Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:04, 10 April 2013

Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.
SilkTork

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

— Barack Obama

Miss Supranational

Please take a look at the Miss Supranational article. I think the article needs page protection for continuous vandalism of an editor who is the Chief Operating Officer of the pageant. He has threatened to bring the matter into legal action as indicated in his edit summaries. I asked him to participate in the discussion either in his talk page or at the Miss Supranational talk page but he refused to do so. Thank you.--Arielle Leira (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have locked the page for 24 hours, and sent you both a notice about edit warring. I have also left a notice on the talkpage. Please attempt to resolve your dispute by discussion. If the other party does not engage in discussion, but continues to edit the article in a manner that concerns you, please read WP:Dispute resolution and follow the advice there. If you do not get prompt assistance and are growing frustrated you may contact me again, and I will look more closely at the matter. SilkTork 15:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration requests

Hello SilkTork. Would you please clarify the meaning of what you said here, that the committee would accept a case about race and intelligence if someone requested it in 2013? Newyorkbrad's reason for declining the request is that problems are not continuing, but they still are. Future Perfect at Sunrise is still making admin actions while involved, and refusing to respond to other editors' queries about them, and Mathsci is still gaming The Devil's Advocate's one-way interaction ban with him. I offered to present some evidence about that, but nobody asked me to, and now it's too late because the case is being declined. This issue has already been through arbitration enforcement multiple times, and the committee also declined to make the interaction bans mutual, with the reason that it required a full case. If that was their reason to reject the motion to do that, but they also won't open a case, it's not clear how they expect that to be resolved. Akuri (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've looked at that arbitration request yet. As regards what one member of the Committee says - we are a group of individuals, so we will have differing opinions. Added to which, our own views will change in line with changing circumstances and new information, or perhaps even just private reflection. Sometimes we speak as fellow site users; sometimes we speak as individual members of the Committee (which - without looking at the link, but bearing in mind the context - is probably what I was doing at the time), and sometimes we speak for the Committee. It can be difficult at times for others to know what voice we are using! I'll take a look at the link and the case request at some point today, and give you a more considered response later. SilkTork 14:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just looked. My comment, that you quote, was in relation to the trolling of Mathsci, not in relation to the editing of the race and intelligence topic. They may overlap, but they are not quite the same thing. SilkTork 15:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I assumed it was all the same issue. Is the situation in which you would support opening a case if it were focused on how Mathsci reacts to others, instead of about the race and intelligence topic in general? Akuri (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked earlier and saw the case request is being declined. SilkTork 23:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's being declined. That's why I'm asking. Dbate1 did not present his request in a way that Arbcom thought should be accepted, and neither did I. But you and a few other arbitrators said that Arbcom should accept a case about some part of these issues if someone requested it in 2013, and the reason Arbcom didn't pass a motion to turn any of the one-way interaction bans into mutual bans is because they decided there should be a full case instead.

The one-way interaction bans still are in effect and still are being gamed. I assume Arbcom still doesn't approve of that happening, and I also assume they won't pass a motion to make them mutual, because both of the times that was proposed the motion failed because they decided a full case was necessary. Therefore there must be some type of case request that Arbcom WOULD accept, even though Dbate1 and I presented it the wrong way. I won't make another request right away, but I might make one sometime next month if the same issues continue, so I'd like guidance on what type of request Arbcom would be likely to accept. Could you please clarify what type of request you would support accepting? Akuri (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Simply present the problem as you see it. If ArbCom declines to take the case you've formulated, then you should probably accept that it's not a problem ripe for Arbitration. Your comments give the strong impression that your primary goal is not to solve a specific problem, but rather to find the magical set of words which will allow you to prosecute an ArbCom case - that is, you're interested in wiki-litigation for its own sake, and you're resorting to gamesmanship to get a case open. You are doing a very poor job of concealing your intent, which is probably why you're getting the brush-off from the Committee. But that's simply my perspective as a talk-page watcher. MastCell  21:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Mostly I want to ensure Future Perfect at Sunrise won't block me again without explaining the reason. After Arbcom has said multiple times that these issues require a full case, but also has declined eight (soon to be nine) requests about it in the past year, I can't avoid wondering what specific wording of a request they're waiting for. But if SilkTork has no more advice to give, then I'll try to figure it out for myself. 101.0.79.6 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

COI template for user pages...

Please check out the template I created as a companion to Template:Connected_contributor. Still needs documentation and what not, but I wanted to get consensus that it is a useful template first (I've had a lot of them called useless lately). Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Is what you are doing not already covered by {{Connected_contributor}}? A user can add "|declared=yes", and this produces:

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this draft. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. SilkTork (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

This looks similar to your notepad. Declaring COI can also be added. with "|otherlinks=COI declared at link", producing:

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this draft. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. SilkTork (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (COI declared at User:SilkTork)

If you intend something slightly different, it could probably be worked into {{Connected_contributor}} rather than creating a new template. SilkTork 21:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It's intended to be a separate template that the editor can put on their User/User_talk page to declare there may be a conflict of interest on pages a, b, c, etc... The current template is designed to go on the talk page of the article. At least that is my understanding of the situation. I came up with the idea and created it in response this response to a Teahouse section. Technical 13 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be more helpful to simply amend the template documentation to allow users to place it on their own user page if they so wish. If you wish to show articles, then the template might need some attention, as it appears that the line to display articles is not working. SilkTork 21:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Technical_13/Templates/Contributor connected/testcases <-- What it renders as... Technical 13 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking about the {{Connected_contributor}} template when I wrote the above. Get agreement on the talkpage to change the documentation to allow personal use on user pages. And also look into displaying the name of articles, as it doesn't appear to at the moment. SilkTork 22:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Both seem bitey. The template that ST was thinking about is much better in tone. :P my2¢ Mlpearc (powwow) 22:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the change in documentation would be that it should be placed on a user's page only by the user themself. I don't think it would be advisable to allow another user to put such templates on someone's userpage as that would, indeed, be quite bitey, and could provoke an incident. SilkTork 23:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Connected contributor lists the users that may have a COI of an article on the article's talk page whereas Template:Contributor connected lists the articles that a single user may have a COI with on the user's talk page. Template:Contributor connected has the automatic function of adding the user's name (in most circumstances) to the page (using {{#titleparts:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|1}}. I'm not opposed to the idea of merging the templates, I'm just afraid it may make the template heavy. I've changed a large section of the |text= parameter, which is mostly all I changed between the two. I agree that it should be added by the individual user on their own pages for the most part. This is how it would render here simply typed as: {{User:Technical_13/Templates/Contributor_connected|User:SilkTork}}

SilkTork is declaring a personal or professional connection to the subject of the following article. User:SilkTork The relevant guidelines you may wish to view are Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

Adding a few more pages results in: {{User:Technical_13/Templates/Contributor_connected|User:SilkTork|User:Technical_13|WP:COI}}

SilkTork is declaring a personal or professional connection to the subject of the following articles. User:SilkTork User:Technical_13 WP:COI The relevant guidelines you may wish to view are Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

Anyways... I've been asked to step away from templates by Thumperward‎‎ (talk · contribs) for a bit. I'm going to respect his request until I have more time to discuss it with him a little more, and perhaps get a mediator in the discussion. Templates are actually one of the few things I am good at. Technical 13 (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested in following up on this idea, check out "Tag" suggestions on Twinkles page. Technical 13 (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but I'm not a code writer, and struggle with creating templates. I tend to simply copy and fiddle. SilkTork 21:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Whitby

It was 4832 days ago that you protected Whitby due to persistent vandalism. If you are willing to unprotect it now, I could use this ref to update the article with changes related to the town's economy. I'm hoping you'll boldly unprotect it, but if you have questions that need answers before you agree to my request, start a new section on Talk:Whitby and I'll follow up there. Thanks in advance. 68.165.77.48 (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC) P.S. FWIW, I just noticed 50.46.113.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a similar request a few days ago, so I guess I'm not the only one who thinks its time to unprotect the article.

I just took a look. I don't like articles being protected from editing, however, that article - perhaps because of the topic's association with Dracula - attracts a fair bit of harmful edits. Protection had been previously placed, then lifted, and had to be placed again. It is unfortunate, but some articles are best left protected. In addition, that article is a Good Article, and is in decent shape. You could register an account, or make an edit suggestion on the talkpage. SilkTork 07:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

TPm related Canvassing?

I understand that you must be busy, but since you are looking that the scenario anyway, I thought you might assess this User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#Re:_.22Anti-immigration.22, as it seems to me that certain behavior patterns are recurring or replicating; however, my grasp of policy is somewhat limited in this regard.--Ubikwit _{見学/迷惑} 08:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, frustrations are showing. SilkTork 10:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Frustrations can sometimes snowball if not checked.

Any idea when the discussion relating to remedies will take place? You may not be in favor of sanctions, but it seems to me that, even since the Arbcom case, some of the editors there are intractably bent on advocacy.

P&W isn't involved in the Arbcom case, and I'm not sure if other editors in that Talk page discussion are engaged in canvassing, but such forms of--for lack of a better characterization--cliquish defense mechanism collaboration cause others to spend time and effort that not only detracts from editing the article, but imposes a psychological burden that is somewhat taxing.--Ubikwit _{見学/迷惑} 17:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have noted that frustrations are growing. Which is partly why I have volunteered to help out by moderating a discussion. I think that after several years of attempting to get the article right and not succeeding, people are going to get a bit antsy. Let's see how the moderated discussion goes. If it falls apart - which it might - that's not the end of the world. There is still mediation. SilkTork 19:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, embedded within your posts above are implied assertions that others are engaged in advocacy and "cliquish defense mechanism collaboration" and that you aren't. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, take your comments on "originalism", for example, in relation to the constitution. The fact that you have at least ventured a response says something in your favor, with respect to being up front and open about your thoughts; however, as I detail in my response on the Talk page, it would seem that you have not read the sources, or even the Misplaced Pages article on originalism. We work here in relation to sources, even if we do have our own opinions.

Also in relation to the edit regarding the TPm agenda with respect to the constitution, there is nothing WP:OR or "unbelievable POV pushing" in it, as far as I can tell. I have asked Malke and Arzel to explain the rationale for such assertions, but of course received no response. They don't even venture a response, which is suspect, as I don't believe they can substantiate the accusations they've made in their respective edit summaries regarding the policy disposition of the content of my edit.--Ubikwit _{見学/迷惑} 14:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I think it would be too confusing to branch the general conversation to here. I was noting what was happening above. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Will

Hi, I left a reply about Will for you here, in case you don't see it. Best, SlimVirgin 17:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not watching a page, and you have a question for me, could you ask it here. It saves me having to dart about and keep an eye on extra pages. I have no objection to you copying my response to any venue of your choice if you feel that others may be interested. SilkTork 19:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'll post the question below that I asked there, but others have commented on that page too, so it would be helpful if you could post there. There's quite a bit of concern about this and how to move forward with it. SlimVirgin 19:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Silk, thank you for supplying this information. The problem I have when reading your posts is that they just don't describe Will in a way that would be recognized by Wikipedians who know him well. He just isn't like that, and the meme that's being created about him is making ordinary actions of his seem underhand and Machiavellian. If he has contacted individual committee members about his appeal, there's surely nothing wrong with that, given the lack of clarity around how he should proceed.

The question now is what he needs to do to have the ban lifted. In three statements, he has apologized to TG and to other affected editors, has said he won't make COI allegations against individuals in the future, and that he won't edit the way he did in the past. And the NRM topic ban will still be in place. What additional assurances does he need to offer? SlimVirgin 17:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"If he has contacted individual committee members about his appeal, there's surely nothing wrong with that, given the lack of clarity around how he should proceed."

His appeal was declined and he was told he could appeal again in six months. Granted, in the time I have been on the Committee, some other people have not quite understood this, but to be frank, such instances have been limited, and have involved users where such confusion might be understood, such as being immature or having limited knowledge of English.

"just don't describe Will in a way that would be recognized by Wikipedians who know him well"

It may help to look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2, Teachings of Prem Rawat, and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal, and to also bear in mind that stuff happened behind the scenes. So, I accept what you say, that Will is reasoning and intelligent and has worked hard on the project but, sad to say, he seems to have fixed views on some issues which he wishes to assert in a manner that is not always in the spirit of rigorous balance. I also accept that he may not be aware of this himself, and may feel that what he is doing is right.

"What additional assurances does he need to offer?"

For me. To show understanding that what he did was to fight against another user and get him banned because he disagreed with that user's edits (which were within policy), and to indicate that he is aware of this and to make an effort to avoid doing it in future. I have mentioned this, and I think I have indicated that restrictions on COI or on topic areas are not getting at the heart of the problem, which is that (consciously or unconciously) WBB sometimes has a fixed view, which he believes is right, and in this case he went out to destroy "an opponent" rather than negotiate with them and examine their point of view. If he indicates that in the future he will be more open and less hostile, then I would feel more comfortable. Anyway, my objection is only part of the story. There are other Committee members, and also, next year I won't be part of the Committee, so I am not that important. But people are curious about this appeal, so I have been open to both Will and the community as to my position and why I have taken it. My position on the Committee is not an extreme one - there are views either side of mine. I think the bulk of the Committee are in a position, like myself, where we can be persuaded by an appropriate appeal, made at the appropriate time. SilkTork 21:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Moderator

Hello Silk Tork, If you are still willing to moderate discussion on the Tea Party Movement article, I have no objections and am happy to support you. I will comment on the article talk page as well. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's all right with you, I was going to open a thread on TPM talk asking editors to comment on what they'd like to see improve between editors (civility, etc.) and what content they'd like to focus on first. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite comfortable with people taking the lead in discussions. I think that is helpful. I have just suggested a subpage for the discussions - this keeps things on one page, and makes it easier to keep track of what is going on. As regards discussing civility, that could open sores and create tension. I find it helps to eliminate personal comments completely. Discuss and work together on the content with no personal comments, and we achieve our aim. I have found that animosity can get left behind when people work together on a task, and do not make any personal comments. Not always. But sometimes a new respect emerges. If you folks agree on content, the tension should go. There may remain some lingering wounds. but that can't be helped. SilkTork 22:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ancient libraries

Regarding the category you created: I am having a hard time separating a between ancient and non-ancient defunct libraries as antiquity is not a well bordered concept. I ask that you either define what ancient means in the context of this category or simply remove it and migrate the contents to Category:Defunct libraries. My preference is the latter option. Thanks, DGtal (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand your difficulty. However, ancient is not quite the same as defunct. Ancient means that something existed before the Middle Ages, while defunct means that something no longer exists. Something could be modern and defunct, or ancient but still in existence. The Great Pyramid of Giza is ancient, but still exists. I don't think there are any ancient libraries which still exist, but they are still, however, a distinct and separate group, and one which is studied and written about - , . I am pleased to say that I have visited the ancient library which is used as an illustration in both those links! SilkTork 21:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Happily I am well aware of the fact that somethink can be defunct but not ancient and vice versa. However, in the case of library history, there are (to the best of my knowledge) no examples of an ancient library surviving from antiquity until 2013. There is also another problem with defining antiquity from a global POV. The middle ages are a European era, not relevent to Asia, so a library in China or Iraq is considered ancient by some other criteria.

Also, editor mistakes are not much of a proof, but the author of Raglan Library categorized it ancient even though Raglan Castle isn't ancient. DGtal (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note:

In the interests of transparency and courtesy I am noting the following:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Will_Beback#A_reply_to_SilkTork

Perhaps you already have that watchlisted, and I haven't read through your talk page or contribs, but I thought it proper to inform you. — Ched :  ?  00:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I won't be going there to look at what has been said. Either Will accepts what he has done or he doesn't. Either way, the time to make another appeal is in six months. WBB should step back now, and allow the community to get on with the project. That would gain more respect from me, and indicate that he is prepared to put the project before himself. SilkTork 08:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

While I'm here

A while back during an Arb request, I took exception to one of your posts .. which you did strike and clarify. It has been on my mind that I think I owe you an apology. I think perhaps I was overly defensive in respect to your comment about my being "helpful". I honestly do have great respect for you, and would and will support you as an Arb. Perhaps because you and I have never interacted, my comments were unjustified. I think maybe there is both a cultural divide, and an unfamiliarity that led to some of the tensions that I've felt. I honestly do do my very best to be helpful, supportive, and advance the goals of this project, and I do take my efforts here very seriously. I should be more open to criticism, but it is difficult for me because I honestly do care so much. I actually do have a lot more I'd like to expand on, but I also realize that you have much to deal with, and that's just on wiki. In the end, I just wanted to tell you that I am sorry. My very best to you and yours. — Ched :  ?  00:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that. SilkTork 08:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Articles with connected contributors