User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 16

Arb com - Scientology sanctions question
On the list of discretionary sanctions the one for Scientology states sanctions apply to My question is does this apply to DRN requests? The reason I ask is there was a DRN request filed yesterday for Scientology (not much of a problem any more the case was closed due to lack of discussion on the talk page but I thought I would ask incase they refile.) Thanks for taking the time to look at/answer this -- Cameron11598  (Converse) 02:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The wording says: "participation in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles", so that includes DRN. It's worth noting that discretionary sanctions do not restrict the positive contributions of editors, nor deny healthy debate, but they do allow admins to clamp down quickly, firmly, and without dispute, on those editors who have demonstrated that they are unable, even after a warning, to abide by the common sense procedures of decent conduct that the Wikipedia community have evolved.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks that is what I thought but I just wanted some clarification. -- Cameron11598  (Converse) 15:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

TPm Moderated discussion
Would you concur that the "oppose" vote by Pheonix and Winslow coupled with mine are defacto "support" votes for moving all of the GG/GTOV material out of the main article and into the sub article? It has been more than 24 hours without anything that would counter that agreement to oppose keeping said material in the main article. The discussion is almost at a standstill, though what little has occurred has been somewhat productive.

There has been discussion regarding the title of the subarticle and its relation to the extant list article. There is basic agreement on the summary text, but I'm waiting for further input regarding the summary of the GG/GTOV material.

At any rate, if you concur with the point regarding GG/GTOV, maybe that material could be moved to the sub article and the process advanced.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 08:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I just checked the main article and see that the election material is still posted there, so I gather you want to wait until the summary is ready to post to replace whatever material is removed. In that case, there would still seem to be a need for your input on the discussion page itself to consolidate or comment on what has been accomplished and provide some focus on the matters at hand.

In particular, if the one vote in support of keeping the GG/GTOV material on the main page is not overridden by two opposed to keeping it, then what is the way forward? Is there a time frame for determining each point? If not, I'd say there is a risk that the moderated discussion is going to wind up as indeterminate and interminable as the Talk page discussions. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I will try to take a look later today.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ST, I thank you for your efforts thus far in the Moderated discussion and appreciate that you must be busy with the TPm decision, among other things.
 * If there is nothing in what is likely to be a somewhat involved and drawn out process at the aforementioned decision rendering process that precludes your taking action, the Moderated discussion has been stalled waiting for your involvement. Basically, four have expressed support for 1, while one has expressed support for 2, though well after the 24-hour time frame for doing so. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 19:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion regarding "trivia" has already devolved into a tendentious fray. There has not been significant further discussion relating to the GG/GOTV material, either. It would seem that your input as moderator is again needed at this juncture.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification?
Thanks for your prompt response here. May I ask if it was a result of the new notifications of (linked) mentions of your name? I'm curious, because it was purely in the hope of notifications that I linked your name and Brad's. I hope that doesn't rise to harassment. ;-) (You can disable it in your Preferences if you start to feel pestered.) Bishonen &#124; talk 14:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC).
 * It was. I was going to mention it at the time, but then my attention was diverted away in real life. I think it may be a useful function, so I am going to keep it on for the moment to judge how helpful it will be. It may turn out that as a Committee member my name is used in vain a number of times, and I'm better off without it, but we'll see how it turns out.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Seth Finkelstein
I really regret that I provoked something of a fight by creating the article. The last thing in the world I wanted was to provoke bitterness and fighting about the article, which is why I went to some trouble to make it as good as I could. I have a lot of respect for you and Risker both. I need some tea. Red Slash 19:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Several issues
Hi, SilkTork -

Several different but related recent events have prompted me to stop by and drop a note here; hopefully you'll be able to give me some input and guidance. At the same time, maybe I can help to clear up a few things.


 * How did I make your list of 3 editors, and why just 3?
 * I'm referring to your selection of just 3 editors: parties in the case Arzel and Malke2010, and non-party Xenophrenic. You highlight us as "Continued edit warring" since the case started, to the exclusion of other edit warring editors during that same time frame. I'm not listed as a party to the case, but I am an editor of the TP article, and I have been mentioned by other editors during the case.  You "named" me when you created a specific header for me on the Workshop page, which is fine; I'm a significant contributor to the article, after all. But, my question was why did you select just these 3 editors to label as "Continued edit warring" when several other editors were also? (Examples: Tag-team reverts by Arthur Rubin, ; Collect, ; Phoenix and Winslow, ...) Maybe it's a matter of degree? No, that can't be it; Arthur Rubin reverted more than Malke2010, P&W reverted more than your three selected editors combined. Perhaps I can rephrase my question more clearly: Out of all of the named editors who were edit warring since the case started, why did you select only these 3 to highlight in a finding of fact titled "Continued edit warring"? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to your selection of just 3 editors: parties in the case Arzel and Malke2010, and non-party Xenophrenic. You highlight us as "Continued edit warring" since the case started, to the exclusion of other edit warring editors during that same time frame. I'm not listed as a party to the case, but I am an editor of the TP article, and I have been mentioned by other editors during the case.  You "named" me when you created a specific header for me on the Workshop page, which is fine; I'm a significant contributor to the article, after all. But, my question was why did you select just these 3 editors to label as "Continued edit warring" when several other editors were also? (Examples: Tag-team reverts by Arthur Rubin, ; Collect, ; Phoenix and Winslow, ...) Maybe it's a matter of degree? No, that can't be it; Arthur Rubin reverted more than Malke2010, P&W reverted more than your three selected editors combined. Perhaps I can rephrase my question more clearly: Out of all of the named editors who were edit warring since the case started, why did you select only these 3 to highlight in a finding of fact titled "Continued edit warring"? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * How could I have done things differently?
 * But I never did that, because that wouldn't make sense. How does reverting deal with a dispute? It doesn't, because the disputing party just reverts it back, and the dispute still exists. I used discussion as a method of dealing with content dispute. The "reverts" were only to reinstate portions of content after points of contention were addressed through discussion -- but there were many such points; every time an issue was addressed, another argument was manufactured to take its place: First, "anti-immigration" is a BLP violation, because the movement is made of people (shown as a policy misread) → then "it's unsourced" and "present sources are unreliable" (shown as false, and additional sources were added) → then "we have consensus to remove it" (shown as false, 8 weak agreements out of 19 commenters) → then "it's 'fringe' and only an 'opinion' because TP is anti-illegal-immigration" (nonsensical, as one doesn't negate the other). When further discussion was attempted, the small minority declared the issue "a very dead horse." When a RfC was opened, the small minority immediately closed it, claiming that consensus was needed to open an RfC (nonsense), and that RfCs shouldn't be started when a moderated discussion was starting.
 * My question was for advice on how I could have done things differently, and I asked for real-world examples -- I'm already familiar with the addage that editors need to resolve disputes instead of revert-war. My goal was to hopefully gain some insight on how to better handle these gray-area situations that I see arise so frequently (on any article, not specifically this one). Given that any edit to existing content can be accurately described as a "revert", and given that any revert can accurately be described as "edit warring", it's easy to forget that "reverts" are often a required part of good-faith, productive editing. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My question was for advice on how I could have done things differently, and I asked for real-world examples -- I'm already familiar with the addage that editors need to resolve disputes instead of revert-war. My goal was to hopefully gain some insight on how to better handle these gray-area situations that I see arise so frequently (on any article, not specifically this one). Given that any edit to existing content can be accurately described as a "revert", and given that any revert can accurately be described as "edit warring", it's easy to forget that "reverts" are often a required part of good-faith, productive editing. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you able to do some 1-to-1 dispute resolution between 2 editors?
 * No worries, I understand. I completely sympathize with the situation where less pleasant aspects of the hobby encroach upon time better spent on the more enjoyable stuff. I have stacks of source and research material (some on loan) I've accumulated for some editing projects I've been planning, but haven't been able to make progress due to other distractions.  I only asked you because you had already looked into the background leading up to this situation, so you seemed the logical first choice. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I understand. I completely sympathize with the situation where less pleasant aspects of the hobby encroach upon time better spent on the more enjoyable stuff. I have stacks of source and research material (some on loan) I've accumulated for some editing projects I've been planning, but haven't been able to make progress due to other distractions.  I only asked you because you had already looked into the background leading up to this situation, so you seemed the logical first choice. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Do the "difs" provided thus far substantiate anything close to the hyperbolic accusations?


 * I understand what you are saying, but I am going to take another shot at better explaining my concern anyway. Why? Because of your comment at the ArbCom case workshop which began, "I am building information to assist the rest of the Committee to make an informed judgement. As I am doing so, it is also focusing my mind on what is happening, and what may be the most appropriate solution to suggest." Yes, you are just one arbitrator, and in a perfect world all the other arbs would independently review evidence as thoroughly as you have - but the reality is that you guys are busy, and you've already taken the lead in this case.  The information you've been building, and the suggestions you make, will likely be given more deference and weight by the other arbs than you realize. I've been fine with that, because until now you have responded to misrepresentation of events and unsubstantiated assertions about me with informed comments such as:


 * There was no community support for a topic ban, Xenophrenic is not named as a party, and there is little evidence presented in the case to point to sanctions. --SilkTork 09:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We need difs - "appears" is not enough when there are three years and 573 edits to sift through. That a contributor does not agree with another contributor, and says so, is not in itself grounds for a sanction, especially when the climate on a talkpage has been argumentative. --SilkTork 16:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am keen to examine claims of editors inappropriately dominating an article to their preferred POV, though I would need evidence in the form of difs. There have been rather a lot of assertions in this case, and little hard evidence. --SilkTork 23:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the Xenophrenic evidence, and the discussion following. Who else feels as you do that Xenophrenic's editing and behaviour is inappropriately dominating the article to their preferred POV? I'm asking that question because I'm not picking up from your evidence where Xenophrenic is doing anything different from what you are doing. --SilkTork 19:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But your tone has changed over the past few days. For almost two months you have rightly countered calls for my head by insisting that justification be produced, and noting that you aren't seeing any hard evidence in what they have cited. However, most recently, you have let Malke's most ridiculous claims (see the blockquotes in the "Wall of Text" below) go unchallenged.  You have let her recent "difs" stand without response by you, even though they do not support what she claims they do.  That is troubling at this 11th hour. That is why I specifically asked you if you felt any of the "evidence" provided so far supported the accusations lodged against me. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Most recently, this edit of yours has caused me some concern. I'm curious as to what prompted your selection of those three specific editor names (mine in particular) to note as "continuing to edit war ... contributing to the article being fully protected". There have been well over a dozen editors "edit warring" (in the broadest sense) on that article since the March 6 acceptance by ArbCom of the case, including most of the "named parties" to the case. My total of 12 edits since the ArbCom case began is dwarfed by the number of edits and reverts by other editors, so I have to conclude that I've been singled out for some other reason. I had not edited the article for a week before you protected it, having ceased once you proposed moderating a discussion between editors. I wasn't involved in the mini-revert-war that broke out immediately prior to your page protection. Even the 14-edit snapshot from the article edit history that you appended to your comment doesn't give me a clue to your reasoning, since I see other editors in that snapshot revert-warring (Arthur Rubin, Phoenix and Winslow,...) without being specifically identified by you in your finding of fact. Yes, I was involved in the editing disagreement, I can't argue against that. But you worried out loud that if these 3 specific editors, "are prepared to edit war against the spirit of the community sanctions even when ArbCom are closely watching them, then there is a big question about how they will behave once the case is closed." That's a strong charge, and I respectfully take issue with it. My editing efforts are toward article improvement, and are compliant with both the spirit and letter of policy, community sanctions and project standards to the best of my ability. As such, my answer to your "big question" as it relates to me is that I will likely behave the same once the case is closed, because it is unclear to me what behavior I should change. I would make those same edits again. I did reinstate the long-standing content per WP:BRD, and first raised the issue on the Talk page for discussion; the content source had already been vetted at WP:RSN a couple months prior. I also reinstated the content several more times while incorporating the concerns expressed on the Talk page (added more sources; added the 'generally' qualifier; coupled it with proposed "illegal immigration" wording, etc.). Even so, I didn't push the 1RR community sanctions (or even 2RR); making only 6 such edits total to that content, spread over a 14-day period. Contrast that to Phoenix and Winslow's 10 reverts over the same period, which included unreported 1RR violations. Of course I'm not perfect, and I know there's always room for improvement, but I'm not seeing the same thing you apparently see that prompted you to post this "finding of fact" naming me apart from the others. Hopefully you can help me out here; can you pick an example or two and explain how I should have edited differently? If I should be doing things differently, I'd like to get a better grasp on that.

Second issue: I've disengaged from Malke2010. Discourse with her on Arthur Rubin's Talk page, and then on my own Talk page, had degenerated into insults, reverts and other petty unpleasantness. I've requested that she not visit my Talk page anymore (a request she promptly ignored), and she has since taken to leaving baiting remarks to me on Rubin's Talk page, and several unsubstantiated character smears at the TP ArbCom case under my name/header. Since she is the most prolific editor at the Tea Party movement article, productive editing will be hampered if we can't get to the bottom of this animus and resolve it. I'm not sure if there is anything you can do to help in this matter; maybe some kind of third party mediation. At first I thought she was just blowing off steam after our disagreements, but now she appears to have come completely unhinged:



Seventeen sentences of pure bollocks - all without substantiation, as usual. You asked her for difs, she provided you with 6 links to whole discussion threads. I trust you've read through them. I know for a fact that you did not find substantiation for her mischaracterizations in those links. She claims one shows a "personal attack"; it doesn't. She claims, "Xenophrenic became upset with Malke’s edit that said the real issue is “Immigration reform”"; no, I never did. (In fact, I applauded her for coming at the problem from a new angle - "thinking outside of the box".) What a difference a couple weeks and an argument over immigration can make: User_talk:Malke_2010/Archive_3  Actually, looking at all of the above, her one claim that I can make lengthy arguments might have some merit -- so I'll wrap this up now.

Any assistance would be appreciated, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for resurrecting this previously archived discussion, but my newest comments directly reference this past material, so I refreshed it here for convenience and to reduce confusion. If I can make a few quick remarks off the cuff: Thank you very much for offering to moderate discussions for us. Sorry I was late to the party, but I never "refused to participate" as some have wrongly asserted (the same people who also assert that I discuss too much and dominate conversations, ironically). I just waited until I could contribute productively, as time allowed. Also, thank you for your comments above. Your responses to each of my points in turn (in a different color text, no less) prove to be very easy to follow, and I appreciate how the delineation keeps the threads separate and easy to read. A similar good-faith effort by me toward organized discussion was misrepresented as tendentious editing. Go figure. If it isn't plainly obvious, most of my above questions and comments are part of a combined effort to ascertain one thing from you: to what extent should I be concerned about baseless accusations about me at ArbCom. I haven't found it necessary to wade into that ArbCom morass, but watching your demands for legitimate evidence suddenly fall silent, and noting your proposed findings of fact and proposed remedies, I'm left scratching my head. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest and say I haven't read all that you have posted above as I don't think it's needed. I am not advocating any individual sanction against you. My conclusion has been to recommend an edit restriction on the main contributors to the article and debates - which does include you. However, I'll not be taking over to the PD page any findings that are not relevant, which I think includes the one you are concerned about. Only three other Committee members have looked at the Workshop page that I know of - the focus of attention for the Committee will be the PD page. I'm not sure if this is reassuring you or not, but my main point is that you will not be singled out by me on the PD page, nor will I be suggesting anything for you other than the same as for the others, which is to not get involved in reverting - something that I don't think will essentially impact on your productive editing of the article. I hope that helps. If not, please do highlight for me again your concerns.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Radio3Net
Hi SilkTork, how's it going? I hope all is well. Could you comment on the discussion I've started here. Thanks very much, and have a good day. Moisejp (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Left comment.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  06:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up question
Hi SilkTork, Thanks for your input to the discussion on the WikiProject Bob Dylan Talk page. I've added a follow-up question for you. Thanks very much, and have a nice day. Moisejp (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Concern over tenor of one editor at the TPM moderated discussion
I fear at least one editor seems not to properly gauge the intent of a "moderated discussion" and seems rather more inclined at making attacks on others - including misstatements about them. If such continues, I fear the moderated discussion can not possibly succeed at all, which would be rather a shame. I find such behaviour to be abhorrent, and incredibly irritating. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. What happened to "comment on the content, not the contributor"? Incessant needling with comments like "relishes its role as gadfly — something else you and Mother Jones have in common"; "You're being tendentious again."; "Mother Jones, isn't that your Mother Ship, Xenophrenic?" or claiming an editor doesn't know how to do a simple Google search, or "Xenophrenic is making the 'I saw Elvis' argument." Really? I've been ignoring the antagonism, but it is becoming very irritating. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that such comments were not made in my posts, of course. The editor was right that using Google without using the keywords to prevent "false positives" is an endemic problem, and that the famed actor is not the "Tea Party" personage at all. GoogleNews finds 255 hits for "Dale Robertson" total, and with "tea party" added it gets precisely zero hits, which I think was Malke's point about your "And my Google News search returns tens of thousands of hits" which does actually appear a tad errant in context.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to take up more of SilkTork's Talk page to argue with you, Collect. Nor am I going to instruct you on the use of Google News, with proper inclusion and exclusion modifiers, custom ranges and archive merging, so that you can get over your "precisely zero hits" hurdle. Malke's point was that I don't know how to perform a simple Google search (what possible reason would I have for including the actor or the athlete in my searches?), and I don't appreciate any of those little jabs. Individually, they are minor annoyances, but the frequency is increasing, so I wished only to note that they are becoming irritating. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

TPm Moderated discussion 2
The discussion seems to be at an impasse on the bigotry and race material, so it doesn't look like any trimming is going to happen there unless vote count overrides policy.

I've opened an RS/N thread, but am not hopeful that it will serve to stem the questionable use and abuse of sources overall.

In the meantime, from your recent comments it seems that you want to unlock the article before addressing the broad strokes issue of the agenda section and the constitution that I have raised.

Let me point you back to this thread Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_21 and draw your attention to the first comment.

The opening sentence of the lead of the Wikipedia TPm article "as it stands" (which, if you'll recall, is the wrong version) is"The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution"

The source cited for that statement is this, and the source does not support that statement except within the very narrow bounds of the TPm-specific interpretation of "Constitution’s constraints on federal power" covered in one Article and on Amendment of the Constitution (a limited scope belying a Federalist agenda, i.e., advocacy of a TPm agenda item as per Randy_Barnett, not representative of a comprehensive summary statement describing the actual state of affairs at present).

The NYT source article is from March 2010,incidentally, and therefore was published before calls by TPm activists and groups to repeal 2-3 extant Amendments and pass at least one (September 2010 proposal) to enact a new Amendment Randy_Barnett as well as call a Constitutional Congress. Note, however, that the source does mention “popular constitutionalism”, a topic with respect to which dedicated journal articles have subsequently been published specifically addressing the TPm, as included in the edits I made that were repeatedly reverted.

Numerous studies by legal scholars have been published since, including the Schmidt study (encyclopedic in and of itself) that cite and expand on the distinction made by "Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas" cited in the NYT article in relation to the theme"The larger point, these scholars say, is that the Supreme Court should have no more monopoly on the meaning of the Constitution than the pope has on the meaning of the Bible."So the reason I am here to for clarification as to whether or not you intend to address this issue in the moderated discussion.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My intention is to get the article to a reasonably stable state before unlocking it. That would mean dealing with the major issues on the article, and if those sections you mention are part of that, then yes I'd like to deal with those as well. I'm a little bit dismayed that there has been a fair bit of distraction recently on the discussion page, and a lot of discussion over one sentence. But this is part of what happens - it is quote common for discussions to wax and wane. Hopefully we can make some more progress shortly. Keeping a positive yet realistic outlook helps. And having some patience!  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Your input has been helpful, but the discussion seems to have become a series of disconnected monologues, so to speak.
 * The impasse relates to more than the single sentence, but to cherrypicking sources and refusing to adopt a more integrated approach.
 * I've tried to have people consider addressing part of this in conjunction with immigration, and now have found a quote from the academic source that puts Robertson at the center of a dispute related to immigration insofar as it uses the phrase "the anti-immigrant movement" (as opposed to anti illegal immigrant) in describing the TP group he founded as being "the national faction most connected to" that movement. Have a look at the passage I quoted at the RS/N thread Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.
 * I hadn't known anything about Robertson until doing a google search to confirm some of the claims being made, and then TFD introduced the UC Press source. The issue would seem to be more complex than the single sentence about Robertson's bigoted sign, at any rate, and the section title "Discussion on proposed removal of Robertson material" would seem to encompass more than the single sentence at issue. That could be used to argue at a later date that all questions related to Robertson have been answered, or something along those lines.
 * Maybe you could create a subpage for starting work on a hypothetical immigration section for the article. That might assuage the concerns by several editors that the article is being whitewashed.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, SilkTork. I just witnessed this edit. I consider this edit warring. The edit summary is nonsensical, and I see no response to the editing concerns I raised on your moderated Talk page. I am tempted to, and would would be fully justified if I did, revert that edit. Instead, I'm requesting your direct intervention and assistance in this specific matter. I feel it exemplifies countless other editing squabbles that have occurred on the article in the past, including those leading to the present ANI & ArbCom proceedings (and also your subsequent protection of the main article). Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ST, I think I've just been ridiculed by being portrayed as "channeling Yoda".
 * The discussion regarding "alleged" is becoming unintelligible due to tautological arguments that would seem to represent an irrational resistance to recognition that bigoted incidents have occurred at all.
 * I'm going to wait a while to see what input you have there, but the Yoda slur is in all likelihood going to AN/I.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ubikwit: Hold your horses regarding the "channeling Yoda" characterization. After re-reading that comment, I believe the editor was referring to himself and not you. But you are spot on regards the unintelligible nature of the discussions, and I think it could benefit greatly from a more "moderated" and focused approach. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, it is possible that I simply don't comprehend the Star Wars fanboy jargon, but I shouldn't have to.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yoda is pretty much cited by everyone now. Including references in the NYT etc. Collect (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about moderated discussions
Hi, I am uncertain and hope you could advise me. Is the Moderated Discussion about the Tea Party only for editors that were named in the ArbCom? I have been watching both but am uncertain if it is appropriate to comment on the moderated discussion. Thanks in advance for the guidance. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It is open to everyone, and the more people that get involved the better. While it arose out of the background of the ArbCom case, and it is being moderated by me - an ArbCom member who has drafted the ArbCom case, it is not being done under ArbCom. Having said that, the spectre of ArbCom does loom over the discussion, for good or for bad. Anyway, please, join in.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Savile Row
Absolutely happy for you to close the GA page. I suspect I owe you an apology: I now think I didn't unambiguously declare my intention to withdraw from the review, and thus left you dangling. I am so sorry! At your service if I can be of any use on this (or other) articles at any point. Tim riley (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

has the captain abandoned ship?
man overboard?

the ships mates assures me yer a watchin', but the vista from the poop deck isn't reassuring...

 

User_talk:Malke_2010 User_talk:Arthur_Rubin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 19:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, at least he is not canvassing. I know this because he says so right at the top of that message he sent to those 3 editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My opinion on WP:CANVASS is strong - I suggest you read the RfC/U on Arzel to see it in action. I also know enough about how the world works to realize ST is absolutely looking at behaviour in general on that moderated talk page, and is almost certainly discussing it on the Arb mailing list,  as the "proposed decision" seems to be moving with the speed of jet-activated treacle. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am currently on leave from ArbCom due to work-load commitments (though still active on the Tea Party case and the moderated discussion). I am forwarding all ArbCom mail unread to a folder to examine later when I have more spare time. So while I am aware of behaviour on the moderated discussion, I am not aware of what the other Committee members are saying about it. I know that before I went on my ArbCom break, there was some discussion among the Committee as regards the moderated discussion, and a few members looked into it - but not to check on the behaviour of others, rather to make sure that there was no conflict of interest between my involvement in both the ArbCom case and the moderated discussion. As regards the case moving slowly - I'm not the only Committee member who is struggling with balancing the workload of the Committee with the workload of real life, and the number of active and effective Committee members is diminishing so that those who are active are probably finding it difficult to get everything done.
 * I do apologise for not being on top of the discussion. I tend to log onto Wikipedia at the moment just to relax and unwind, or to do a bit of research. I'll have some spare time tomorrow, and I'll have another look then.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have closed the "Content discussion, resumed" discussion and left a note for everyone involved.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

New venue?
Have been lurking on the last several TPM related posts here. Is this a new venue for the TPM discussion where we can go to try to influence the moderator? North8000 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Several editors of the TP articles have chimed in here, including me. But don't fear that I am influencing SilkTork; he doesn't read most of what I post anyway, and he has told me so. ;-) (It's okay, however, as I get that a lot and it doesn't offend me.  Different story when folks claim I posted or did something when I did not.) I have this theory that all the Arbs, including our moderator, are doing a bit of lurking, too - maybe even going hands-off for a bit to see what we do.  They've seen some borderline and questionable behaviour and those still on the fence are watching our moderated discussion for clues to help them form decisions.  The "clue" I'd like to leave with them is that they are not observing a completely intractable group of editors, but I can't accomplish that solo. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Different Committee members do different things, and some may watch the talkpages of other Committee members, but it's not a common thing. Indeed, in my time on the Committee, if there was something interesting happening on a member's talkpage, they would use the ArbCom email to alert other members. I think all the Committee members have full time jobs - often high level with time commitments, and some have families; and with the amount of daily reading there is to do as a Committee member, there isn't much time left for reading through talkpages just on spec.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @SilkTork, since I'm here: Can you at least confirm that you are clear on my position in regard to this comment you made? It sounded like you thought I was bucking consensus to remove the Dale Robertson sentence from the main article -- I wasn't. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at that tomorrow. I don't wish to dip into the moderated discussion right now as that might hold my attention, and I have a few other things to do before going to bed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree - it looks like I misunderstood your position. I'll be returning to the Dale Robertson sentence later, as I think its removal can be actioned. For now, I have to go out.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring a comment / question that I already responded to
You mentioned on my talk page to take behavorial related concerns here rather than at the discussion page. Most of them I was just routinely discussing and don't consider to be any big deal. The one that I AM concerned about and want fixed is Xenophrenic retroactively rewriting a post/question that I had already responded to, making my response appear off target. As I asked Xenophrenic to do at the discussion page, I would like that remedied. Specifically, to restore the comment to what it was, and post any later material as later material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have hatted that discussion and left notes for everyone involved that they need to take more care in future. I have also left a general note on the discussion page that people making personal comments in future may receive formal block warnings. We are clearly at a sticky patch with the discussion, but overall progress is being made, and we know that further progress will be made if people hold together. It will fall apart if folks concentrate too much on the other contributors. If everyone focused on the content, and left personal issues aside, it would be helpful to all. If anyone from this point forward does something that gives you cause for concern, please raise it here. Past stuff is past. Let's move forward.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that Xenophrenic's approach has been obstructing progress on that article for months, if not years. Changing one sentence, or even one word such as "anti-immigration" or "grass-roots," turns into a long, drawn-out series of battles. My experience with Xenophrenic is that he has engaged in this behavior for several years, over several articles related to U.S. politics such as Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Feel free to review the recent history of the T-34 article for an example of what can be done by productive editors when they don't have to fight someone at every turn. We've tried working with him, and I think I can speak for North8000 and others when I say that we've just about run out of patience. At ArbCom, I've recommended a topic ban on all articles related to U.S. politics, broadly construed. After a suitable period (six months to a year) of productive work on other articles, he could ask to have the topic ban lifted. I brought this up on the User Talk pages of North8000, Arthur Rubin, and Malke 2010. Malke suggested that Xenophrenic should work with a mentore if he wants the topic ban lifted. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, responding only to Silk Tork) Well right now, the refactored earlier post is (falsely) making my response to it incorrectly look unreasonable. It also is in violation of talk page guidelines. I would simply like it corrected North8000 (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Getting serious about the moderated discussion
Silk Tork, I would like you to directly respond to the comments I've made to you on my Talk page and the discussion page with respect to several issues that will be obvious.

This post is in relation to a point that I have yet to raise, and that is to the version of the /Allegations subarticle. It is unclear to me where it will go from here, should it take the name /Perceptions, so this may be irrelevant, but if the content in the current version of the subarticle is to be edited again, I would think it should be returned to the state before the ordering of the subsections was reversed and the term "Alleged" introduced. Those are clearly not NPOV constructions, and I see that you have pointed Collect to the guideline WP:ALLEGED. If not returned to the original state as moved from the main article, an inordinate amount of piecemeal editing will be required to restore it, likely inviting further editing disputes.

That said, I still feel strongly that the material in the main article should be put in order first as a mater of logical progression. If the material from the Commentaries section is moved to a /Perceptions subarticle, there a likelihood that I will withdraw from editing the subarticle and withdraw from the moderated discussion.

The reasons are two-fold: first, the commentaries subject matter deals with the TPm a such, not peripheral issues like allegations; second, you have been absent from the moderated discussion at least twice for 4-day intervals (4-day interval 5/21/13 5/17 ), (4-day interval 5/14 5/10 ) , and I feel that has been counterproductive, to say the least, and perhaps partly responsible for the scant participation there.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel my efforts have been counter productive. I will endeavour to live up to your expectations and be more timely, but it is unlikely I will be in a position to read through the discussions every day, and may sometimes go several days without leaving a comment. I would rather as many people took part in the discussion as possible so that a full range of views are explored. However, if you prefer not to take part, for any reason, there is no obligation to take part. I would ask, though, that if you do withdraw, then the article moves in a direction you dislike, that you do not come in after the discussion is over and make changes which are against the consensus of the discussion. You can be a part of the consensus building, or decide to withdraw and accept the decisions that will be made. But it wouldn't be appropriate to withdraw now and revert later. Is that fair and understood?  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the point of having a moderated discussion is that there would be an active moderator. I didn't say that your efforts have been counterproductive, as, to the contrary, when you have played an active role progress was made. I said that your extended absences of four consecutive days, twice, had been counterproductive insofar as the discussion devolved.
 * If the discussion is going to devolve, then I would motion to close the moderated discussion and open the article to editing again, where more people than are participating in the moderated discussion would engage. It is in this sense that I feel the moderated discussion and its quasi-official results attained under the present circumstances poses a more long term threat to the article.
 * What is the policy-based rationale for you requesting that I refrain heretofore from editing the article in a manner conformant with policy after the article is unlocked should it become necessary to withdraw from the moderated discussion for any reason? It would appear that I am being potentially penalized for making the effort to take part in the moderated discussion in the first place. Obviously no restriction would exist for editors that haven't taken place in the moderated discussion. Correct?
 * Not to belabor the point, but perhaps it bears making explicit that if you had been moderating the discussion when the contentious point of the non NPOV use of the term "Alleged" had taken place, you could have directed the editors involved to the appropriate guideline then, saving everyone a lot of time and effort, not to mention frustration over dealing with false assertions of consensus, etc.
 * If you are too busy to engage daily in the conversation, then perhaps it is best to close the moderated discussion, because a lot has happened when you have not been present to moderate, a good deal of which has been counterproductive, at least in one sense of the word. If you intend the moderated discussion to be an exercise in behavior modification, then maybe there are other evaluative criteria for what is and is not productive.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, which I will take on board.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  16:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your handling of the discussion including the absences you've needed. In fact, I think it's beneficial. It gives time for reflection. Progress is being made. I don't see any need to rush. There's no emergency to get this done, and the page is locked until August. That gives us plenty of time to resolve issues. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * SilkTork, your work has been beneficial and you deserve a Purple Heart for taking this on. I echo what Malke said, there is no rush, and it's helpful even if you are not there every day. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have organised the talkpage so it is clearer to me what is happening, and so I can access active discussions quicker. I have left a general note on the top of the page setting out what is happening, and a loose guide to how matters proceed. I have asked people to contact me directly with concerns, and to be patient. I will endeavour to be more alert to what is happening, though I do need people to assist me by calling my attention to matters of concern. Moderating that discussion is not a pleasure for me, so I do need to be prodded - and I don't object to being prodded (within reason!).  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks good. The notice atop the page was an excellent idea. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

/Perceptions subarticle
Silk Tork, I didn't read your message on the re-organized Talk page of the moderated discussion before editing the article. I have to say that, frankly, the impartiality of your moderating has become an issue for me, for the reasons described below.

It would seem that you totally ignored the concerns I raised on your talk page and left the edit-warred in version of P&W as opposed to the original ordering of the material in the main article.

Since you insist that "significant or major edits" require gaining consensus first, whereas that wasn't the case before, and you have accused me of edit warring for reverting major edits that did not have consensus previously, I will leave it to your discretion whether to revert my edits or revise your requirements for editing that subarticle.

Why didn't you make those preconditions clear and gain confirmation before the article was unlocked, in the same manner you did with respect to reverting?

It is beginning to seem to me that seeking further community input as to the procedural conduct of the moderated discussion and associated editing may be in order.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that in light of the fact that no further material has been moved from the main article to the newly titled subarticle, the following two comments would seem to be relevant, so I blockquote it in full. Comment The suggestions are thought provoking, but I have some reservations. First, what is under the "public opinion" section of the article is more limited in scope than public opinion as it only contains information on coverage. The "media coverage" section includes material related to public opinion, with the only point of difficulty I see relating to Murdoch, Fox News and the active promotion of the TPm by that media outlet. It would seem that the content of that passage is no public opinion per se about the TPm, but a comment by an executive of a media outlet improperly acting like a propaganda arm for the movement, which is a topic that should be included in a section providing coverage of astroturfing (which is where?). Ideally the comment by Murdoch should remain, but it would require better integration to fit in a section relating to perceptions about the TPm. The commentaries section does not reflect public opinion, but the opinion of the current administration, only, with no other extensive expert commentary. "Perceptions of the TPm" would be a good section name under which to consolidate those sections as well as the racism/bigotry summary. It does not seem that "Perceptions..." would suffice to portray the content of the proposed subarticle, however, which is almost exclusively about incidents of racism and bigotry by TPm activists and attempts at refuting the allegations that the by extension entire TPm is racist or bigoted. The initially proposed title of /Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party is more appropriate to the topic matter and represents an acceptable compromise. I would not support the "Perceptions..." title for the subarticle.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC) "Agree that Perceptions doesn't cover the sub-article as currently being written. The idea would be that the article would deal more widely with perceptions, rather than just the bigotry and racist perceptions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)"

I really don't feel that you have adequately addressed the points that I've raised over the past several days, even one which you expressed agreement with heretofore. The subarticle only contain the bigotry and racism material, and no discussion was held regarding the other material before you actioned the changes and locked down an edit-warred in version with substantial changes from the original.

Was there some consensus building step in that process that I missed?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ubikwit: SilkTork has noted on the moderated Talk page that he may miss some things, and he might need us to bring (or re-bring) specific points to his attention. Perhaps that is what you are doing here. I doubt he's ignoring you. Maybe I can help bring two outstanding issues into focus:
 * 1) SilkTork locked/unlocked the sub-article in a state not achieved through consensus (i.e.; re-ordering of large blocks of content, insertion of "alleged"/"allegation" characterizations, removal of uncontroversial improvements such as addition of missing citations, punctuation, factual corrections and uncontested minor content additions), and is now requiring a consensus process to undo that. I do not see the reasoning behind that.
 * 2) We really need to nail down what the scope of this sub-article is to cover. We do not presently have wide agreement on what its purpose is, and that makes editing the current content problematic. Is this sub-article intended to cover the various incidents of bigotry (race - religion - gender- nationality), or is it to also cover public perceptions of the movement (i.e.; "angry", "uncompromising", "an 'extreme' extension of the Republican Party", "no longer relevant", ...), as indicated by the recent name change? It appears we may have put our cart before our horse, and we really should nail down the exact scope.


 * I have a proposal that I'm sure won't sit well with everyone, but will at least facilitate continued progress: Reinstate the content in the sub-article to its state 1 edit prior to it's state when you locked it. As we all know, every version can be accused of being the wrong version, but I'm not raising that argument. I content that the last edit before locking is an error - an aberration; it's not productive as described above, and even fails to do what the editor claimed it does on the Talk page and edit summary, so it's likely a mistake or technical glitch. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your concerns here. The subpage is a working draft - there is no need to get anxious over its current content as it is not on the mainpage. To alleviate any concerns that it turns up on Google I will noindex the page - and perhaps make clear that I will be responsible for moving it to mainspace, and will only do that when I feel that there is appropriate consensus. What is important now is that folks work toward consensus on what should appear on that page, and accept that at times it may be be in a state that you or other editors don't like or agree with. It would help to work toward what you feel should be there by consensus discussion with your fellow editors, not by appealing to me. I unlocked the article - I did not select any particular edit to return it to as that is not my role here.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  19:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is an RfC/U regarding the behavior of Xenophrenic: Please participate and provide any diffs of what you may consider to be his problematic behavior. I realize that the ArbCom proceeding is very time consuming, you're up to your neck in it, and you also have a real life. I have a real life too. So do we all. ArbCom is as slow as molasses in January and I really feel that a community solution may be more appropriate here. I encourage you to look at recent progress on the T-34 article to see the progress that can be made when a productive editor is allowed to be productive. The atmosphere at Tea Party movement, and indeed at most articles regarding U.S. politics, isn't nearly as productive as it could be. I'm not saying that "people who don't agree with me need to leave." I'm saying that people who are incapable of disagreeing amicably, reaching a compromise, and achieving consensus despite differences of opinion should edit other types of articles that aren't so contentious. Working on T-34 has been very therapeutic for me as an editor, and it's really shown me a new way forward. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Songs performed by James Taylor and Songs performed by Carole King.
Hi, I have nominated the above two categories for merging. Sorry, Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Commented at the discussion.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You might find this CfD illuminating. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

question about TPM case
An editor is requesting close of an RFC/U based on Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. They're not listed as an involved party and I'm thinking ya'll wouldn't want additional parties added to a two month case? I'm asking you and NYB as the drafting arbitrators; would be helpful if you answered at [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#acquery ANI] NE Ent 12:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've left an answer to the query you raised at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision, which I hope addresses your concerns regarding the above - if not, please let me know.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDTITLE
Hi. You participated in a previous discussion that led to changes in this policy. There is a current discussion at WT:LEAD further concerning that policy and its application, including the changes made. You may be interested in the new discussion, as the previous changes have been brought up there. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 04:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment left at discussion.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Warnings, etc.
I would like to know if the following is an accurate characterization of your comments and actions in the Moderated Discussion:
 * For examples, take a look at recent examples of when you were identified by SilkTork as one of four participants in an editwar (without being blocked), or when SilkTork gave you an outdented warning, in red (again without blocking you), that your comments were starting to stray over the line into contributor conduct, rather than proposed content. In both these very, very recent incidents, you just barely managed to avoid a block. --Phoenix and Winslow here

I saw your warning in red, but I did not understand it to be specifically directed at me, but rather generally at all of the discussion participants. (An editor had just impugned my motivations by saying, "Trying to use Rosenthal's book to wedge Robertson into a faux position of prominence in this context is not helpful...", for example.) Perhaps you could clarify. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to get involved in either the RfC, or the ANI discussion about it.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  16:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. But that is not what I asked. Please allow me to rephrase my question:
 * Was this comment of yours specifically directed at me because of something I said? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. You were making personal comments. Not, by themselves, personal attacks, but in the context of what has been going on with discussions regarding the Tea Party movement article, and my recent warnings about the situation, rather unwise. Having said that, I would not welcome what I am saying here to be copied over, quoted or paraphrased anywhere else on Wikipedia. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to be party to other discussions by proxy.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, and I completely understand the additional concerns you've expressed. It's likely you are aware that this specific edit of yours has now been presented as evidence against me in the RfC, so I'll be obliged to address it in some manner. I was asking for your input only so that I would be clear as to what transpired, not to drag you into the muck. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Up to you how to address any concerns raised against you, but I have generally found it helps to acknowledge genuine concerns, and to indicate that one will endeavour to do better in future. If necessary, mistaken observations may be clarified by neutral statements of fact. Inappropriate concerns or insults I have found are best ignored. I hope this helps.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  18:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Tork, are you seriously declaring that your post in red wa solely addressed t Xenophrenic?
 * If so, I'm afraid that I find your response somewhat bewildering, considering that Xenophrenic was responding to the following post by P&W">@Xeno: any politician who makes it as far as the House of Representatives from either party is a damned fine actor. My proposed text doesn't mislead the reader. Perhaps you missed this part of Alexander's article: 'With videos of the incident so prevalent on liberal and conservative Web sites ...' And you probably also missed the part of Alexander's article about how Breitbart offered a $100,000 donation"I don't know why you would single out Xenophrenic in such a case, but perhaps that needs to be raised as a question, to which you'd care to respond.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Cottage garden lede length discussion
We have an editor, User:Hafspajen, who is claiming that the lede of Cottage Garden is too long, but not providing any actionable ideas on how it can be improved. You were involved with the GA nomination for that article in 2009. Could you add a ha'penny's worth of guidance to this discussion at Talk:Cottage garden? Thanks for your time. Hope all is well with you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My idea, ColonelHenry, was turned down. What I think that there are to many details in the lead, that it should be shortened and have an other section as intro, bellow. Hafspajen (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)