User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 3

Request that you wade reluctantly into dispute
Hi Silk, There is a disagreement on the inclusion and interpretation of some material on Falun Gong here. Involved editors have agreed that a third party is needed to assess the notability and verifiability of the evidence. If you don't have too much on your plate, would you be able to weigh in on the inclusion of the contested material based on applicable policies? If not, any suggestions on others who might be willing to look into this? Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 18:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Homunculus and I have agreed on an uninvolved editor. I would prefer someone with no history of editing Falun Gong to give us a fresh set of eyes on this matter. So while I welcome user SilkTork to the discussion, I also ask that someone else weigh in as well. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I am busy (and getting involved in Falun Gong disputes is not top of my list of fun things to do in my spare time) I am quite happy for someone else to look at the matter. I am off to France tomorrow until the end of the month. If you haven't found anyone when I get back in March, ask me again, and I'll take a look.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  01:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The (admittedly ponderous) RfC I filed on this has stagnated without response. As I reflect more, I realize this is actually quite straight-forward. I would appreciate if you could weigh in when you have a chance. You may not be an uninvolved editor in the sense of never having had exposure to the topic, but your judgement seems sound, and I have little faith in the ability of casual, uninitiated editors to resolve such things. Cheers, Homunculus (duihua) 20:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have left the most cursory of comments. Based on the evidence presented in the RfC, I do not see an encyclopedic value from mentioning the relationship, while I do see that it could imply something improper, which would be introducing an unwanted negative bias.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. If you do get a chance to read the relevant background materials, perhaps the significance would become apparent (or perhaps not; some scholars don't find it especially interesting either). My interpretation is that there are divergent accounts of the events of April 1999, which were pivotal in FG's history. One narrative suggests that Falun Gong's protesting at the government compound was the catalyst for the ban. The alternate narrative is that some party officials (eg. Luo Gan) sought a ban beforehand, and essentially baited FG into protesting in order to establish a pretext for the crackdown. In this narrative, the fact that Luo is related to He Zuoxiu (whose article catalyzed the protest) is seen as more than mere coincidence, though no one would presume to speculate on exactly what may have transpired. This is really inside baseball, I guess, and may only capture the attention of people with an interest in the machinations of the party-state.  Ultimately I'm happy to defer to good judgement others, though I expect this issue may reemerge if and when it appears in future scholarly articles.Homunculus (duihua) 23:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like it is too soon to include such speculative narratives in Wikipedia. One of the advantages that Wikipedia has over conventional encyclopedias is the immediacy of our information; this can also, however, lead us into including information before its importance has been accurately assessed. I think it is particularly important in contentious topics to remain with the most solid, reliable and widespread material. And even more so in cases where a group are being genuinely victimised. Stick with the clear evidence and people can see the truth. Start including multiple complex, vague and unreliable material, and the truth gets opaqued.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think your suggestion that the alternate narrative is premature is fair, and leaves open the possibility of revision in the future as more sources reflect on these events. Years from now maybe the archives will open up, or defector accounts will shed new light on these issues. Until then, I agree that a straight, factual explanation of the events and the personalities involved is sufficient. As part of a factual account, there might be room to note (in passing) that Luo and He are related, minus the speculative exegesis on the possibly sinister implications of that relationship. Anyways, I'll let others settle this, as I am tired. Thanks again.Homunculus (duihua) 23:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Analysis story
Hello SilkTork! I am beginning work on a story for The Signpost, similar to an article I wrote last year, this one concerning the voting patterns of newly-elected arbitrators. While my work has not yet begun, you will be able to find the draft story here. I would like to know if you would be willing to answer some questions (via email) concerning your experience as a member of the committee and the principles you balance when making decisions on a PD. Your assistance would enhance the purpose of the article, which is to make arbitrators more visible to the greater community as individual actors rather than a monolithic block of 'deciders'.

If this works for you, please leave a note on my talk page and I will be sure to email you promptly. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine. No need to go via email - I can answer on-Wiki as there's no privacy concerns. Leave your questions on my talkpage, and I'll post the responses back to you.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions
Let me first outline what the story will actually cover. I will look at the discussions that took place during voting (and the voting itself) on the most recent proposed decisions, in an attempt to find the methods that thinking newly-elected arbitrators employ when casting votes. To give more depth to the analysis, I am very interested to see how each arbitrator sees himself in terms of evaluating the evidence, constructing workshop proposals, and finally voting.

Below are some questions to highlight what I note above. If you have any concerns, questions to me, or comments in general, please feel free to email me or leave a note on my Wikipedia talk page. The draft article should be linked in my original message; if you see anything out of place, don't feel restricted in letting me know.

1. What was your initial motivation for running in the 2011 ArbCom elections? In simple terms, what was the focus of your campaign; what elements of Committee process did you want to highlight, change, or improve on? Further, how have you implemented these ideas into Committee activity?


 * I had not intended to run, but while in Nice, taking part in the Nice-Cannes Marathon, I saw a Signpost story that not enough candidates had applied, so I stepped forward. I was a little concerned as leading up to that time I had been somewhat busy in real life, and was not responding as promptly as I normally do to requests for assistance, so felt that perhaps I was not the most suitable candidate for a post that would require even more of my time. I applied because I like to help out.
 * I generally don't follow ArbCom cases, nor get involved in much of the politics and drama that is the background to much of the cases; however, I was aware of some of the issues that the community have regarding ArbCom - that it can be secretive and over-reaching, and those concerns mirror my own, so I am interested in addressing that. Making ArbCom more public has been raised with the rest of the Committee, and there are those who are in favour, and those who have concerns. We discuss a lot of stuff via a very, very awkward email system. The system itself is problematic, as email threads get split, which can (and has) resulted in people getting slightly differing responses from the Committee. This not only looks unprofessional, it is. Though there are ongoing attempts to improve and monitor the email system, it is a random and disorganised system, and emails can end up ignored, especially during periods when we receive a lot of them. It is not always clear if someone has responded to an email. And worse are those emails that get a response, so everyone else switches off, and the email then becomes effectively the responsibility of the first responder, who may simply have sent an acknowledgement, with no intention of following up. Added to which, when responding to emails, there are two audiences: the rest of the Committee, and the person emailing. When responding to the emailer, one has to be very careful which part of the thread is being forwarded, as it is possible that one can reply to the wrong part and send the emailer the private discussions of the rest of the Committee. When discussing matters in private, certain comments are made that would not be made when using a public forum. Not offensive comments, but in the nature of thinking out loud in order to voice concerns, making comparisons to one's own experiences, trying out different wordings, etc; stuff that would be inappropriate to send. I would be more comfortable if we had a more managed formal on-Wiki system for dealing with ban appeals and other correspondence - one that could be monitored and clerked. I do, though, take on board the views of other Committee members that as we need to be in touch with each other on a fairly regular basis, that it is easier to do that on a smart phone vie email than via Wikipedia; also, there are some types of discussion that are more appropriate to have off-camera: such as a personal disagreement with the way another member has just done something, or a request for the most appropriate wording for a statement, etc. So a formal on-Wiki arena for receiving, discussing and replying to ban appeals and most correspondence, while retaining a private email discussion system for the Committee, along with a separate email system for receiving privacy material.  At the moment we deal with all three in the same place, albeit with different email addresses for some matters.
 * While these concerns have been aired, nothing formal has been done yet. When we have five minutes to spare, I'd like the Committe to discus this on-Wiki via a series of motions.
 * As regards dealing with ArbCom being over-reaching, that is done by how we individually conduct ourselves in discussions, and how we respond to each other's suggestions. On the whole I feel that the current Committee is very aware of ArbCom's relationship with the community and that we act within policy and not above it. During discussions there are enough views being expressed regarding our role and responsibility that it is being kept in mind.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

2. You have participated in several debates over proposed decisions.

How did *you* think through the principles and remedies? What principles (of decision making and evaluation) did you use to approach the problem in each relevant case? For example, did you first look at the evidence page and try to see where the remedies were needed or did you try to construct a mental timeline, etc.?


 * I have only been involved in three main cases so far, and each has been different. I am still on a learning curve as to how cases are presented and decided. I think it is easier to vote on proposals that one agrees with. If the principle drafter's views on the case accord with one's own, then it appears to be a simple matter of ticking off the principles, findings of fact and remedies. If one doesn't agree, then it can be awkward. I hadn't expected that. I had expected a drafter to be somewhat more neutral, and to present more options. However, the cases that we accept are complex, and it is very helpful to have a form of direction and insight into a case that a drafter can bring. If one does disagree with the direction the drafter has taken, then we do have the option of further discussion and more proposed decisions, though that does then lengthen the case.
 * I was concerned before joining the Committee regarding the nature of the evidence and workshopping that takes place, and that concern is still with me. The evidence and ideas presented are fairly random, and can be misleading. Essentially it is down to the Committee members to do their own investigation into the conduct issues. I'd like to see more control and direction of the investigation by the Committee. Generally when dealing with disputes on Wikipedia the person taking responsibility for mediating will ask questions, and control the discussion - if they do not, then the dispute continues, and the mediator is simply an observer to people slagging each other off. The control needs to be intelligent and responsive - I don't see the value of limiting an individual who is part of the case to the same word limit as someone making a drive-by comment. We do end up with a lot of noise and clutter and have to sift through that for information of value. It would be wrong to ignore the evidence and opinions, but it takes up a lot of time for little and sometimes negative value.
 * I haven't yet noticed if I have a particular approach to a case. I think that the first thing I want to do is get a feel for what the case is about, and then look at the options. It's inevitable that as one starts reading an opinion will be formed, but it's important to keep an open mind. In the TimidGuy case my initial impression was that Will Beback had been over-enthusiastic but well meaning, and the most I was expecting was an admonishment proposal which I thought I would end up not supporting. Reading the evidence, both on-Wiki and the private emails, a ban was a reasonable outcome, and that's what I agreed with.
 * As well as the on-Wiki case pages there are discussion by email regarding each case, and some use is made of an ArbCom wiki in which a draft version of the proposed decisions may be posted for the drafters to decide on the final wording. Other members may also offer comments or opinions on the wording. I haven't noticed a pattern in how I approach the material. I will read something in the workshop, and this may lead me to investigate a particular bit of edit history, or check a policy wording, and then I may recall something I noticed earlier on the evidence page, and check with an email in which the accuracy of that evidence was questioned. What I haven't done, is read an entire page in one sitting without going off that page to check on something. What is common is to have several Firefox tabs open at the same time, and this may be 20 or 30 tabs.
 * Even though by the time the proposed decision is posted I will have been familiar with the findings, I prefer not to make a vote on a proposed decision until I have rechecked.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

3. How do you work with other members? Basically, does everyone "get along"?


 * I am happy to work with the others - they are a good bunch and I don't foresee any personal issues between me and anyone else. However, my policy on Wikipedia has always to be polite rather than friendly with other users, as this is not a social networking site - we are here for the very serious business of writing a very high profile encyclopedia. I think this endeavour is one of the most significant in the history of mankind and transcends personal feelings. Being part of this is like being part of the team that made the pyramids, or the Great Wall of China, or the Hoover Dam. This will last, and these early days will be remembered. Though there are people that one tends to like more than others, I am wary of forming friendships as that may interfere with judgements. There is a tendency to be more accepting of ideas from friends; or perhaps, it is that one is less inclined to reject ideas from friends. If there is a choice of ideas from two people I'd like to be able to make the choice based entirely on merit, and not be swayed by any unconscious feelings of loyalty.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

4. What, if any, changes would you make to ArbCom procedure and practice? Anything you think could be done better now that you are on the 'other side of the curtain'?


 * I think I've already answered this in my responses so far; if it's not clear, let me know, and I'll highlight what I've said.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for helping out.

Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your very quick responses!! Please remember that the story draft is public, so feel free to leave a note there or on my talk page if you think I am misreading anything. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Distributed National Collection
Hello, The Distributed National Collection is not something I was aware of apart from what it says in the Ronald Milne article. Research Support Libraries Programme was during those years a source of funding for libraries whose collections were recognised as containing material which was either uncatalogued or catalogued only in catalogues available in that library. Part of my work in those years was contributing to the RSLP funded projects in an academic library. (Immediately before there had been a period when retrospective conversion projects were funded by the Higher Education Funding Council England and I remember working on some of that too.) This does not help very much since reliable sources are needed. Many of the larger academic libraries and some special libraries have participated in RSLP so perhaps their annual reports for those years would provide some facts. Preferably RSLP would stand separately from Ronald Milne. Perhaps it is too specific to the UK to be included in the Library article.

Thank you for offering help with archiving Talk. It has been organised the way it is since the very early days when I knew little about how things were supposed to be done. I know the length makes it slow to load but new messages come along very rarely.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What I was wondering is if Distributed National Collection is a global form of Research Support Libraries Programme, in that the aim was (is?) to have a national catalogue. I was wondering if the Research Support Libraries Programme was formed to fund, promote and organise the creation of a UK Distributed National Collection. This paper by Milne seems helpful. I am uncomfortable with the material on Research Support Libraries Programme being placed in a biography - if the material is important, it should be placed in a more appropriate location. If Research Support Libraries Programme was the means of delivering Distributed National Collection in the UK, then Distributed National Collection is the main material, and Research Support Libraries Programme should be mentioned as part of that, rather than as part of Ronald Milne. Am I making sense?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is another article at The ‘Distributed National Collection’ Access, and Cross-sectoral Collaboration: the Research Support Libraries Programme. I agree with your logic about whether RSLP should have its own article but ideally it would benefit from independent reliable sources as well as what Ronald Milne has written about it. The origin of the UK DNC is at the level of the HEFCE and its equivalents in the other three British nations. If a DNC article existed Ronald Milne's article would have a summary of his contribution to it only. I suppose the idea is a particular example of "Universal Bibliographic Control" which came from the International Federation of Library Associations a long time ago.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is also the Anderson Report. Do you have any insight to that?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Anderson Report was the beginning of a period when funding was available for libraries to retrospectively convert catalogues and some other projects. I knew about it at the time but not in detail and the library I worked in benefited from the funding for a series of projects 1995-2002 when funding of that kind came to an end. This collection was the first in the series at Manchester Christie Collection and several larger projects followed. It is now ten years later than the end of RSLP and I do not have any documentation of that period that would be acceptable in the encyclopaedia. // Would the archiving be done by setting a date and storing everything before that date in "Archive 1"?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Pilot (Boardwalk Empire)
I am not sure if you have noticed the new episode templating system for episodic writer and director awards. I am writing you because you were the GA nominator. "Pilot (Boardwalk Empire)" needs some new text added to describe its critical acclaim. Please have a look at all of this episode's emmy nominations for starters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops. You were the reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely at how this nomination went, maybe you can help out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention Tony. I'll see if I have time to look into it later, though I have no particular interest in the topic, and merely steered it to GA. On the whole I support the collaborative and collegiate nature of Wikipedia, in that everyone helps out where they can, when they can, and that as editors we are all equal, so there is no need to ask permission to make an edit, nor to request that another person does so. If you are already aware of the issue, then you are probably best placed to do the work.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  02:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware that this was one of six episodes that has won either Best Director or Best Screenplay that has no accolades section. I have dipped my toes into one of them. I may get involved in others. I just don't know that much about episode awards and researching the less prominent ones. I figured that TV people who know that kind of stuff might do a better job than I. Eventually, I will get to it if no one else does.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 1998
So I know you have everything up to 1999 up, are you gonna be able to do 1998? Arjoccolenty (talk)


 * I think you've mistaken me for someone else.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  02:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Tait AfD
Hi SilkTork. First, thanks for finally closing the Douglas Tait AfD. Everything that could have been said had been at that point. But I noticed you closed it with no consensus, despite a prevailing majority view. While I realize this is certainly possible, if you wouldn't mind I'd appreciate you sharing your rationale and your willingness to discuss it; particularly in light of the fact that the original non-admin closing resulted in a determination to "Keep". If so, I'd very much like to chat. Obviously I realize the "no consensus" and the "keep" have the same effect on the BLP. I'm just interested in understanding your review, should this issue ever be revisited again. And I'll take my Earl Grey "London Fog", if you have it. Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I normally leave a closing rationale - in this case I was caught up by real life and didn't have time! I discounted the !vote of the user who voted three times (once logged out), as that was a single purpose account, and may have been created by someone else involved in the discussion - rather than complicate matters with an in-depth sock-puppet investigation I felt it was better to simply discount the !votes. That leaves 2 deletes and 3 keeps. The detailed discussion on the matter of the sources was inconclusive. Of those who did say keep, two were saying that their !vote was weak due to the quality of the sources. Given that the discussion showed ongoing concern with the sourcing, and that there wasn't a clear consensus for either deleting or keeping, I felt that a close as no consensus was the most appropriate.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I didn't realize the SPA had so muddied the water. Final question as I'm still learning how the review works: as the closing admin, do you also review the article, history and talk page? If so, do they influence your assessment? Or do you go strictly by what's presented in the AfD itself? Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will read the article, check sources, and I will note if and how an article has changed since it was nominated as it is not uncommon for an article to be substantially improved since nomination, and earlier comments and !votes may no longer be relevant. There had been some changes in this article, and a few cites had been added, but nothing to significantly impact on what had been said. I will look at relevant policies, guidelines and essays. I don't recall checking talkpages - do you think that might be of value in this case? Or do you feel the cites added were significant?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was asking because I wasn't sure if policy requires review of all relevant pages or simply the AfD itself. What was interesting is you indicated that often articles are strengthened during nomination and early comments may no longer be relevant. But what about when the opposite is true and articles are intentionally diminished or degraded during the process to negatively affect the outcome? Those are the kinds of things you may not detect unless you review the history and all relevant pages, not just the AfD itself. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The person closing should be summing up the discussion and interpreting consensus (and bearing in mind that community consensus has more pertinence than local consensus). If there are significant aspects to be taken into consideration that have not been raised during the discussion, then a user should not close the AfD, but add their comments instead. If a closer is introducing a new point of view and using that to influence the close, then they might not be judging consensus correctly - see Supervote.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Stylish Nonsense
Thanks for the soft delete. That article was just a beast to bring to AfD: the Thai community on en.wiki is quite small and inactive. It had no incoming links in article space, either, and was found through random page patrol. The websites were broken. Raymie (t • c) 04:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, soft delete seemed the more appropriate.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  21:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

just my two cents, and for free even!
I came across something you wrote on the WBB incident, while reading through all the text regarding the formulation of a new COI policy, and one statement from you jumped out at me a little bit, "It has been claimed that it is in the accumulation of minor edits over a prolonged time that we see the bias, though that hasn't been proved. We tend to see TimidGuy removing negative bias rather than adding positive bias". I have spent a fair amount of time on the Prem Rawat articles, and I was around when Jossi was pulling all his "fast moves" to make things just the way he wanted, and I can tell you for a fact that a massively skewed POV can easily be established in an article by doing exactly what you said you found TimidGuy doing. Jossi would argue every policy under the sun until he found something he could make stick when it came to anything even remotely negative to Prem Rawat and then have it removed, but would heartily encourage all edits that were pro-PR (poorly sourced? ok! no source? ok! etc). His knowledge of WP rules and guidelines was often difficult to overcome (despite having relevant edits, sourced, and agreed on by everyone except the pro-Rawat faction of the time). For irreducible simplicity, if you think of an article in terms of simply a balanced scale of positive and negative facts, if all you ever do is remove the negative facts, you are skewing the article with your POV, inescapably. I'm not in any way suggesting that your conclusions in the WBB matter need altering in any way, but I just wanted to give you an example of how an article becomes non-NPOV by doing exactly what you said TimidGuy did, which therefore, imo, seems to contradict your first sentence in the quote above. I hope my explanation gives you at least a moment's pause, before yelling at me and telling me why I'm wrong -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 20:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My words were negative bias, not negative facts. Any editor who is moving an article away from either negative or positive bias is Doing The Right Thing. That is what we should all be striving to do. Worrying about the editor's motives is not what we should be doing. Always look at the evidence, not on the assumption, suspicion, rumour or speculation.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  21:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, can you give me a hypothetical example? I was trying to indicate that by removing only negative facts, you create a positive bias (or vice versa). Are you suggesting that isn't the case? (There are probably situations where this is not the case, but I would think that in the majority of cases this is true) If I read what you're saying correctly, I think you're suggesting that removing negative bias is a good thing, and removing positive bias is a good thing, and even if an editor only consistently does *one* of those things, that's still a good thing, is that what you're suggesting? -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 22:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I am saying. We aim to be neutral and factual. If there are negative facts, then they should be included, and simply removing negative facts is not what we do. But if an article has been slanted so it has a negative bias, then adjusting it toward the neutral is the appropriate thing to do. It can never be the wrong thing to do. It's that you swapped my word of "bias" for "fact", the two words are not interchangeable, though I suspect that people do get them mixed up in POV cases, and that's when mistakes occur.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm clear on the difference between fact and bias, I am not using them interchangeably here, but I don't agree with you that removing all one type of fact (ie, ones that have positive or negative connotations) from an article does NOT introduce an opposing-view bias. Am I still misunderstanding you? Or are you just saying that removing those facts is always good, even if an editor only removes the ones that don't support our hypothetical biased editor's POV? Maybe this helps illustrate my point, simplistically thought it may be, two sections below, one from WP (on telekinesis), followed by one where I only removed one side of the facts, Can you say that doesn't introduce bias? And by continually doing that to articles, that our editor is not producing something with a skewed POV? (this is a completely hypothetical example):
 * "Martin Caidin was capable of moving things with his mind." James Randi offered to test Caidin's claimed abilities in 1994. In September 2004, Randi wrote: "He frantically avoided accepting my challenge by refusing even the simplest of proposed control protocols, but he never tired of running on about how I would not test him."
 * "Martin Caidin was capable of moving things with his mind." James Randi offered to test Caidin's claimed abilities in 1994. In September 2004, Randi wrote: "He frantically avoided accepting my challenge by refusing even the simplest of proposed control protocols, but he never tired of running on about how I would not test him." edit reason: quote stricken under BLP guidelines, webcite not a trusted source
 * Does that not completely change the section from balanced fact, to pro-telekinesis, almost an endorsement even? -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 23:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't yet read through all you have written - I first want to make clear that what I said was "removing negative bias", and you return to talking about negative facts. A bias comes about in the way a sentence is worded, and the selection of material, and the weight and importance given to facts. A negative fact is - "Mr Blobby, while driving under the influence of alcohol, hit a pedestrian who later died in hospital";  a negative bias is "Mr Blobby murdered an innocent man while he was off his head on vodka." Anyone who changes the second sentence into the first is removing negative bias and is doing a Good Thing. The examples are crude and off the top of my head, but I hope you'll get the gist.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the example you give, it does feel like there is a negative bias in the selection of the quote. I don't know the details, but it might be more appropriate if someone were to replace that quote with a neutral summary supported by reliable sources, such as "James Randi offered to test Caidin's claimed abilities in 1994, though by 2004 they could not agree test conditions." I would be wary of a statement which gave more weight to one side than the other, and certainly one which is presented in such directed language - "frantically avoided", "even the simplest of...", "he never tired of...".  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I do understand, but my point revolves around the use of facts, to promote a bias. An editor can carefully select the "facts" he wants to use, and work the system to remove the "facts" he doesn't want used, to produce an article that is biased towards this hypothetical editor's POV. I should point out that I have never before looked at the telekinesis article, I just thought for a moment about what article might have some contentious issues, that wasn't involved with Prem Rawat, or anything to do with any NRM. It wasn't difficult to find a spot where someone with a POV-agenda could twist the article from one slant to the other. So all I'm trying to say is, it's *possible* for someone to do that. That ties back to your original comment about only "removing negative bias" (you didn't say "only", but I think you're indicating that the majority of his edits sway that way). One way to remove a negative bias is to remove any "facts" that could be seen as reflecting negatively. So, removing negative bias only, and leaving all the positive bias, shifts the POV... does it not? And by extension, reveals an editor as being biased, possibly overly so? Even though they have never added anything positive about the subject to the article. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 00:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are being overly complex about this. We looked at TimnidGuy's editing and did not find it problematic. Any uninvolved editor making the same sort of edits would be seen to be doing a good thing - the reason there was a question about those edits is because he had declared a COI, and so people were suspicious. However, look at the edits, not the editor. Look at the evidence, not the suspicion. There were some judgements TimidGuy made that I disagree with, but that is true of most editors. That is true of myself. I can make an edit, and then find later that I disagree with it, and change it.
 * I would like to again assert that I am not talking about facts, but about bias. If you were saying that you would be concerned that somebody was presenting facts in a negative way, then I would agree with you. Even positive facts can be presented negatively. That is POV. What I am talking about is if somebody is adjusting bias toward the neutral that is a positive, and what we should always be doing.
 * This famous advert should help. The basic fact remains the same - it's the way that fact is presented that gives the POV or bias.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  08:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good ad [[image:smiley.jpg|20px]] As I said, I didn't look at the edits, (or the editor), I just wanted to make sure you were not of the opinion that an article cannot be skewed without adding content positive to a POV, or that a COI cannot be detected simply because someone is not sticking "Bob my friend says this is really good too"-type comments into an article. I think I'm clear now that you do understand that point (and I think your understanding was pre-existing to my comments here), *I* just wasn't clear that you were clear. [[image:smiley.jpg|20px]] Thanks for your time and comments (now, do we tackle that messy telekinesis article? lol). -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 14:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Outing
I've being trying to ask MuZemike to stop outing me for several years now. My most recent attempt was blocked because he has erected an edit filter that blocks my IP range. MuZemike's current user name is Amalthea. I do not object to Mike changing his username for privacy reasons. However, he seems to have difficulty understanding that I don't want my life turned upside down by being outted either. My blocked message to his Amalthea talk page is given below.

Please blank this page. Thanx.
 * I don't see why. Amalthea  16:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting personal information is outing and places the victim in peril IRL. You're smarter than that.
 * The account page is not indexed by search engines. Amalthea  18:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. This page is the third hit on this search.  Please blank it.  You don't need to delete it.  I haven't done anything I am ashamed of.  I simply am not interested in becoming a public figure simply because you made a mistake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.234.96 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

UTRS
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time 
 * I've approved your account but only Hersfold is able to give you checkuser access in the system. I'll send him a note when I see him.  Enjoy!--v/r - TP 17:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

3RR
I do not know what Ban this paid NIH employee is referring to. However, the consensus among experts who do not work for the NIH is that delaying a first pregnancy is a risk factor breast cancer. The NIH conducts breast cancer research that cannot be conducted without the "voluntary" participation of women who are actually sick. NIH director, Anthony Fauci, successfully used the same disinformation tactics to promote "AIDS research". This tactic resulted in 60 million unnecessary infections and 24 million preventable deaths.
 * 
 * 
 * 

I cannot file a formal 3RR as I was permanently blocked after I posed this comment. Since the good doctor is still blocking my IPs I have to "IP hop" just to talk to you.

I am not interested in having my original account unblocked as this would inevitably lead to more outing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.254.252 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

'X (borough)' v 'Borough of X'
I tried to change Milton Keynes (borough) to Borough of Milton Keynes a couple of years back and goe a chorus of disapproval. The main argument seemed to be that there are lots of tables that say Borough  =  Swindon (for eg) and the output Borough: Swindon looks nicer than Borough: Borough of Swindon. Did you go through some rfc or were you just being bold and doing it anyway? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I followed our article naming policy - Article titles. Two sections in particular are pertinent - WP:COMMONNAME (that is, the most common name used - which can be indicated by what sources say on GoogleBooks and Google) and WP:PRECISION (which says to use a natural disambiguation over brackets, so use Milton Keynes Borough rather than Milton Keynes (borough)). Before making the changes, I had a quick look to see if there was a consistent use of Foo (borough) on Wikipedia, and there isn't - there are many examples of Borough of Foo and Foo Borough, so I went ahead and made the changes. I hope that helps.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  01:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello SilkTork. I noticed your recent move of Purbeck (district) to Purbeck District. I haven't much experience of page moves, and have a technical question regarding the process involved: why was it first necessary to delete Purbeck District? I've tried studying the history, but can't work out exactly what has been deleted (as there is still a Purbeck District). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When a page has been redirected more than once, it needs to be deleted before the name can be used again.
 * The page history was:

(del/undel) (diff) 11:54, 6 August 2007. . Chris j wood (talk | contribs | block) (32 bytes) (←Redirected page to Purbeck (district)) (del/undel) (diff) 11:04, 18 May 2007. . HeartofaDog (talk | contribs | block) (21 bytes) (create redirect)
 * I hope that helps, if not, let me know and I'll try to be clearer.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  21:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that does help. In such a case, where is the page history for the deleted part normally stored? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted material is held on the Foundation's servers so that admins can access it. Non-admins can request that deleted material is placed on a sub-page of their user space at CAT:UNDELETE. In this case the history consists of two edits - the first was a redirect to Purbeck the second was a redirect to Purbeck (district).  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  21:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello SilkTork ! I just saw your page move on the German Wikipedia of Barrow in Furness (Borough) to Borough Barrow in Furness and discovered that this has been talked about in your Home Wikipedia. I checked the German Wikipedia and found lots of (Borough). Your page move creates an abnormality to the German system. I would like to revert it to keep a consistent system. Otherwise we (the German Wikipedia) should move all boroughs or how do we explain once it is that way around and sometimes it is an other way around? Thanks --Drgkl (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC) (I'm most active in the German Wikipedia)
 * What has happened is that they were listed on en.wiki incorrectly, and have been copied over to other wikis incorrectly. It would be better to change all the names to what they actually are - that is, the names as they officially exist, as people use them, as they appear in reliable sources, and how readers will be looking for them. They are incorrect with brackets - it would be like Deutsche Demokratische Republik being presented as Deutsche (Demokratische Republik).  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. Then we'll have some work to do on the German Wikipedia. --Drgkl (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Consistency v accuracy
The correction (and it is a correction, not just a change) foundered before because there are so many Foo (borough) instead of the correct Borough of Foo, and that consistency is more important than accuracy so no change. I put up with that nonsense when I was a newbie but not any more. I've changed tens of pages to bypass the redirect and will oppose them being reverted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good man. Accuracy is what we should be about. I took a quick look to confirm what you were doing. Would you say in this edit that Borough of Milton Keynes would make more sense than Milton Keynes, given that Milton Keynes is a different article and holds a slightly different meaning. I suspect that the general reader seeing Milton Keynes might consider the reference and the link to be about the city rather than the borough.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Stand-alone list (television)"
This failed proposal is discussed in WP:Village pump (proposal). I have not tagged the discussion with RFC; nevertheless, I invite you to participate because you tagged this proposal a "failure". There have been suggestions of what to do it, such as userfying. Rather than leaving it as a neglected failed proposal, I proposed that it be a useful essay, like WP:notability (fiction). --George Ho (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square Self-Immolation Incident
Hi SilkTork, You were involved on this page through various stages of its development, and I'm asking for your help again. It is, as you know, a featured article, and is under the purview of the Arbitration Committee. In the last several hours, an editor made significant changes to the page without discussion. When I attempted to (in my view) restore balance and fix some problems, I was summarily (and quite rudely) reverted. I have asked the editor to slow down and discuss changes, but do not want to get into an edit war. I fear that this issue cannot be resolved, the page will need to be demoted from FA status, as it currently has numerous issues related to the misrepresentation of sources and alignment with NPOV policy. I have pointed out the content issues that are problematic on the talk page. Your help would be appreciated.— Zujine |talk 17:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have always been very reluctant to get involved with Falun Gong matters. I have only made myself available in this area because there are few admins who have got involved. Over the years I have spent considerable hours of my free time on Falun Gong, and I was pleased with some of the things I achieved, but did start to lose interest in continuing to help out when Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China was delisted as a Good Article due to POV pressure over the title. There were then other incidents which made it clear that because the Falun Gong topic is an enduring battlefield, whatever progress one feels one has made is likely to be later undermined. I have unwatched the Falun Gong articles I was watching, and have pretty much completely removed myself from the topic. I think you need to find another admin to look into this.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)