User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 64

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks User:Hawkeye7. I've always liked getting Barnstars - I think we should give them out more often. SilkTork (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/SilkTork
Could/should be blue-linked. :) Izno (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I fixed this, it's hard to get back to the right preload if you miss the click. — xaosflux  Talk 20:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you. SilkTork (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm very happy to see you've thrown your name in the ring again, you've got my vote. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks Joe. I'll never forget your letter to WMF during Framgate. Probably the most impressive moment ever on ArbCom. SilkTork (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your question on why I chose those three cases: I chose these three cases because I am interested in your philosophy as to how the Arbitration Committee should deal with claims that administrators are involved in their use of tools. The case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block is the most recent (public) example of such an occurrence an example in which the scope of WP:INVOLVED was applied by the Arbitration Committee to the use of functionary tools. As far as I can tell, it's a bit unique in the latter respect, and I wanted to see how that affects your thinking in terms of how the Arbitration Committee should respond in similar situations going forward. With respect to the other two, I left a more extensive note on my talk page as to specific things I was looking to see discussed, but I think that (while older), they are most interesting to me in that the arbitration committee proposed affirmative restrictions on the use of admin tools (or restrictions on the right to post in a section designated for "uninvolved admins") while stopping short of a desysop. I want to see the extent to which these sorts of sanctions in light of the facts found in each of those cases are (in)compatible with your philosophy for how to approach situations as an arbitrator going forward, and what you would have done differently/the same based upon the facts of those cases with respect to handling involved admins. The Climate change one (in particular) is quite messy with all of the accusations of involvement flying around, but that's a good thing in my view: arbitrators don't only have to come to decisions in "easy" cases, but also in ones where it's harder. (And, generally, the extent to which an administrator is WP:INVOLVED within a content subject area is something that might be harder for the community to pin down than other sorts of involvement.) —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that User:Red-tailed hawk. I got the notion that you wanted to assess candidates' thinking on the question of Involvement, and that you selected cases where there was some notion of Involvement. Where I am curious is why those three particular cases. Are they the only cases where Involvement was an issue? Is that why you had to stretch back so far to find three examples? Or did you skip over other cases to select those three because either they had something in common, or because they covered three distinct areas? SilkTork (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * These are certainly not the only cases where admin involvement is an issue, nor is there a 9 year gap of cases following (allegations of) involved admin actions. Other than being cases involving admin (or functionary) involvement, I don't think that there's a particular common thread among the three of them. There are other ArbCom cases involving the use of admin tools in page moves (such as Perth) that could have substituted for the Manning Naming Dispute case in my sample, but that's older. And I could have used Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman as a different case altogether if I wanted to ask about making an involved block rather than Climate Change, but it's also a much simpler case than Climate Change, which had a finding of fact that an editor was involved with respect to a topic area rather than a person with whom they were in dispute and also addressed AE. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was an interesting question. SilkTork (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You're awesome!
I came here to offer some appreciation for what you've been doing to offer Barnstars to thank admins for their service, when giving up the tools, but I see that someone else beat me to it. Kudos to Xeno for doing so, too. : )

If he doesn't mind, please feel free to add "and jc37 18:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC) " to the barnstar on your awards page, or just add the sentence above as a note under, if you prefer : )

I also think you deserve this:

Enjoy : ) - jc37 18:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I love it! Thanks! SilkTork (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. : )
 * While I like (and give out) barnstars, of course, there's just something more personal (if you'll pardon the pun), I think, about the awards on Personal user awards.
 * And I'm glad you enjoyed it : ) - jc37 18:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I love that page, thanks for pointing it out. Some years* ago I received a "yoghurt of undeserved praise", and I think it would fit nicely there (if only the image hadn't been unceremoniously deleted). And happy to have you co-sign the barnstar as well. –xenotalk 02:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC) *Can 13 count as "some years"? Seems like only yesterday.
 * Well, I finally got around to doing something I've been procrastinating about for years now. Major cleanup of the WP:Barnstars page. (That's several hours of my life I'll never get back lol) Hopefully this will make the page more accessible, and help people more easily find what they are looking for. I know that for me it had become more and more of a task to navigate that page.
 * Funny thing, in the process, I think I may have accidentally found a live sock of a blocked sockmaster. I haven't checked their history or anything, but linking to a page only known by the blocked editor seems a bit suspicious.
 * Never ceases to surprise me what I discover when working on things here.
 * Anyway, I hope you (and Xeno) are having a great day : ) - jc37 00:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well done. I've always thought it would be useful to have all the barnstars organised and listed in one place. SilkTork (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think splitting into a few subsections helped, but it's slow work. lol - jc37 00:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to ArbCom

 * Con-gra-ja-ma-ca-shuns! : ) - jc37 20:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. SilkTork (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Thanks. I do like a Wiki Christmas card! SilkTork (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

 * Thanks! SilkTork (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

COI
This editor in the most covert way tries to lie to the wikipedia community through his edits, a number of edits that are made by him are paid edits that are hidden. I made a request here but it was archived, it seems that none of the administrators controlled this situation. I don't want to do any harm to this editor, but when someone tries to lie to the community, it's just wrong. His latest project to request the deletion of the article, is a paid contribution. This requirement was published on freelancer sites. Many other articles he works on are also paid, but he tries to work on other articles to avoid any doubts about the changes he makes. I can demonstrate through screenshots a series of ads asking for involvement in these articles. Happy New Year!! Mooon FR (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence to support this allegation, otherwise it will rightfully be ignored. - Roxy the dog 16:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking into paid editing is not an area I get involved in. See Paid-contribution disclosure for advice on looking into paid editing. Be careful when submitting any evidence that you are not posting personal information, and please do not post any evidence or speculation here. Follow the advice on the Paid-contribution disclosure page and email evidence to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. SilkTork (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

resigning the tools in a noble manner
I have noticed that you gave this template to everyone who resigned adminship instead of getting involuntary desyopped. The last two at BN haven't got them yet, maybe you forgot? &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up. I'll do that. If you spot one in future that hasn't been done, please feel free to use the template yourself. SilkTork (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, thank you! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, SilkTork!


Happy New Year! SilkTork, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 04:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 04:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! SilkTork (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)