done the way they are. It is important to note that Wikipedia is the summary of information published in independent reliable sources. As such, the approach taken by the article is the right one. It is a neutral summary of what independent reliable sources say about the clinic. If you find that you continue to disagree with the approach taken on that article, I suggest you leave it alone and edit on less contentious and controversial topics for a while - gaining a deeper understanding of how Wikipedia works, without having to deal with your edits being reverted. Then perhaps come back to the article in two or three months, and see how you feel about it then. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hellow SilkTork, I am sorry to trouble you. This year, I have had to remove the same hoax from Nescafé 3 times. Is there a case to be made for having the article protected in some way and if so, who would be the best person to approach? Op47 (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The Nescafé article does experience occasional low level unhelpful edits from IP accounts; however, the article also benefits from edits from IP accounts, so blocking all IP accounts from editing the article at this stage would be inappropriate. I have tracked down the IP account responsible and blocked it for three months - see User talk:94.192.35.21. Even though it appears a static account, unused by anyone else, and it has made inappropriate edits a year apart, and also to the Crow article, we don't generally issue long term blocks on IP accounts, especially for such low level disruption, so three months is the most I can dish out at this stage. It is possible that the person behind the account may do it again next year from the same IP account - if so, let me know, and I'll give a longer block. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou. Op47 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment

I noticed that you added a well-reasoned point to the proposal last time and would welcome your contribution to the discussion :) --Gilderien Chat|What I've done 23:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, which I have moved into the general discussion section as per the note at the top. I shall probably write out a reply later, but I must say I hadn't thought of the idea that the prohibition of prior DYKs could be counter-productive. I suppose the writer could always wait a few weeks and the net effect on DYK would be the same number of submissions but of higher-quality. Unfortunately, both on the current page and in past discussions (and I'm sure the links are on the page), the idea the GAs should have their own section has been/is being rejected as unworkable. Personally I think it sounds like a good idea in theory, but in practice it probably would fail miserably.--Gilderien Converse|List of good deeds 22:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I was reading the proposal for a GA section at the bottom of the page, and taking on board the comments of those who feel it would further clutter the main page. I feel there is room to bring readers' attention to the GA project, and I understand that is what this proposal is about, but I don't think it's appropriate because of the extra workload on DYK (and the GA backlog is nearly always quite big because of the time required to read through and understand the average GA article, so that problem would likely also occur at DYK), and the juxtapositioning of two distinct projects which might result in both confusing and diluting their identities. Personally I'm not that fussed about the main page. I know some editors are, as they feel it brings them attention. My view is that if someone wishes others to notice their work, they should edit high profile articles. They tend to be the more demanding articles - they are often complex, and need lots of research - but are the ones we really should be concentrating on anyway, as they are the articles that most readers want to read. Having minor topics briefly appear on the main page, either as DYK or FA, gives those articles a temporary hit of extra readers, then they go back to their regular reading figures.

I also note the comments of those who feel that encouraging new articles is no longer what we should be doing. If people are thinking and saying that now, it might well be the case that GA articles come to dominate DYK, and may even completely replace new articles. I'm left wondering if that would be a good thing or not.

I'll add a link to my comment so people can find it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello|salam|سلام

Hi I'm Persian Wikipedia users. Complain I'm a bureaucracy and a user. They did not respect the rights of others., Please investigate this issue. I could tell you what is my problem? (Translated by Google Translate) ((Note: I'm sorry if I do not speak good English because my native language is Persian))--Boyabed (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

From what I read on jimbo;s talkpage, you have either had access removed or you have been blocked on the Persian Wikipedia. If that is the case, then you need to speak to the people at the Persian Wikipedia. You need to find out why they have blocked you, or taken away your tools. We can't help here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

FAC comment

Hi. If it's no bother, would you like to voice your support/oppose and comment at my FA nomination of Confusion (album)? It's a relatively short article to review. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Left some comments. Ping me if more is needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Motion at ArbCom

The most recent motion would set a very bad precedent, for many reasons, but User:Iselilja spotted the most important: people will be unwilling to become involved in contentious articles, if everyone is probably going to be topic banned, whether they've behaved themselves or not. You've already been worrying that ArbCom involvement has had a chilling effect, on both editors and admins, in doing anything to make the article better. This would bring the chilling effect to ice storm level, on any article where ArbCom becomes involved. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. However, if the worse that can happen if an editor gets involved in a contentious content dispute is that they are asked to step back for six months if the dispute is not resolved, I think that is a small price to pay. If an editor only gets involved to help resolve the dispute, and they were not emotionally or intellectually involved in the topic, then being asked to step back, not individually, but as part of the bigger solution, shouldn't be a significant issue. I have ideas on how the article could be improved - and I would like to have a crack at it, but I am voluntarily going to restrict myself from editing the article for the next six months, as I think that is appropriate because I got involved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see, If I have understood correctly, is that editors for whom there are no findings of faults will be included in the list of "restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior". Will you change the wording of the lead to that page, or place the restrictions elsewhere? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I'll raise it with the Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed adding "(or where it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, regards of conduct)" so the whole line would read: {{ex|The Arbitration Committee may impose restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior (or where it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, regardless of conduct), usually following a request for arbitration)). There have been no objections. So if the motion passes, I will do that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What about the Wikistalking problem with WLRoss? Plenty of evidence to support the topic bans and interaction ban I've recommended for him, but this "solution" allows him to continue. As I explained in the Evidence section, he's smart enough to cool it for a couple of months, then he'll be following me to wherever the next content dispute occurs, and joining the other side. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't know what is going to happen with the motion yet, but if it passes and so your interaction on the Tea Party movement ceases, but you continue to have problems elsewhere, then let me know and I will look into it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a very generous offer and thank you for that. I've offered a counterproposal at the bottom of the PD Talk page and I respectfully suggest that it may work better. Please review and raise it with the committee. I'm sure that you would be welcomed back as our moderator. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now recused from the case, and taken it off my watchlist. I don't think counter-proposals are what is needed. I think people getting behind the proposed solution is what is needed. The sooner the motion is enacted and the article unlocked, the sooner the article itself (which is essentially what we are all interested in) can be improved, and the sooner those on the list can go back to editing it if they wish. Each day this drags on, is effectively another day longer on not being able to edit the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case

I received a notice from Callanecc today that there was a proposed motion on an ARBCOM case that affected me.[9] Penwhale notified me of the case 16 July.[10] I did not reply because no comments were made about me. AGK, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and Silk Tork have voted to ban me. Could you please explain why I am part of this case. TFD (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In general, those who were seen to be active in discussions or editing of the article were added to the case. I was responsible for [suggesting] adding some. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarified a bit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Silk Tork, before the arbitration was set up, my last involvement on the talk page was two comments I posted November 2012 and before that two comments in August 2012. I made one edit to the article in 2012, two in 2011 and none before or since. Howe does that make me part of the small group of highly active editors that led to the "editorial strife"? TFD (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. You might want to send your question to the Committee as a whole. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick question: May other editors comment on the proposed motion? If so, where is the appropriate location? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Users are welcome to comment on the talkpage of the proposed decision of ArbCom cases. You simply create a new section as on any other talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Recusal of arbitrators

Since you added yourself as an involved party on the Tea Party movement case, I think that arbitration policy requires you to recuse yourself as an arbitrator, and continue your participation as an involved party. See Recusal of arbitrators. I am posting this message on your talk page because policy specifies that is the first step. TFD (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have already recused, so I guess you posted this before I did so. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)