User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 65

← Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66 →

Bureaucrat chat - invitation to participate

The RfA for MB has gone to a bureaucrat chat. Please join in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

ARCA

While unfortunately there isn't consensus to do anything wouldn't it be better to close it for now and allow the suggested things do be done and then re-open rather than having to wait another year. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Please take the advice given, and make a real effort at doing an appropriate appeal next year along the lines that have been suggested to you. If you try to do something different, including as now approaching individual arbs with your own suggestions on how to do things, you will likely do yourself no favour. Accept that this appeal has not worked, and move on. SilkTork (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"Unpaved road" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Unpaved road and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 20 § Unpaved road until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, SilkTork/Archive2. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Appropriate venue to address the allegations

Hello, SilkTork. I hope everything is going well for you. I was wondering where I might address the allegations made against me in the Arbitration evidence page. Can you please advise where would be the appropriate venue to address the allegations, and whether doing so would even be appropriate or not? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 16:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You may create a section on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence by editing "Evidence presented by {your user name}" and following the instructions at the top of the page. See the advice marked Rebuttals for dealing with evidence presented by others against you that you feel is wrong. All evidence and rebuttals should be accompanied by links (or diffs), and/or a plausible explanation. You will get more advice at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. And if you need further help or assistance then you should approach the Clerks rather than an Arb. SilkTork (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SilkTork/Archive2. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation

Disinformation is a major social problem. When nationalists of any stripe attempt to use Wikipedia to spread their disinformation, we must stop them. It's our obligation to society not to become part of the problem. If our Polish Holocaust history articles are still a mess, it's likely that a set of editors are dumping disinformation into those articles and then stonewalling or brigading against corrections. At the least you could look into it. If you clear everyone because it's all old news, that's fine. But I expect you will find fresh, maybe subtle, misconduct if you look closely.

I think it is unreasonable to export Wikipedia's rules into real life. If an academic operates under academic rules (different than ours), but occasionally edits Wikipedia, we do not get to regulate all their off-wiki activities. I think it's good to regulate on-wiki activities, and fair to regulate somebody who's main involvement in a topic area is on-wiki, and then they export a conflict to another platform. The academics in this case are only tangentially involved in Wikipedia and they are not exporting a dispute. They are just doing their thing as academics, and we should be thankful they took the time to tell us how we could improve.

Strong action in this case will discourage future misbehavior by other nationalists. A weak response or a passing of the buck will encourage more misbehavior.

Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should be looked into. I started to do that when I first became aware of the polemic essay: [1], and had plans to get more involved in the standard community check and clean up of possibly biased articles, but then got heavily sidetracked by the case request (there is a lot to read in the request itself, and more to read in the submissions emailed to ArbCom, plus the ongoing discussions among the Committee as to what should be done). I am not saying that something shouldn't be done, what I am saying is that I think an ArbCom case is not the appropriate way of doing it. A case is going to be held, and I must now consider if my time and energy is best spent helping out on a case I don't feel we should hold, or on getting involved in looking into the articles and improving them where appropriate. I don't think I have the time and energy to do both. Though my preference would be to do the editing, I did sign up to work on the Committee, and so I will most likely shoulder some of the work on the Committee in analysing closely the claims made in the academic essay.

I will say I am heartened by your belief that "Strong action in this case will discourage future misbehavior by other nationalists", though sadly that is not a belief I can share. My experience (which I believe I have iterated in the recent and previous ArbCom candidate responses to questions) is that ethnic, political, and nationalist POV/COI issues are commonplace on Wikipedia, and are something we will need to keep dealing with as a matter of course. I personally doubt there will ever be a lasting solution. Same as I doubt there will be a solution to the whitewashing of articles on film stars, music icons, cult films and novels by legions of fans. The bulk of our articles in the fandom area are enthusiastic in their praise and listing of awards, and strangely quiet on balanced and objective discussion of relative strengths and weaknesses. I recognise that Wikipedia is not perfect, so "somebody on the internet says that Wikipedia is not perfect" doesn't quite give me the chills that it seems to give others. What does, however, encourage me is the way that Warsaw concentration camp developed from its hesitant start in 2004, to the detailed, balanced, and helpful article it is today. I am not surprised that the polemic essay preferred to comment on the state of the article back in 2004 rather than how it is today, because it is clear to me as it must be to most reasonable and neutral people reading the essay that it is more of a Daily Mail opinion piece than an example of a balanced academic research paper. The title of the essay sort of gives away its intention. One of the things I am considering is gathering the evidence to propose that The Journal of Holocaust Research is listed as a non-reliable source. But for that I would need the time to read though a reasonable sample of the work they have published over the past 12 months. I doubt I'll have the freedom of time to do that while also helping out on the case. So be it. SilkTork (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

First, I really appreciate your thoughtful response and want to acknowledge that your ideas are reasonable. I admit that I am hopelessly optimistic. This may be a difficult problem that requires multiple approaches. If ArbCom makes a list of the disputes in the area over the last three years and then does a close reading of a random sampling, they will get a clear picture of which editors are habitually frustrating consensus and policy. If those editors receive a broad topic ban, that will help incrementally. We also need to assist neutral editors, such as yourself, who might be interested to delve into the area and improve the articles. An article quality drive is one of the best ways to get rid of problematic sources, but as the FAC people always remind me, FAC is not dispute resolution!

Icewhiz remains a serious complicating factor. His involvement works to create a battleground. Perhaps we can have some checkusers camp on the topic area and post a notice that any new editor coming to edit these articles is going to be subject to Checkuser inspection because of the unprecedented sock puppetry in the topic area.

In sum, there are things that can be done to chip away at the problem. We may not be able to solve it entirely or even mostly, but we should still try to do what we can. I appreciate you hosting this discussion. This is more than I want to say on the case page, but I know that many experience editors are watching this page. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that editors who are identified as currently frustrating consensus and policy should be sanctioned, and if they have previously been sanctioned that the new sanctions should be of an appropriately serious level up to and including site bans. I am, however, cautious about digging into the past (other than to use as examples of continuous or repeated misbehaviour). Looking at misbehaviour from many years ago which does not relate to recent behaviour (which is what the article did), I feel is not appropriate or helpful. We want to stop ongoing bad behaviour, not punish people for errors of the past which they have perhaps acknowledged and moved on from. If someone is editing inappropriately now (or in the past 12-24 months) then, yes, let us look further into the past to see how serious the sanction should be. But if someone has been positive or even silent for 24 months or more, then let's not waste our time looking into the past. I am dubious of the value of an ArbCom case which is listing people who have been named in an external article for making edits 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago. I would, though, have agreed to a case looking into the author who is a Wikipedian, as I feel they have been seriously and deliberately disruptive and I would consider if they should retain a Wikipedia account. SilkTork (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Fun fact: in the past 24 months there have been only two WP:AE reports in this area [2] (April '21) [3] (June '22). That's one report per year... which is crazy-low for what is supposedly a "contentious topic". In both cases the parties were pretty much told to go home and do something better with their time and the reports went stale, got auto archived and were never closed. Volunteer Marek 18:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting statistic. Thank you for sharing that. It is consistent with the idea that most or nearly all reasonable editors have been driven from the topic area. VM, I believe you said that you had stopped editing the area. Am I right? Jehochman ^Talk 19:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Nah, it is consistent with the idea that Icewhiz ran out of socks. Nobody's been driven out of this area. I have been preoccupied with other things mostly, yes. Volunteer Marek 19:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I would rather be more concerned with the fact that these disputes may "spillover" into other topic areas where some editors from "Holocaust in Poland" follow others to other topics to continue the battlegroundin'. You leave one topic area alone and start editing a new one and all of sudden all these familiar faces, who've never shown an interest in the new topic, pop up. That part does seem like relevant to the case. Volunteer Marek 20:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Note re:ArbCom request

Hi! I was reading through the recent ArbCom request regarding editing on the Holocaust in Poland. Since I have had run-ins with one of the named parties (which resulted in me opening a case at ANI in which several other named parties appeared), and I have not edited anything related to the topic at hand, I feel I'm both too invested and not invested enough to comment. However, there is something I would like to point out and, since I don't believe fact-checking is the primary concern of such a request, that probably isn't important enough to be posted there anyway - in your objection to taking up the case you claim the article states that a user, Halibutt, inserted the claim that "the Germans annihilated 200,000 non-Jewish Poles in a giant gas chamber" into Warsaw concentration camp when they created that article in 2004; when it was in fact another user in 2005 who inserted the note that it was non-Jews. In fact, the article clarifies (note 25) that "Halibutt first created the “Warsaw Concentration Camp” Wikipedia article in 2004, inserting the statement “provisional gas chambers located in a railway tunnel near the Warszawa Zachodnia train station” and that “some 200,000 people were killed there by the Germans during the war.” Wikipedia article, “Warsaw Concentration Camp,” difference between revisions [hereafter diff] by Halibutt, 2:03, August 25, 2004, [4]. User Vorthax adapted this in 2005 to say that “some 200,000 people (mostly Gentile Poles) were killed there.” Wikipedia article, “Warsaw Concentration Camp,” diff by Vorthax, 9:26, December 17, 2005, [5]." You'll notice the last diff is the very same you posted in your objection at ArbCom. It's more than likely that some inaccuracies are present, and the the footnotes seem to show the article must have been in the pipelines since 2020, which means some issues could already have been addressed, but I believe that particular claim, while it could've been worded better, is addressed more or less properly in the article. Cheers! Ostalgia (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The statement in the polemic essay reads: "In one glaring example authored by Halibutt, which reached the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in 2019, an entire Wikipedia article claimed for fifteen years that in a concentration camp in Warsaw, the Germans annihilated 200,000 non-Jewish Poles in a giant gas chamber.[Footnote25] Two editors named K.e.coffman and Icewhiz removed this falsehood,[Footnote26] but other manipulations remain and more are added daily to the online encyclopedia." That does not read to me like a balanced or accurate statement. "other manipulations remain and more are added daily" is unsourced and vague, and serves little purpose other than to besmirch Wikipedia, and in particular Halibutt, whose name appears at the front of the statement. There is no mention by either of the authors of the history of the gas chamber claim, and that at the time of insertion into Wikipedia the claim had not been discredited. As a piece of academic research it is incompetent, but as a piece of opinionated and inaccurate Daily Mail style prejudice, it works its purpose well for those who are both uncritical and are already convinced (or have been convinced) that Wikipedia is a hotbed of Holocaust denying. What I am interested in is if there are people on Wikipedia now who are actively engaged in either Holocaust denying, or in deliberately distorting the truth. I think anyone found to be deliberately (and especially maliciously) distorting or misrepresenting the truth should be sanctioned. SilkTork (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not here to either defend the article or fact-check it, I merely addressed the specific claim you made at ArbCom and stated that it could've been worded better, although the essence of it is still correct, IMO. And that is, in a way, what I believe at the centre of this - whether the essence of the article is correct or not (trees, forest), which is a point I believe we (and the majority of users, I'd expect!) can agree on, judging by your last couple of sentences. I don't think a Holocaust denialist would survive for long on Wikipedia, but if the third chart in the article is to be believed, then we have a very sensitive topic in which nationalist and/or relatively marginal scholars (or both) are overrepresented in citations here when compared to the "real world", with the opposite being true for mainstream scholars. That would undoubtedly constitute a problem. Whether such an issue (if the assessment is correct) is intentional or an accidental by-product of... something (nationality of editors, linguistic competence, chance, whatever) is what I believe should be elucidated. After all, odds are the case is going to be taken up anyway. Regardless, I'm already getting in deeper than I wanted to. Cheers! Ostalgia (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Am i being more-than-usually dim, or did you not get around to telling anyone just where you put the threads you archived? DuncanHill (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, or have they got misplaced by subsequent moves? DuncanHill (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Subsequent move. Here is where I placed them: Talk:Kingston_upon_Hull/Archive_4. I'll take a look into the move, see if I can sort it out. SilkTork (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Move was done today: [6]. SilkTork (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I just asked for it to be unmoved at WP:RMT. DuncanHill (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I've already restored the name, and left the mover a note. SilkTork (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

April songs

April songs

my story today

I loved to see Marian Anderson and her story of protest against discrimination by singing on Easter Sunday 9 April 1939 on the Main page on Easter Sunday 9 April. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. SilkTork (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

My story today, Messiah (Handel), was my first dip into the FA ocean, thanks to great colleagues. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Music holds a special place for me. I very briefly (and very badly) played drums in a temporary local band. At the moment I'm listening to the Small Faces debut album: Small Faces (1966 album). I didn't see the Small Faces play live, but I did see Steve Marriot fronting Humble Pie at Hyde Park in 1971 (I'm in the crowd on the inside cover for Humble Pie's Rockin' The Fillmore. I believe I'm also on the inside cover of a Grand Funk Railroad album, from the same concert). And I saw the rest of the band twice, when as The Faces they backed Rod Stewart at Weeley Festival, and later at the Hemel Hempstead Pavilion (where Stewart pulled me up on stage with him to sing "Maggie May" arm in arm - a very precious memory indeed!) SilkTork (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, that sounds really special. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Today is the 80th birthday of John Eliot Gardiner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Cool. I briefly knew the conductor Raoul Lay in Marseille, when his daughter was dating my wife's nephew. Good man. We ran the Old Port of Marseille race together a good few years ago. I don't think we have an article on him. Not quite sure how notable he is. SilkTork (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not too difficult, - all but two of my choral conductors have an article in English. You just need 2 reliable sources, and better a review among them than the typical bios that get printed in program notes. Gardiner, however, will be as famous as can be, conducting before the coronation. I wondered about the spike in vies a few days ago but that explained it. (forgot to sign) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I found these - what do you think Gerda? [7], [8], [9], [10]. There are other things, but they are either mentions of the short time with Malta, databases, or notices of albums or performances, but nothing in depth on Raoul (outside of Malta). It appears to me that the only (Wikipedia) noteworthy thing he did was briefly lead Malta, and then leave. And that was really only noteworthy in Malta. SilkTork (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Quick comment: the only RS of those is #2, saying that he was already sacked when he left - which makes me think that we do him perhaps no favour making that more public. - I just started an article on a young promising singer, about whom I found only good news, including that people laughed loud which isn't yet in the article. He impressed me greatly in the last-mentioned Britten pieces, and only writing this made me realise that I had seen him before (Carmen, Salome, Midsummer) but medium roles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

We agree. I had no knowledge of the Malta incident, and it doesn't read well. The other stuff is not notable. SilkTork (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

yesterday's story was around Messiaen, and I got no protest, - perhaps the ice age is going to end? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You may remember Lobsterthermidor

After protracted discussions you indef blocked him in Feb 2021 - see his talk page. It's now evident that he only stayed away until August that year, when he resumed editing as 212.104.155.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), an IP that he'd previously used occasionally when not logged in (see here, for example). Apart from that the duck test amply proves identity - compare the latest edits here (related to Beverston, Berkeley and Gloucestershire) with those on Commons, where he has continued his prolific editing; and this mini-rant compared to what he said in his post-block apologia. Sigh.  —Smalljim  13:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank for that Smalljim - I'm not one for blocking accounts merely because they are returning blocked users. For me, if the user is now editing productively and usefully, then let them continue. However, after glancing through contributions I see they are continuing to bloat articles with the same trivial and off-topic data they were cautioned for under their previous account: [11], as such I have blocked the account. I note that they had for some years been using that account alongside their registered account without declaring it - though, as your link shows, they were not actually hiding it either. SilkTork (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

True, he never tried to hide that IP address and readily admitted edits were made when he failed to log in. It's a shame it's taken so long to notice its renaissance (he's stayed away from anything that would have been on my watchlist). Over 1,400 edits! Thanks are due to Belle Fast for spotting it and querying it with me this morning. Anyway thank you for your measured response and action. Best wishes  —Smalljim  22:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he's tended to be a low level nuisance - someone who doesn't really stand out, and whose contributions need thinking about to spot that they are unhelpful, so doesn't really get much attention. I note that his IP talk page is full of notices of mostly minor concern. Nothing that is really going to grab most people's attention enough to look further, so well done to Belle Fast for spotting that this was a problematic user. SilkTork (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ingenuity

Hey, just wanted to let you know that this is still showing as open on the main RFA page.   ArcAngel   (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The new admin took care of it: [12] :-) SilkTork (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Email

I don't really check my Wikipedia email and haven't for a while, since I kept getting spammed by this one guy (and therefore gave up on opening any of them because he wouldn't stop incessantly sending me spam), but I finally checked and realized he's emailed me from at least five different sockpuppets of a banned account. His email is andy-academia@hotmail.com and every single account emailed from that same email, the newest account being Melvin Jansen. I replied to his newest email and requested that he stop emailing me, but I thought a CheckUser should know. Bill Williams 15:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

He sent me emails from the accounts Dur Godiva, Noha Erssam, Rohitikarma, CPH Eagle, Melvin Mor, and Brian Arps (those are the ones I see after looking through my email). I only opened a few from Dur Govida and responded thinking he was just some normal user, but once he started spamming me I just ignored all his emails. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of those accounts were sockpuppets of the same person. Bill Williams 15:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your problems Bill. I'll discuss this with you by email. SilkTork (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for letting me know. Bill Williams 01:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

May songs

May songs

my story today

10 years ago OTD, I received a lovely barnstar. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

my story today is that 300 years ago today, Bach became Thomaskantor, with BWV 75, writing music history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Deadnaming

I'd like to respond to this post of yours. Just so you know, referring to a transgender person by their former name is considered one of the most offensive things you can say to us, even if you aknowledge the name change, as you did. I'm sure you didn't mean anything bad by it, and I otherwise agree with your comment. Just some advice on how to put it. ^_^ -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hardly deadnaming, Manning was very well known, and still is, by both his pretransition and her posttransition names. A bit of an over reaction Maddy. - Roxy the dog 07:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Maddy from Celeste. Thanks for letting me know. Just for the record, I followed the link to a discussion on what was then the Bradley Manning talkpage - that's the name I saw in the url (hover over the link and you'll see it). I recalled the Manning story, and the name change, though assumed that Bradley was the name that Manning took because here in the UK Bradley, like Robin and Chris, is a gender neutral name. After posting I noted that the Bradley Manning link was green for me (which indicates a redirect). I followed the redirect and noted that the name change was to Chelsea. After cursing myself for not double checking, I then went back and amended what I said (it's generally not acceptable to delete something on a talkpage once posted - it is usually striken out, or an amendment added). I am aware that some folk can get upset when their former name is deliberately used either to make a point, or to hurt or insult. That was clearly not the case here (if you hover over my name you'll note I am gender neutral); however, you were not to know the full story. Again, thanks for assuming good faith, and for coming to politely let me know. SilkTork (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Shall I make it for you Leosshwbsjshybddbdbd (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for the review of "I Want You " and for the improvements you made directly to the article. Much appreciated. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

IP Block exemption request

Hello @SilkTork, Please can you assist me with an IPBE for the following user. They will like to contribute to the African Day Campaign. Please do create accounts for the other users who have accounts on other wikis but do not have an account on this wiki.

• sadammuhammad11234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kwaku benny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bugirbiig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• kwamevaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atibrarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Semmy1960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maagyam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aliyu shaba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ogbeni Adewale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fine acer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mikogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Myzz Evelyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sureyaill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nana Kwabena Boakye-Yiadom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Christian Owusu Ansah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Belinda Acquah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please do update pertaining to any issues associated to any of the accounts.

Thank you and hope to read from you soon. JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Joris Darlington Quarshie. The usual procedure if a user is autoblocked is for them to individually apply to be unblocked and to have IPBE, if appropriate. See Wikipedia:Autoblock and Wikipedia:IP block exemption. I have checked several of the names, and none of those I checked are blocked or autoblocked. This request is further complicated because several of the users I checked have a history of problematic editing. My suggestion is that you discuss the situation with each user (preferably on their talk pages so there is a record of the discussion which can be referred to) to see if they are having problems logging on to Wikipedia (I assume the intention is to edit the English Wikipedia?), and if a user is having problems, for that user to follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Autoblock and Wikipedia:IP block exemption by making their own unblock request. SilkTork (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Your intention was good, so no worries, however, for various reasons, it is not done to remove someone's post, as you did here: [13]. The appropriate thing to have done was to strike through the user's name on the list, and leave a comment below theirs indicating you have actioned their request. I could then see at a glance what had been said and done, rather than read on my notification list that Hussein m mmbaga had left me a message, not see the message on my talkpage, and so look in history to find out what had happened to it. SilkTork (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much @SilkTorkfor the feedback. All this information have been taken into account. Next time i will strikethrough as stated here. Now I know the purpose of the strikethrough.

Thank you very much once again. JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, there is a pilot program that is coming up so i hope this project will resolve these problematic contributions from users from this region. JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

2024 appeal

I'm not intending on drafting my appeal yet but perhaps as far as you're suggestion goes about removing the restrictions completely perhaps they could be lifted completely with an editing plan and them being suspended for an additional 6 months. Thoughts? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you link me to your last appeal, Crouch, so I can remind myself of the discussion. SilkTork (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1132789895. I would still point out that a step by step may be more helpful to the project (and to me) that wholesale removal but the 6 months probation may take care of that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou. Now, if you would read through what I and my fellow Arbs said in that appeal, and give me your understanding of what was said to you, and how that relates to your proposal of the restrictions being "lifted completely with an editing plan and them being suspended for an additional 6 months". What was the most important message being given by the Committee and also by Thryduulf? SilkTork (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

To understand why the restrictions are in place and what I have done to alleviate these concerns. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Good. And why are the restrictions in place? And what are you going to do to alleviate concerns? SilkTork (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should use the editing plan which can be part of the appeal to specify what I can create, how many and the qualify of the articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You've avoided the question. Please answer: And why are the restrictions in place? And what are you going to do to alleviate concerns? SilkTork (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

To prevent me from mass creating unsuitable articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

And what are you going to do to reassure people that you will not be mass creating unsuitable articles? SilkTork (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

By agreeing with someone like you a number per (say week) of articles on a topic (say parishes) that I can created and the number can go up if there aren't problems or down if there are? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you'd make a better appeal if you could show that you didn't need an editing plan, especially one that needs monitoring and adjusting. What I would be looking for is simply evidence that you understand the issue, and so can be trusted not to set out to either create a lot of articles or any number of trivial or dubious articles. If you can do that, then I would support your appeal. If you're going to come up with an editing plan, especially one that needs monitoring and adjusting, then I would almost certainly reject it, and would likely support a motion to not allow you to make another appeal for five years. SilkTork (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that in 2023 I am now capable of not needing monitoring but I'm just concerned that I don't include that in an appeal it may be rejected if people don't feel I can be trusted without a trial. When do you think I should start drafting my appeal? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you should draft your appeal whenever you feel ready, and show it to several users you trust, making adjustments as appropriate so that you have the best possible appeal for next year. I don't think it would be appropriate to have any of the arbs who are going to assess your appeal be the ones who assist you in drafting it. I think you would need to ask for help from other users. Good luck! SilkTork (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the editing plan but could be used in a way that if there are problems I can take responsibility myself to reduce/change my creation. But while it now seems most just want rid of the restrictions completely I'd still say failing that that something that requires a small amount of monitoring would be better for the project and me than just declining. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I have started at User:Crouch, Swale/Appeal though its far from finished. I don't really know anyone else other than the arbs who I can ask. Apart from a few users who I have interacted quite a bit with in respect to UK geography one of which I could perhaps ask the main people I have discussed this with is the arbs so they seem the only ones. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Thryduulf, User:Robert McClenon, would either of you be willing to look at Crouch, Swale's draft appeal to see if they are heading in the right direction. SilkTork (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I will look at it within 24 hours, probably less time. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

After a brief look, I'd reject that out of hand if it were presented as is. It shows no evidence of understanding of why the restrictions were placed and why previous appeals were not granted, no examples of their best work to illustrate the sort of articles they are wanting to create, and frankly evidence of not understanding how consensus on Wikipedia works. My overall impression is a childlike "please please unground me I will behave next time I promise pretty please". Thryduulf (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. SilkTork (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't had any previous involvement in this case, so I can infer that either I was asked to review the appeal as an uninvolved party who is often a mediator, or that this request was meant for someone else. I am going to assume that I was selected as an uninvolved party. I need some background, in that I don't see a link to the original restriction, which was presumably imposed either by Arbitration Enforcement or by WP:ANI. So, will someone please provide me a link to the original sanction? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Crouch, Swale - At this time, you are not heading in a useful direction. I was evidently asked to take an uninvolved look. This draft appeal says nothing about what your restrictions are, and nothing about why you think they were imposed, or what you have been told is why they were imposed. Begin at the beginning, and provide me with some idea as to what you are asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Now I see much of the history. It appears that User:Crouch, Swale was site banned in 2011, after creating 803 sockpuppets. CS was reinstated in 2017 subject to rules against creating new pages, moving pages, and arguing about geographic names. If I were an arbitrator reading the appeal, I would want to see some explanation of why the user created so many sockpuppets, as well as some indication of what the content dispute was. This far-from-finished appeal is a non-starter, and I suggest that it be sent to Sagittarius A*. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon and Thryduulf: Thanks for the feedback, I think the main points about the previous issues is that the geographical NC topic ban removed this time 5 years ago was never reinstated and that the articles that I have created haven't been redirected, draftified, CSDed, proded or AFDed. That in its self seems strong evidence and that I should have 1 chance and we shouldn't focus on what I did over a decade ago. Remember this is only the first draft, I have almost 5 and a half months left to complete it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Robert McClenon - I selected you as someone, like Thryduulf, whose advice I respect, and as someone who has shown willingness and experience in giving advice in areas like this. I also thought it would be appropriate to have a past arb and a potential future arb giving CS some advice. Thanks to you and Thryduulf for looking at the appeal. User:Crouch, Swale, please take on board what you have been told and re-write the appeal. You must show understanding of why there are restrictions in place, and give assurance that if restrictions are lifted that you can be trusted, without monitoring, to create new articles moving forward. I suggest you write out a full appeal (not a draft, but an appeal such as you would present to ArbCom), and ping me again next month. If Robert McClenon and Thryduulf are willing they could look at that new appeal, if not I could ask two others. Bear in mind that it is not appropriate for anyone to write the appeal for you - what others can do is look and give you feedback. If, even after being given feedback, you are unable to formulate an appropriate appeal, then so be it. There is a limit to the amount of time and effort you can expect others to give you, and sometimes we must accept that restrictions are necessary. SilkTork (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll work on it and ping you next month, I've also though of someone else who is an admin but not an arb who I could also ask. I think we need to try to make sure that we can put an end to this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure that I was understood, since it appears that User:Crouch, Swale is working on the appeal for later review, possibly including by me. I didn't say to improve the appeal and let me read it again. I said to send it to Sagittarius A*. Did you click on the link to Sagitarrius A*? Any appeal that doesn't address the original offenses, which were mammoth, is insulting to the community. I don't primarily want to know whether they can be trusted to move pages or to create articles in mainspace. I want to know why I can trust that they won't engage in sockpuppetry. If I were to read that appeal that says nothing about why this editor was banned in 2011, I would think that this editor hasn't learned anything. User:SilkTork - You didn't waste my time, but User:Crouch, Swale wasted my time. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Well yes I can be trusted not to today, that happened years ago as noted in the appeal discussion where a user gets into a spiral situation of socking. That's not a problem now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

Thanks again for reviewing Ernest Rutherford. I believe I've resolved the bulk of the issues raised in your initial review. Please resume your evaluation whenever you're ready! Doughbo (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Further revisions to your additional concerns are ready for review. Doughbo (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping. I think I've addressed your outstanding points. Doughbo (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Doughbo. I am aware the review is unfinished. I have been busy with events on and off Wikipedia for the past few days, and I hope to get back to the review as soon as I can. Indeed, I am looking forward to it. SilkTork (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit War/Vandal report

Hello, I would like to report User:Raheelejaz907 who I have warned twice for reverting my sourced edit on Asim Munir (general) without providing an explanation, and now they have reverted my edit again, but this time by falsely claiming in an edit summary that its "IP Vandalism," even though I am logged in. I've asked them to discuss this with me on their talk page and the talk page of Asim Munir (general) but they have not replied.SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You have both been edit warring, and today you both fell foul of WP:3RR so I have blocked you both for 24 hours. When your block expires, you need to take your disagreements to the talk page. If you need someone to facilitate the discussion give me a ping. SilkTork (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Ernest Rutherford, New Zealand physicist

Hi @SilkTork, I see you've archived the extensive evidence I added to Talk:Ernest Rutherford showing he is a New Zealander. This is a subject that has been argued at length in the past. I think it would be wise to retain this evidence in some form on the Talk page, for new people intending to change his nationality to British. I could transplant it under a new section? E James Bowman (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The usual thing to do in such circumstances is to provide a link to past discussions. I can set that up. SilkTork (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That will be good to refer people to if the issue comes up again. E James Bowman (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Having randomly seen this exchange, I can't help but point out that by every Canadian's definition of who is Canadian, Rutherford (like the current vice-president of the United States) is quite obviously Canadian in nationality. :p Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ha. Noted. E James Bowman (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Place to ask for other talk page banner improvements?

Hi @SilkTork, are you perhaps aware where or whom to bring attention to regarding other talk page banners like the Template talk:Contentious topics/talk notice? I like the ongoing series of improvements that seek to reduce banner blindness, and multiple "contentious topics" banners in a row are among biggest offenders when it comes to redundancy... Thanks in advance! –Vipz (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Sdkb is taking the lead on this, and is the best person to approach. SilkTork (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

(I'll reply at Template talk:Contentious topics/talk notice#When an article deals with multiple contentious topics. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC))

former

I saw your comment, and I think it's a nice thought. But the more I thought about it, I dunno if it's such a great idea for those who have had adminship removed for malfeasance. I think your JW analogy has the right sentiment, but he never "lost" being "founder", he lost being able to block editors or being an appeal option.

What isn't fair is that he was able to lose tools piecemeal by appealing to (or a gift from) the devs. He went from steward to founder due to various kerfuffles, and it's just slowly been a divestment from there.

De-adminship just doesn't get that option.

I wish we could do that with adminship. Most of the tools are wiki-gnomish. The troubles we more seem to run into mostly seem to be "patroller-based" like rollback and block (whether in "involved" situations, or whatever else).

And I have to say, there just seems like no good reason for any admin to use rollback, except maybe due to need in a mass-rollback situation. It just seems to carry too many problems with little benefit. I honestly wish I could remove it from me. I've seen so many editors say they accidentally mis-clicked on that - which is very easy to do. I've set the confirm prompt in my preferences for that very reason. But as admins we should be able to say "I don't need this patroller tool" and leave a request at WP:BN for it's individual removal.

Just because the community may want trust an individual with all the tools of adminship, doesn't mean they should be forced to carry them all if not wanted. (And when I found out about the potential Amish concerns and others' ethical concerns, I'm even more convinced.) Let WikiGnomes be WikiGnomes if they want to.

And in situations like the current one - as I noted there earlier - imagine if arbcom could just remove a couple patroller tools and call it good. they would still be an "admin", and yet, the issues addressed.

The analogy I like is hiring a remodeller for a secure building. If it turns out that they are great as an electrician, a carpenter, and so on, but they are terrible as a plumber, you don't fire them from everything, even though you'd like to trust them with everything. So you revoke their security passcards to the plumbing areas, and just keep them on for everything else. And you get to keep the benefits of their ability and expertise while not having them do things they probably shouldn't be doing.

Saying that we are only going to take on those who are great at everything is just shooting ourselves in the foot, and we have fewer and fewer able (and willing for that matter)...

Anyway, I saw your comments and thought that this was probably beyond that case, and as I respect your opinion and value your thoughts, I thought I'd ramble a bit here....lol

Thanks for listening : ) - jc37 15:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I'd like to see "Admin" for active admins, "Admin (former)" for those who had the tools removed for inactivity or not being up to date with policy, "Admin (retired)" for those who voluntarily retire, and nothing at all for those who had the tools removed for abuse.

I understand and support your thoughts on the tools being separated in some form. Back when I was still new to the project I considered proposing a new status of "Experienced editor" - someone who could get editing tools like deletion (in order to manage some page moves - that was actually my prime reason for wanting to become an admin ([14], [15]- I had, at the time, no interest at all in policing the project and blocking users), protection, etc, but not the more controversial tools like blocking. And while folks would go to admins when concerned about a user's behaviour, they could go to Experienced editors with concerns about an article. I would have welcomed a visible and approachable group of editors who were experienced at editing and prepared to help out new users. SilkTork (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Understandable.

You've been around so you might have seen it (I'm sorry, I don't recall), but I tried several times to get such a package done. WP:MOD was the most recent, I think (has it really been 7 years? lol).

But, even if we get past the perennial "I trust them with everything, so I oppose this" or "I want a blocker user right group and I think this will get in the way" or "I'm afraid this will set up a tiered admin structure" - and more - even if we get past all that, we also have the issue that: from nearly the beginning, sysop+ has been the automatic dumping ground for mediawiki tools. So it could be difficult to keep such a user-right group up-to-date.

So I've come around to the idea that maybe the next attempt should be to make block (and protect - their usage seems to be intertwined in practice) removable from the admin package.

It's a very simple solution to a lot of issues.

Maybe there should be an RfC in the future.

But I dunno. So many people seem to be so used to having "block" being grouped as part of the admin package, I don't know if it's possible (yet?) to get consensus to move past that. Any ideas on how to move forward on this would be most welcome. - jc37 16:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinged here by jc37. I think block, protect, and delete are the 3 core tools of admin with block and protect in particular being an important tandem because of the judgement required about which of the 2 is correct in a given situation. I think you could have various forms of removing tools from the toolkit (which to be honest about I'm going to be generally against because I think the history of doing so has made passing RfA harder) and require self-granting, ala edit filter or autopatrol, which could allow more granular restrictions. The problem is that in terms of what leads to people being desysopped it's nearly always either one of those three or it's a broader conduct concern that doesn't have to do with any given tool.

As for SilkTork's recognition idea, I go back and forth on it. Today I'm "we shouldn't be formalizing the informal social power that goes with admin by creating symbolic user groups" but tomorrow I could easily be on SilkTork's side. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree about RfA - I think the block tool is the most contentious tool in the pack, and probably engenders the most "fear" amongst non-admins. And I think it's fair to say that fear is the number one cause of concerns at RfA...

And we don't have to solve "everything" by doing this, even if we address "some", that would be an improvement. I'd love to see world peace, but I don't think it's likely the three of us here will be able to do that : )

But yes, I would definitely support something like the edit filter idea. The only difference is that admins shouldn't be granting/removing "block" to/from anyone but themself. I would imagine that should not be too difficult to code. Similar to how only interface admins and the user themself can edit a js page. So in this case, only stewards/bureaucrats and the user themself. - jc37 14:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GAstart

Template:GAstart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

July music

July songs

my story today

While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. I do enjoy your musical interludes. SilkTork (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The flowers were picked for resilience, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I love all forms of daisies. They are hardy, and flower for so long. Solid plants. SilkTork (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was Arnika, but Meneerke bloem corrected me ;) - I invite you to read the top of my talk, about resilience, perhaps until Fanny Hensel, under the large pic about a new era - about my resolutions for 2023 ;) - It's a particularly successful day for me: the pictured DYK, a new GA, and a wonderful woman (I didn't know until two days ago) on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Listening to Siegfried from the 2023 Bayreuth Festival, third act, Andreas Schager as Siegfried waking up Brünnhilde. Which reminds me of this discussion. Was there anything in it demanding arbitration? - A few weeks later, three participants were admonished, - for what still remains a mystery to me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Today Jahrhundertring, and I just listened to Götterdämmerung from Bayreuth (pictured), - the image (of a woman who can't believe what she has to see) features also on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat and join the discussion when you have an opportunity. Maxim (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

August music

August songs

my story today

My story today - a first - isn't about an article by me, but one I reviewed for DYK, see here. I like all: topic, "hook", connected article (a GA on its way towards FA), image and the music "in the background". I just returned from a weekend with two weddings, so also like the spirit ;) - Pics to come, I promise one cake, the other was too large! Good music, and better even in the concert ending the second day, - Goldberg Variations theme for an encore, after Dohnányi Serenade! - I played with the dedication for Goldberg Variations in my Siegfried entry 10 years ago ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Again not by me: today's story - with the triumph of music over military - is uplifting! - No cake yet, but a butterfly and open-air opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks as always Gerda. SilkTork (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Now: picture of heart-shaped cake(s) uploaded! - Today's story is about a tenor, - why his roles are not linked on the Main page remains a mystery to me. Today is also the birthday of the Bayreuth Festival. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

One more day uploaded, with another wedding cake - I couldn't resist. Today's story is about the Inkpot Madonna who returned to "her place" 9 years ago, and also has aspects of early learning, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Today is the anniversary of the premiere of Götterdämmerung. Berit Lindholm sang its final scene in concert at the Royal Festival Hall in London, only four years after her stage debut in a Mozart opera in Stockholm. - The infobox discussion for Götterdämmerung makes me smile 10 years later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Today I heard a delightful concert, "Himmlische Freuden", remembered having heard Vilde Frang (Bruch concerto, in Zürich, with my brother's orchestra) , and succeeded in preparing Renata Scotto's article enough for the Main page (which took two days). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Today is Debussy's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This too shall pass. - Ten years ago on 28 August, I heard a symphony, with a heavy heart because of the pending decision in WP:ARBINFOBOX, and not worried about my future here but Andy's. - It passed, and I could write the DYK about calling to dance, not battle, and Andy could write the DYK mentioning about peace and reconciliation, - look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)