User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 14

← Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15 →

Vandal1 - removal of Infobox from Savile Row

Hello, I'm Trident13. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Savile Row because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Simply, removal of an infobox is vandalism, pure and simple. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you have a preference for the infobox. I have restored some edits you undid when you reverted, though kept the information you want in the info box. I don't think that the box is adding anything of value to the article, as the information it mentions is already mentioned in the lead. Infoboxes are not mandatory - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Using_infoboxes_in_articles. Shall we have a discussion on the article talkpage as the best way forward? See Talk:Savile_Row#Infobox SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Block v. ban

Can you point to how your statement is in line with policy as it is currently written? I feel you are mistaken, and if you aren't, our policies on blocking and banning need a rewrite and a new category should be created for those editors who we wish to expel from the community completely. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#Can an IP User talk page be used to store a "userfy" version of an article under AfD? for an example where community support existed for an indefinite block, but not for a ban. In fact, editors are blocked, but not banned, at ANI with community support all the time. Ryan Vesey 07:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A community ban is not quite the same thing as a block that is supported by others. A community ban is explicit, and is logged at Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#Banned_by_the_Wikipedia_community. If it's just a block that others agree with, but is not explicitly stated that it is a ban, and is not listed as a ban, then a neutral admin on their own initiative can unblock. However, if the block is listed at Wikipedia:List of banned users, then, per WP:UNBAN, the user needs to make an appeal to the community or the ArbCom rather than to an individual admin. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If you go jump in an icy lake, please take your nice cup of tea with you

None of this was helpful as the Committee was already in discussion with Cla, and neither of those users checked to see if that was taking place.

— SilkTork

Well, excuse me your highness. I wasn't aware I had to ask your permission before posting on Wikipedia. As I mentioned, all you arbitrators needed to do was post a public note that you were discussing the block and that admins should leave it to ArbCom. I posted my comment in an effort to defuse a heated situation that developed in part because of the absence of information. Rather than having people argue about whether the incident was doxing or not, I suggested a constructive path forward. You seem to want to assume the worst of me, which is very bad behavior for an arbitrator. Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

One more thing. If you accuse me of wrongdoing, please notify me promptly. I edit under my real name and don't tolerate baseless accusations. If I have to find out about them from third parties,[1] that makes matters much worse. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't intend to accuse you of wrongdoing, and apologise if I have given that impression - I'll take another look at what I said to see if I can clarify on the case page. However, I think that making a suggestion that a blocked editor with talkpage access restricted because of repeated privacy violations should "post a note" is unwise and unhelpful, and I think if you reflect on that, and then look at what resulted from your comment you might agree. Unhelpful, though, is not the same as wrongdoing. My comment on the case page was that I would prefer a motion than a full case as otherwise we would be dragging in too many other editors, such as yourself. If there is something to be learned from this incident it may be that the talkpages of users who have had their access restricted should be fully protected. As regards ArbCom putting up notices that someone is making an appeal: that is, sadly, not done. I am fully in favour of more transparency as regards what ArbCom do. I started posting notices when an appeal was completed so that the community were aware of the situation. This has been discussed a couple of times, and while consensus was in favour of continuing to do so, I have stopped doing it because some people dislike it. I would also prefer that, except for privacy issues, appeals are heard on Wikipedia so everyone can see what is going on. But there is no support for that. Anyway, as this matter does concern privacy matters, this would be one appeal that would be heard in camera anyway - though I would envisage that such privacy appeals would be noted as taking place, much as you suggest. Anyway, again, apologies for my comment having alarmed you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocking Cla68 was the stupidest possible thing to do because it drew immense attention to the thing that Oversight was trying to hide from view. Ditto for reblocking Cla68 and removing Kevin's access. So, when you or anybody else on ArbCom uses the word "unhelpful" I think you aren't competent to render that sort of opinion. What I said was the Cla68 should agree to follow policy so that he could be unblocked. This was 100% correct then and now. Cla68 could "post a note" as in drop it in the post; he could email oversight or ArbCom. He could email me or some other sensible person a proper statement and we'd post it. Next time you have doubts about something I said, please ask me first before launching an attack on a highly public page. I don't appreciate that and will continue holding you accountable until you get it. Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this statement, I do not think you are fit to be an arbitrator because you clearly don't understand how things work, and are much too much enjoying your powers. And stop with the veiled threats to drag in other users. The most unhelpful person here is you. See section "Discussion" below. Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment?

Hi. Could you drop a comment at Talk:The Weeknd#‎Song accolades? An editor insists on adding a random song(s) accolade to a WP:MUSICIAN article that I believe belongs in the album article it currently is in; he's been rejecting the guidelines I cited and instead uses the article Elvis Presley as a precedent for incorporating song information in the biography section. Dan56 (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

All Things Must Pass GAR

Hi SilkTork. I think I'm done on that lead section now – after a couple of u-turns. Please feel free to dive in and reword it if anything strikes you as needing a tweak. Regards, JG66 (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to say a big thank-you for the time you put into this review, SilkTork. You've set me straight on a number of issues, and as always after a GAR, I'll be going back through past articles I've helped promote to GA and applying those lessons. I'm just pleased that there are no other Harrison triple albums left to promote – it's exhausting! A few song-article GANs for a while instead, I think ... Cheers, and see you around no doubt. JG66 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a very pleasant GAR on a significant and surprisingly complex topic. Normally album articles are self-contained and so fairly easy to deal with both in writing to GA level and in reviewing, but there are a number of unusual aspects in this one, such as the background to the album, the amount of material contained in the album, the amount of contributors, the out-takes, etc, and the album's significance. I think you handled that well, and have presented the information in an orderly and helpful manner. I'll be happy to look into another GAN nominated by you at some point in the future. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The road to RfA

EdJohnston made a recommendation at my talk page, but I am hesitant to go through two separate processes. Do you think I should move ahead with RfA or take a little time first for Editor Review? Please see User talk:Binksternet#Five questions about your non-mop status. I brought your name up in that thread because of something you said last year.

Thanks in advance for your time! Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor Review rarely gets a significant response to be helpful. I note that a number of people have already given you their support, so that should encourage you. Your block record has been clean since 2011, which shows that you have responded appropriately to concerns regarding your editing. I've not looked into the interactions with others that you are concerned about, and I don't have time to trawl through your contribution history to find those interactions. Perhaps you could highlight them for me to look at. Clearly it is the recent ones that are most of concern - anything happening over a year ago is less important. And two years ago is only relevant in the same way your block record is, to show your positive development since then. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the objective advice. If, as you say, Editor Review is something of a desert, I will go ahead with RfA. I will be "writing for the enemy" in my initial comments at the RfA—I intend to describe my past conflicts and recent interactions so folks can understand my development as a contributor. There will be highlighted examples with links for people to take a look. Just like every other RfA, there will be plenty of Editor Review-like questions. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

SilkTork, I am dismayed that you continue casting baseless aspersions about me, and that you launched a public discussion of my behavior without even notifying me. Would you care to address these points? Have you discussed me off-wiki with anybody else? If so, who? In the past there has been a particular individual who has whispering slanders about me to arbitrators. This person strongly endorsed your election to ArbCom. While it is more likely that your behavior is a mere coincidence, I want to rule out the possibility that you've been lobbied by somebody with an axe to grind. Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has discussed you with me.

I'm genuinely sorry that you are upset at my comments. If there's some aspect of the way I am wording my comments that you'd like me to address let's discuss it. I don't want a case. Some Committee members do. If there's a case, the events from Cla's initial posting through to his unblocking by Kevin would be considered. As part of that journey would be that he unblocked Cla based on the proxy comments posted on Cla's talkpage. The proxy comments came about because of a suggestion you made. My opinion is that such a suggestion was unwise and unhelpful, but that you didn't anything wrong, and you acted in good faith, and that a case is not needed. It is clear that I am not getting that message across, and I would be quite happy to rephrase my comments to make that clearer. I am not making veiled threats or open threats. I wish you no ill will. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications. I think the only thing that would need investigation is whether the admin unblocked improperly and whether the admin now understands, or doesn't, the requirements. Please refrain from dragging in third parties who commented about what should be done. It is a chilling effect, most unhelpful. The admin who pushed the button bears full responsibility. None of us suggested cowboy action; there was a presumption that any admin taking action would clear it with Oversight first. That is so obviously necessary that none of us bothered to state it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there some way I could adjust my comments that you would find acceptable? I have to be honest and say that I am somewhat distracted by events elsewhere, so am not able to give this the priority and attention it clearly warrants. If you were able to make a wording suggestion for me to look at, that would speed matters up considerably. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Below are your statements where I have struck through the parts that are troublesome, then added my own explanation about each:

1 "Something else to consider in accepting this as a full case is that we might then be looking more closely at the events on the talkpage which led to Kevin taking the action he did, which could mean adding Jehochman and Ched as parties, as it was Jehochman's suggestion that if Cla posted a comment that "he will not discuss editors' real life identities" that he could then be unblocked, so Ched went and proxy posted Cla's comments. None of this was helpful as the Committee was already in discussion with Cla, and neither of those users checked to see if that was taking place." I dispute this statement entirely. Our suggestions were purely helpful and correct. It was Kevin, an inactive admin, who severely misinterpreted the rules and took an incorrect action. We should not stifle a thoughtful discussion because the least informed admin might misinterpret things. As for checking what was taking place, the burden is on ArbCom to announce what they are doing. We have no way to follow your mailing list discussions. Be more transparent. If you discuss something, announce that you are in discussion, let people know a decision is coming and invite people to submit any relevant evidence.

• My intention in making that statement was twofold. One was to indicate that I didn't wish to hold a full case as it would be unnecessarily bringing in other users as part of a serious consideration of the facts. A full case would look into the facts which would include the involvement of yourself and Ched. While naming someone in a case does not mean they are automatically guilty, indeed, a case can make the point that someone's involvement was positive, I do understand that the experience of going through a case can be unpleasant, and the irony is that I wanted to avoid that. Clearly I have failed in that part of my intention! However, I also wanted to point out that I felt your actions were unhelpful in the circumstances, and I still think that. I understand that you disagree on this point, and that's fine. Other people may also disagree. But I see a connection with your comments and Kevin unblocking Cla, and I felt that the comment was unnecessary in the circumstances, regardless of the outcome. And I wanted to make that point. What I would like to do now is look for a wording that is clearly understood as NOT saying that I think you are deserving of an ArbCom case, but that a full case would likely be looking at your involvement. But at the same time, not to give the impression that what you did was acceptable. That you made one of the everyday mistakes that all of us make and learn from. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

2 "But it is clearly understood that the Committee cannot operate without everyone in the community agreeing to never undermine or undo a Committee action or decision. " This is too authoritarian. Users constantly seek to undermine and undo Committee actions; irreverence is not a crime. I think you might mean something like, "But it is clearly understood that the committee cannot operate without every admin in the community agreeing to never unilaterally undo a committee action or the action of our appointees." The bit about not undoing the action of appointees (Checkuser, Oversight) may be novel. If it is, that should be announced before anybody is penalized for violation.

• I understand your thinking here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

3 "I am not keen on holding a full case as that would drag in users whose actions, though unhelpful in the circumstances, were done in good faith and with the interests of the project at heart. " I think it is not wise to obliquely mention unnamed users. ArbCom cases cause stress and are inconvenient. This statement creates a chilling effect. Users should only be subject to arbitration when there is a basis that they have violated community standards, or have incited others to do so (disruption). Kevin's misunderstanding is his responsibility, not ours.

• I put that in as part of the response to your concerns, to hopefully clarify my position. I'm unsure how to resolve this, as I don't think I am getting across preciously what I mean, and I am unsure if any statement I make will simply create more confusion and draw more attention and create more drama, so I welcome your further advice on this. My main points are: I believe a full case would involve you and Ched, and I think that is unnecessary; however, while I don't think what you did was wrong or sanctionable in any way, I do think that what you did was unhelpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not necessary for us to agree down the line on every point. I am thankful that you are willing to listen. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I intend to look into this when I've finished voting on Richard Arthur Norton. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have struck both comments. I think it is becoming a distraction, and clearly has upset you, which was not my intention. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much. One idea that might ease your conscience is that it is unnecessary to opine about unlikely, hypothetical situations. If you think there's no need for a case, that idea can stand on its own without discussing the unrelated implications of what other parties a case may or may not involve. Jehochman ^Talk 19:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I too may be having a discussion with you sir. However, all things considered - I'm content to wait until you are a bit less pressed for time. — Ched :  ?  19:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate your path of political correctness in striking your attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I "reckon" (<-- ENGVAR) if you wanted to engage in a mature adult discussion then you would have done so by now; so I'll bother you no further. You do have a very beautiful daughter by the way, and I wish you well in real life. — Ched :  ?  07:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Always happy to have a discussion - adult or otherwise! Thanks for your comments. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that "adult" is a subjective term. Either way I do appreciate you being open and responsive when approached. — Ched :  ?  08:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Jenna Rose for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenna Rose is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

You had closed the discussion, the last time I nominated this page for AfD. I apologize for rambling on so much in that discussion, but I know not to argue anymore in this one. I hope you may look over the current discussion and possibly contribute. Thanks Rogerthat94 (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't think I'll be voting or closing. My closing comments are linked and so are available for participants to consult if they wish. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Review

Hello! I see that you have a history of reviewing articles for GA. Are there a certain type of articles you tend to review? Because I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing this article for GA. It is an article about a fictional character in an American soap opera. Let me know if you would have any interest in this matter. Thanks so much! Regards, Creativity97 04:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a tidy article. However, I don't have the time at the moment. Good luck! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. Thanks anyway! Creativity97 03:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Question on that other page

I left you a question over there that I think a lot of people are interested in. Please answer there if you don't mind. Tex (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The technical evidence is compelling that the accounts were operated by the same person. In addition, the behavioural, linguistic, topic interest, and Wikipedian skills are closely matched. The accounts used different browsers but the same unusual operating system from the same location, and they edited together at all hours of the day and night, including Christmas Day on a dynamic IP which switched numbers at the same time. In order not to sanction Malleus so he could continue his positive work through either account of his choice, I am comfortable with the wording we have used, which allows for the possibility of there being a second person, but the evidence does not actually support that. Though, one of the Committee members worked out that, during I think it was two periods of time in the history of the accounts when there was continuous editing, there could be reasonable doubt that it was one person, and that it was theoretically possible if certain equipment under certain conditions was used, that it could have been two people under the circumstances as described to us by Malleus. As is usual and frustrating for everyone in these circumstances we are limited in what we can say for privacy reasons. Malleus, of course, is not restricted, so you may get more details from him if you're still curious. But it's worth bearing in mind that we are not sanctioning Malleus, just letting people know that the GP account is closely linked to his, so Malleus may find some attention unnecessary and distracting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The only thing I'm still unclear about is that in your statement you said that Malleus "...also wrote to us in the guise of the other person." To me, you are saying that Malleus wrote you an email claiming to be someone else. I'm just wondering if that is something you know to be fact or something that you suspect. If you know, for a fact, that it was Malleus, how did you verify this fact? Tex (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Malleus wrote to us claiming to be George. There are other possibilities, but within the realm of what is likely, it was Malleus. To believe that the email came from someone other than Malleus one would have to discount the highly convincing evidence that Malleus was behind both accounts. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Ihardlythinkso

Hello, SilkTork. Admin Toddst1 recommended I bring this up with you. I am currently undergoing some WP:BAIT and hounding by User:Ihardlythinkso that comes not from his direct hounding of me on my own talk pages, but his persistent pattern of going to as many third-party venues as he can, trying to smear me and portray me in a bad light, and not taking no for an answer. This pattern of behavior is similar to the behavior that got the user indefinitely blocked for almost two months last year.

I. The immediate background to this baiting by User:Ihardlythinkso is this ANI post made by Ihardlythinkso's confederate, User:Quale on 12 March 2013. I realized that I had made some inconsiderate edits and promised not to do it again. I was issued a warning also on 12 March. Please keep in mind that in one of the incidents that Quale mentioned, I had reverted and redacted the offending language less than 24 hours later, here: [2].

II. This "warning," even though I have not done anything else to merit discipline, was not enough for the vindictive "Ihardlythinkso," who then proceeds to post longwinded soliloquies in many different venues, even after having been warned to lay off, such as:

A. originally on his own talk page,

B. another on his talk page,

C. this unanswered rant on admin "Monty845's" talk page,

D. another one on admin Drmies's talk page, which she archived politely.

III. I noticed this hounding and baiting and posted about this previously here.

IV. Still not satisfied for blood, Ihardlythinkso and Quale lament their ill luck in trying to get me banned :

A. here,

B. and yesterday, User:Ihardlythinkso issues this combative and snide verbal blow to admin Drimes here.

V. While I have over one hundred twenty edits to article space out of four hundred, User:Quale still belittles my contributions, calling them "a net negative" and at every turn calls me worthless and refuses to explain or apologize, such as here.

What I am saying is this smacks of WP:BAIT and WP:BITE, and is very similar to the vindictive and obsessive behavior that got User:Ihardlythinkso banned the previous time. It is not a good editing environment for an editor like me, who is trying to add to articles, whether in chess or otherwise, and I want some advice as to what to do. Admin User:Drmies says she's out of the picture as far as this situation. If I post a "Request for Comment" would you second such? Or really what should I do? Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And for your delectation, here is what Toddst1 and User:Ihardlythinkso are saying about this currently

Without commenting on the merit (or possible lack thereof) of your argument, I'll comment that there is a long history of problems with that user. He's been indefinitely blocked before. If you can succinctly make a case for intervention, you might want to approach SilkTork (talk · contribs) who unblocked him in May of last year. As the last admin that blocked him, I'm going to abstain from involvement. Toddst1 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, and thank you for the advice. OGBranniff (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

1) "He's been indefinitely blocked before." Do you think you informed OGB of something he doesn't know already? Isn't it obvious why he selected you to canvass? OGB has also repeated in multiple locations on the Wiki about my block from you, Toddst1, including to another admin he's also canvassed for the same purpose. 2) "As the last admin that blocked him [...]". Implying there might be another admin that exists, who's ever blocked me? When there hasn't? 3) "[...} there is a long history of problems with that user." And I can have an opinion about you as well, Toddst1. (I'm sure you know what it is.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

4) "[...] you might want to approach SilkTork who unblocked him [...]". You make that sound as if the unblock decision was that of Silktork's, when I know you know it wasn't. Also, the edit sum on Silktork's unblock states: "ArbCom unblock". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your stated opinion of me is ''"I valued/value your opinion. (And the reason for that, is you seem to take a clear, conservative stance. And I agree with that disposition, erring on side of caution.)"[3] Thank you for the complement. I'm going to abstain from involvement. Toddst1 (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Toddst1, that was regarding your opinions on WP documentation requirements for articles comprising lists. And yes, I respect your opinion on that policy. That opinion doesn't necessarly extend to other aspects of your Adminship, especially when you continue to make derogatory and misleading comments about me here on your Talk. (Chalk up a 5th, taking my compliment of you out of context here, attempting to make me look like an inconsistent nincompoop.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You were more charming in your other phase. Either way, I'll say for the third time that I'm not getting involved so you can move along. Toddst1 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: I have approached User:Ihardlythinkso about a truce or rapprochement but if that does not materialize, I was considering a "Request for Comment." Are these grounds sufficient? Thank you, OGBranniff (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into this matter, but if you and/or Toddst1 think it might be heading for the level of an ArbCom intervention, then it would be best to fully follow dispute resolution routes first. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea party arbitration extension

You may have seen my request on the evidence talk page for an extension. I left a message for Brad but he hasn't responded.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

NYB and I have agreed to look over the evidence this weekend, and then compare notes. We'll be in better position to let people know if we need more information after we've done that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see this

Please take a look at this. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Contents read and noted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You said: "perhaps another attempt at Formal mediation could be tried?" Today I did exactly what you suggested. This[4] and this[5] is what happened. You should have noticed by now that I was the only party who went through all stages of dispute resolution while they played with the time. The Arbitrators need to step in and do something about it. --Lecen (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless there is evidence of serious user misconduct that the community have failed to resolve, then the Committee doesn't get involved. What you point me to is not misconduct, but a user who has decided not to resolve this content dispute via the mediation route. It is very frustrating, but content disputes are an everyday aspect of Wikipedia. Right now, there will many such disputes taking place on articles across Wikipedia. I think every editor has found themselves in such a dispute. There is no winning or losing. What there is instead, is a working toward a solution. Sometimes, unfortunately, that solution cannot be found for one reason or another. If that happens, participants are advised to leave matters alone and concentrate on other aspects of editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a big place, and you'll find there's lots of work that needs doing. Areas that require urgent attention, which are not getting it. It's a question of putting things in perspective, being realistic, and putting your effort into areas where you'll be more productive and less stressed. I hope you work it out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Then I'm led to believe that you did not bother to see the link I posted on my very first message to you. Cambalachero and MarshalN20 have been pushing fringe views by using works written by Fascists to whitewash one historical dictator in several articles. They are doing the while at the same they remove any mainstream historiography regarding the matter. I'm not even talking in here about content dispute as you can see. Not only that, Cambalachero and MarshalN20 have been harassing me for the past three years. Me, the sole editor is trying to stop them. Both "appeared" on my FAC with the purpose of opposing it, even though they are not FAC reviewers and none have ever edited the article in question (nor its talk page).[6][7] Not only that, they have been teaming up to oppose anything and anywhere I stand for in articles they never edited before.[8][9] These are two fine examples. I was opposing the change of the name of those articles (which neither Cambalachero nor MarshalN20 had ever contributed to) and there they appeared to stand against me. Content dispute, you say?

If you are concerned about harassment, then we have a policy page on that: WP:Harassment, and you can follow the guidance at WP:DWH to seek assistance via one or other methods at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The point at which ArbCom would step in, is when you have sought assistance, and some people support you, and some support the others, and there is no clear resolution, and it is taking up the community's time to solve the matter. You are coming to ArbCom too early, even if there is some evidence for harassment. The strength of the Wikipedia community is that we can and do resolve issues such as yours. It's only when the community cannot resolve the matter that ArbCom get involved. ArbCom is just a few community users who can make binding decisions in order to end a long running and apparently unsolvable conduct dispute. Try Wikipedia:Editor assistance or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. And try not to focus on individual users - instead, just concentrate on the issue you want to deal with: your concern that there are POV issues in Argentine articles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Pseudo RfC

As a Committee member I have no problems with people having a discussion in any venue regarding a Committee decision. I also feel it is appropriate in certain circumstances for the community to ask the Committee to review a decision. Thanks for that. I didn't like being told that we were wrong for gathering in the courtyard. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The nature of what we are, and that we are still developing, means that there will be differences of opinion. Whatever you do, be sure that somebody will think it is wrong! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)