User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 7

← Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8 →

Question

Hi, can I ask you how the score on the article lists such as this one: [1] are calculated? Thanks Farrtj (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea. Try Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, they are the folks who organise that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

MKUltra

Hi, could you change the title case of the page Project MKULTRA to "Project MKUltra" please? This is the correct casing according to The Times and The Independent etc. Farrtj (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There are also sources which show Project MKULTRA, and that is also what appears on the original documents. When sources show two different names, we tend to default to the name already on the article. However, if you feel there is a good cause for changing the name then you could start a discussion on the talkpage, and present your evidence and reasoning. If there is consensus on the page move you can do it yourself - see Wikipedia:Moving a page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Holding Back (the/The) Years

Hi, I'm more than a little befuddled by your page move at Holding Back The Years. The text about capitalisation at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) says among other things *not* to capitalise articles like "a", "an", and "the", as is general practice in most English-language titles. Graham87 01:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My bad, I misread that as capitalize articles. I could see that there was inconsistent usage (including in sources), and checked the guide and misread it. I will undo the move, and reword the guide to make it clearer. Thanks for pointing it out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Randumb Show listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Randumb Show. Since you had some involvement with the The Randumb Show redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). DreamGuy (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're not too busy...

Hi SilkTork: Regarding this article: Joy Davidman, I'm wondering if by using your experienced and expert WP eyes, you might be able to evaluate whether the section headings on her life are as they should be: Early life, William Lindsay Gresham and C. S. Lewis. The last two are describing her life during the two relationships and marriages, when she was not as active writing (esp. during the C. S. Lewis years, but she did have a huge impact on his life and writings). I can't come up with a different way of doing it. Any suggestions? I am thinking of listing it soon at WP:GAN. Thanks so much for any help. Agadant (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that seems appropriate, both sections are about her life with those two people; like you, nothing else obvious comes to mind. My only offering would be to wonder if "Life with XXX" might be clearer? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Yes, I think I will change it to Life with XXX - gives their names a link with hers. And thanks for your other corrections - very much appreciated! :) Happy Sunday! Agadant (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Tetley's article(s)

I am somewhat perplexed about the merger of the Brewery and Bitter page. Sometime ago I split the articles as they were about ingerently different concepts. I would like to see them split again and wish to persue this. You have stated that you wish to see a standalone article for the brand which I agree with. I can find no evidence of a discussion regarding the merger. Do you know anything r.e. this? Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion was brief - it took place mainly here. There had been an awkward split which resulted in some loss of history and duplication of material so we had two articles on the same brewery, with one called Tetley's Brewery and one called Tetley's Bitter, there was also one called Carlsberg UK brewery, but that had been sorted out. User Farrtj, who has already done some very good work on brewery articles, asked for some assistance in sorting out the situation. What we have done is restore the Tetley's Brewery article, redirecting Tetley's Bitter to that article until enough material has been built up on the brand to split it out per WP:Summary style into a standalone article, using the Tetley's Bitter title. I've had a look at the history which is held in the server, and I don't think it would be worth doing a history merge, as the history contains no new material, mainly a copy of the material that already exists with appropriate attribution in the history of Tetley's Brewery. Farrtj appears to be doing more of his excellent work on the Tetley's Brewery article, though I'm sure would welcome some assistance on researching and building up material on the brand within that article ready for splitting it out as appropriate. I hope this answers your question - if not, let me know and I'll expand. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case note

Did you mean to put this in the section directly below? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for pointing it out. I've moved it now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• According to your votes, you want to admonish Deacon, but if that doesn't work out, you'd prefer to desysop him over advising him. I think that defies all logic, particularly in a context where he did not wheel war, while two of the other admins wheel-warred and were involved too. If there is not enough support for admonishment and you think nothing will come of advising him, despite his response to Philknight's proposed remedy in the workshop (as well as your own comments regarding the quality of his contributions), surely you could consider another proposal more appropriate than desysopping him? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I based my consideration on the histories and relative involvement of all those involved in the case. Because of both Deacon's involvement and prior history I felt that an admonishment was most fitting, but that an advisement was not enough so a desysop would be next. I feel that Deacon has done some very good work on Wikipedia both in the field of medieval Scotland and in titling of articles, and that he hasn't previously been a genuine cause for concern (disputes he has been involved in have been minor, and are par for the course for any active Wikipedian, and he hasn't handled himself badly), so a desysoping wouldn't be my preference, but I wouldn't rule it out because his action was the one that precipitated the whole incident, and he has on occasion displayed an arrogant attitude that isn't appropriate with the admin role. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which instances you are referring to in relation to the attitude, and how recent those displays are and if he has been given feedback which he can use to work on. Still, I respect the view that some people are not suited for the role. However, would I be correct if I said that your stance would remain unchanged in relation to desysopping him at this point in time, even if it did mean losing any further contributions from him? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Desysopping is not banning, so I'm not sure how that would result in the loss of contributions. My impression is that he works mainly on content and page moves - more on page moves and less on content these days than he used to. Anyway, my preference at the moment is not for a desysopping so this is a mute point; and I am only one person in the Committee, so the decision is not mine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee

Hi SilkTork. As an arbitrator, would you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee? Would you clarify whether any administrator can close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee? If you have the time and inclination, would you close the RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Cunard. I've started a discussion with the rest of the Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What are the implications?

Hi, you stated "I am also concerned about the implications of lifting an interaction ban because one party is currently blocked" over at Amendment Requests[2]. What implications are you referring to? NewYorkBrad mentioned the committee having received an email, but he mentioned no action or inaction would be taken until I had a chance to respond to its contents. It appears that you have made your decision after the fact of this email without me knowing what the content of this email is. So for the sake of transparency could you more fully articulate what you believe the implications are? --Nug (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer. It has nothing to do with any emails or discussions elsewhere, nor even with any specifics of this case - I was referring in general to the position of two people arguing over a piece of cake, and being warned to stop arguing, and then one of them to told to leave the room, and while they out of the room, the other is told they can eat the cake. The implications arising out of that - both in practical terms of what happens when the person out of the room returns, and also what it says about the way Wikipedians conduct ourselves. Do you feel I need to go back and rework what I have said? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is we don't freeze things and time stands still until if and when the banned party comes back in 3, 6, 12 months time or if ever, the caravan moves on. With regard to that specific article, I created it, it was sprayed with tags and nominated for deletion, classic battleground stuff for EE. We agreed to put that behind us and he removed some of the tags with the expectation that once our mutual iBan was lifted we could discuss the remaining tags, but that never happened as he was subsequently banned for continuing to battle with others. That wasn't not my responsibility. From where I'm standing if the iBan is lifted and I remove those remaining tags, if he comes back from his ban and puts those tags back we will discuss it, so what's the problem? On the other hand if he flips his lid then that is his issue, not mine. --Nug (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not frozen. Somebody else can remove the tags. Your suggestion is implying that only you can remove the tags. Remind me which article it is. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You have evidently not read my reply to you on the Amendment Request page. And the reason for not allowing me to remove a couple of tags in deference to someone indefinitely topic banned is? --Nug (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think I have read the reply yet. Are you aware I've started a discussion on Talk:90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic to see if there is a consensus for keeping the tags. Given that the AfD on that article closed as no consensus, I think it's worth getting a few more views on the matter. I think in this specific case, regardless of who placed the tags, simply removing them would be unwise without further discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks for attempting to reactivate a discussion that has been dormant for almost a year, which in itself is a valid reason for removing tags per Template:NPOV#When_to_remove. How many more months of dormancy is required before a tag can be removed, in your view? --Nug (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That's OK - I thought it was worth doing as you seemed concerned about it. Perhaps we can get some satisfactory consensus one way or the other as to if the topic is notable enough to be a standalone article, and if there is such consensus, remove those tags. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but you didn't answer my question. Template:NPOV#When_to_remove states there are three instances where removing a tag is possible:

1. No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.

2. Discussion about neutrality issues is dormant.

3. There is consensus in the discussion that the problems have been resolved.

You seem to be focusing only on the third instance, but in the absence of any discussion, what is a reasonable period of dormancy? --Nug (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think what is important is getting some consensus about the notability of the topic - I am less concerned about the POV issues, and haven't yet looked at that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well that's okay, Template:Notability#Removing_this_tag is quite clear on the criteria for tag removal: "If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag." Says nothing about consensus, just that one needs to be satisfied that verifiable reliable sources exist.

But with regard to the other POV tag, could you opine as to what period of time would constitute dormancy per Template:NPOV#When_to_remove? This isn't just some kind of pointless rhetorical question, I would really value your considered opinion on that matter. --Nug (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I generally remove tags after inspection of the issues and provided there is no current or recent discussion. But I wouldn't remove a tag purely because time has passed - I would look into the issues first. For me, it isn't that time has passed, it would be that the concerns are not appropriate or no longer appropriate. When I looked at 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic I only gave it a quick glance, but did note that a number of the source links are dead, and that an AfD closed as no consensus, so there wasn't an obvious and immediate outcome. I felt a discussion would help. The matter has been lying around for a while, a few more days to consider the matter wouldn't hurt. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper Straw Poll

There is currently a Straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for letting me know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination)

Hi SilkTork. Because you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Commented. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

Unfortunately, there is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated.--andreasegde (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Have already been informed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Maxviwe

Hey. You said that the BASC usually doesn't take requests unless community avenues of appeal have been exhausted. I'm just wondering what the community is supposed to do in CheckUser-block appeals. The only admins who should review in such a case are presumably CheckUsers, and I'd assumed that the fastest route to a CheckUser review would be the BASC, even if it's not meant as an "official" BASC review. Is it better to just ping a CheckUser in these cases? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, pinging a CheckUser would be appropriate. I think what happened in this case was that a Committee member blocked the user, so it gave the appearance of being an ArbCom action. If the block was a specific CheckUser block (usually indicated by {{checkuserblock}}) then the first stage is to contact the CheckUser who made the block. The Committee are reluctant to step in to any situation that is still within the management of the community. Also, on a purely practical level, the Committee are part time volunteers from different time zones who are quite stretched by the assorted requests that come our way, so to investigate and come to a consensus decision on a block can take quite a while - a month is not uncommon (depending on what is happening it can take a week for us even to acknowledge receipt of an appeal); as such we prefer not to deal with unblock appeals on short blocks as they are not an effective use of our time, and are not the quickest way for the user to achieve a decision. A short block combined with little evidence of community discussion, is highly likely to get returned to the community. We do return several requests a month either because they are short blocks or because the user hasn't allowed the community enough time to make a decision. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Camerons Brewery

Hi. Could you merge the Lion Brewery (Hartlepool) and Camerons Brewery pages please? Pretty much for the reasons you list here in 2010: (Talk:Camerons_Brewery). The Lion Brewery page just needlessly replicates the limited information already found on the main page. Of course it may be split somewhere down the line when it warrants it, but for you it is confusing and unnecessary. Farrtj (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have started a discussion with Colonel Warden who created the Lion Brewery article, and who opposes a merge. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. You make the arguments I'd like to be eloquent enough to be able to make. On a side note, does WikiProject Beer accept cider articles? Farrtj (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Cider would come under Food and drink, and also under Wine. It is not part of the beer family, so it doesn't come under WikiProject Beer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination) 2

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination), I wrote:

I don't think a merge of Universe Today to Fraser Cain is helpful. Cain is likely non-notable due to the lack of reliable sources about him. Fraser Cain's Wikipedia article is sourced to three articles written by himself, a directory mention, and the website of Astronomy Cast which he co-hosts. A Google News Archive search ("Fraser Cain" -"by Fraser Cain"), a Google Books search return no secondary reliable sources about him. His short article cannot be further expanded and should likely be deleted. To include more information about Universe Today in his article would be coatracking. A redirect would also be unhelpful because there is and can only be a passing mention of Universe Today in Fraser Cain's article because of the coatracking concerns. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination), Reyk (talk · contribs) wrote that my nomination for deletion of Fraser Cain was untoward based on my discussion with you at User talk:Cunard/Archive 8#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination):

What you mislabel a "distraction" I call a possible alternative. If a magazine and its editor are not potential subjects for a merge, I don't know what is. An article doesn't need to meet the GNG to be merged into another, and I have no idea where you got that notion. Demanding that two parts of a potentially notable subject be treated separately and deleting them one at a time is not much different to dividing an already notable subject into enough pieces and deleting them one at a time. I think it's clear from the discussion I linked to that you have your heart set on getting rid of Universe Today and to do that you need to eliminate all the other options. I do not like that attitude. Reyk _YO! 23:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have never supported the notion that an article must pass the GNG to be merged into another. My nomination for deletion was to prevent one non-notable subject from being merged into a non-notable poorly-sourced BLP.

You supported the principle at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Proposed decision#Focus on the edits not the editor that:

Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.

You wrote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Proposed decision#Focus on the edits not the editor:

We focus on the edits until there is concern about the editor. It should be that we don't comment on the editor until there is a genuine reason for concern. However, I accept the general principle. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you remain silent about Reyk's aspersions because you didn't see them or didn't have time to respond to them, or did you agree with his words and believe "there is a genuine reason for concern"?

I would disregard Reyk's comments as harmless, as merely venting about the nomination for deletion of an article he wishes to keep. However, this viewpoint has gained traction:

Keep - the sources as a group represent significant coverage in my opinion. As discussed above, the nominator's violation of WP:GAME by sequencing their actions to maximize the perceived probability of deletion merits note, as well. VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As the previous closing admin with whom I had the discussion, I ask you to explain at the AfD your thoughts about the matter. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Your contribution history shows that you have edited since I made this post here. If you intend to address this request but lack time at the moment to do so, please note that here. Otherwise, I have no choice but to conclude that you have reviewed this message and decided to ignore it. Cunard (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed your last message. I've not read through this yet. I will read it and give you a response as soon as I am able. I am occupied at the moment, and then I intend to relax a bit. It is unlikely I will get around to this until tomorrow evening. If a response is required earlier than that then please let me know, and I'll see what I can do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. A reply by tomorrow evening will be fine. Cunard (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

To be sure I have this right: you are concerned that people feel you have a personal interest in having the article deleted, and are using that as an argument to keep the article, rather than focusing on the merits of the article itself? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Only two editors have embraced the belief of personal motivation to delete the article. With regard to arguments for retention, I am more concerned about the reliance on tangential coverage and unreliable sources to retain the article. My concern is with regard to my reputation being besmirched by groundless aspersions. My request to you is to review the accuracy of whether I have ever said that "an article must meet the GNG to be merged into another" (paraphrase of above quote), whether I have said that both Universe Today and Fraser Cain are notable and I am "demand[ing] that two parts of a potentially notable subject be treated separately deleting them one at a time" and whether I have my "heart set on getting rid of Universe Today and to do that [I] need to eliminate all the other options". Have I violated WP:GAME "by sequencing [my] actions to maximize the perceived probability of deletion"? (I think my comment at 07:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC) quoted above clearly explains why I nominated Fraser Cain for deletion—I believe neither Universe Today nor Fraser Cain are notable—but I would like you to take a look.) If there is no evidence for these claims, are these acceptable statements to make at an AfD to attack the nominator rather than attack the nominator's arguments? Cunard (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You have put forward a good case for why you feel it is not notable, and I feel you should now let your arguments stand for themselves. If you have issues with what two people have suggested about your motives, I would suggest you take that up with them away from the AfD arena. They probably didn't realise they might be straying into commenting on the editor not the content, and if you politely point out to them that there is a possibility their comments could be read as a personal slight, they might understand and even rephrase what they have written. Who knows? Is there a possibility that what they are suggesting is true - that you do have a bias that you are not aware of, and have made more effort than what is considered normal to remove this article? I think if you stood back and looked at your actions, you might admit that you do give the impression of being over involved. It's your choice where you go with this, but my suggestion is to take it off your watchlist and go do something else. What ever happens will happen. I'll take a look at the article in a few days to see if it's still there, and if it is I will keep to my commitment to tidy it up. There's a part of me that's hoping it will be gone ;-) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As a third-party, I'd be grateful if you'd review the situation and comment at the AfD about the concerns I posed above (i.e. whether you believe I have violated WP:GAME). I'd rather not engage in further discussion with those users. I have been frequently been accused of having an animus or a conflict of interest with subjects I nominate for deletion (User talk:Cunard/Archive 4#COI?). I view these comments with a grain of salt. I do discuss in detail at AfDs, but I do not appreciate underhanded attempts to silence me. A gentle reminder (like yours here) will be taken seriously. I will severely curtail my involvement at the AfD, but may make replies from time to time. I don't hope the article will be gone (see my compromise position of a merge at the AfD). Cunard (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And to answer your question about remaining silent. I don't have the discussion watchlisted, so I am not aware of the discussion there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Many contributions have been made to the AfD, cementing the consensus that a collection of tangential mentions amounts to the "significant coverage" required by the general notability guideline. I will not be replying to the comments made as per your suggestion above. However, I ask that you please comment there for the record about the issues I raised above. A simple note stating that you don't come to the same conclusions as the two users who said I gamed the system (a blockworthy violation of policy) would suffice. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to note I have seen this, and will look into the matter either today or tomorrow. My internet time just recently has been somewhat taken up by ArbCom matters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have left comments on the AfD. I would suggest that you now leave this matter behind you. Sometimes people get worked up during AfD discussions and personalise matters more than they intend. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the impartial review of the situation. Cunard (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Niall Ferguson

Hi. Could you put a lock on the Niall Ferguson article? I've been working on and off on the page for years, and it suffers terribly from anonymous users deleting interesting, relevant, sourced information. Just recently someone deleted my sourced addition that Ferguson was brought up as, and remains an atheist. Farrtj (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I just had a quick look through the history, and I note that there are IP accounts which add positive content, and that the negative editing is fairly minimal. I'm not convinced that the article would benefit from protection at this stage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I behove you to do so. The same IP deleted my atheist notes again. Ferguson is a polarising figure. Farrtj (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have given that specific IP a second warning. If the problem is just one IP (as it appears to be) then the other IP editors should not be inconvenienced. If this IP continues to remove sourced content without a rationale, and after warnings, they will be given a block. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Pepper poll

I think your support !vote at the Pepper poll will confuse people. You seem to prefer to maintain, and I suggest that you change your !vote to best reflect your current position. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Fae case

Extended content

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

Fae and Philippe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to do more than that. I appreciate something of what has just been posted and reverted from your page[4] as needing a place to be logged and may justify a thoughtful response from me. I would like to issue an apology to the community, and be frankly honest that I realise there is more that I don't understand about how others see my edits, and, perhaps, some of my personal views being a problem for Wikipedia. To address that aspect I would like to establish a structured feedback page where those with criticism *and* suggestions for how I can improve can explain their point, without becoming a negative back and forth debate as they can be free to say whatever they want as a position and put forward recommendations which I will commit to taking uncritically, even if a bit difficult to take or personal, but can ask for clarification if there is something I do not understand. The idea would be to focus on what I need to change in my edits in the future. Hopefully this will result in a series of commitments from me that those watching my edits can refer back to. I would also be prepared to refrain from editing articles or writing on noticeboards for an indefinite period until that process seems sufficiently exhausted or at least stable to the majority of those that want to contribute. Do you think that this would be realistic and better than just a one off apology? To be honest, even if I am banned or blocked I can see the benefit in such a process so that if I request an unban in the future it could be far more meaningful. --Fæ (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just for the record...

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

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

Please Unblock Me

This is Colton Cosmic. Dear SilkTork, I am asking that you look over and unblock my account. I wanted to put this on the administrator's noticeboard but it won't accept IP edits. I decided to post it on three admins' talkpages instead. I picked you three for no reason other than I noticed you had made recent edits. Colton Cosmic.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.199.240 (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Request for input

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

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

NewtonGeek's block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cameron's Brewery

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

Belzona

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

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

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

Trev and Sight R&I ban

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

The findings in the case were fairly clear in their statements. The off-wiki evidence wouldn't be of assistance to you, even if I could show it to you, as it was as said: those two editors began editing in the R&I topic shortly after the off-wiki thread started. They were topic banned because of the Editing with common purpose finding; the two findings which relate to the off-wiki evidence were part of the background to that finding. If you wish to look at an amendment to the topic ban, you'd need to pay attention to their contributions history which is already available to you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you cannot show me the evidence because you do not have it or that you just cannot show me the evidence? One of the things you said in that case was that Trev gave a "stated intention . . . to support Ferahgo" and that seems to have factored into your vote. I am curious about Ferahgo's exacts words on that thread and what was actually said in response by Trev and SightWatcher, presuming he commented there as well. Looking at their contributions and the public off-wiki evidence I see nothing to clearly justify the severe restriction to which they were subjected so that is why I am asking about the non-public off-wiki evidence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not in a position to show the evidence. Be that as it may, the activity on Wikipedia is the cause for concern. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Bridge Over Troubled Water

hello,

you are welcome to participate in this discussion. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles Mediation

FYI, I have added your name to the list of involved users at the Beatles Mediation. I hope you will agree to the mediation. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation

Please send a Wikipedia e-mail to User:Feezo, or User:Mr. Stradivarius to confirm that you are indeed part of the mediation. The link can be found here.--andreasegde (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the mediation page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Krista Branch GA renomination

Talk:Krista Branch/GA2

There are additional comments on the review page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Responded. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)