User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 22

Re: Mattisse, Motion 2.2
Forgive me for getting in direct contact, however I have serious concerns about this motion:

"Mattisse is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."

The wording is imprecise and is likely to lead to difficulty in implementing which will cause more conflict than it is intended to resolve.

Problems of wording:


 * "FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors" - The intention is to avoid Mattisse being involved in any article quality assessment process of articles where certain users have been significant editors. The wording, however, doesn't make that clear, and doesn't give guidance as to when a person is a significant editor.


 * "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts." - This is also unclear. Again, there are people in mind, but they are not named, as they normally would be in an ArbCom case. I do not know who all these people are, so I cannot advise Mattisse on this matter - and Mattisse herself may not know who would consider themselves to have had a previous conflict with her.


 * "indefinitely banned" - This is going against the spirit of the case, which is to allow the mentoring process some time to work, to give Mattisse an opportunity of working toward co-operative and harmonious editing. Motion 2.3 has a 6 month restriction, which appears more appropriate.

This case has gone on for quite a time now, and it would be a shame for all concerned if in an attempt to close it quickly before the holiday season these ambiguities were not addressed.

Clearer, more workable options may be:


 * 1) Mattisse is banned from FACs and FARs for 6 months.
 * 2) Mattisse is banned from tagging Featured Articles for 6 months.
 * 3) Users who have difficulty working with Mattisse are to make themselves known to ArbCom who will then inform  Mattisse and Mattisse's advisers. Then for 6 months, Mattisse is to check the Revision history statistics of Featured Articles she wishes to become involved with by editing, tagging, talkpage comment or article quality assessment to see if any of these users are among the top five contributors. If any of these users are among the top five contributors, then Mattisse is to consult with her advisers and await a response before getting involved.

I have removed DYK and GA from the list, as these are not significant problem areas. Incidents there have been isolated. I feel some or all of these options, or a variation of them, would be acceptable to all concerned, and are worth considering.  SilkTork  *YES! 02:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why I voted against the motion. You probably want to contact the arbitrators who are supporting the motion. --bainer (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Stephen, I have contacted everyone with exactly the same message. I should have mentioned that.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, SilkTork for bringing up these issues. I feel those editors I have been in conflict with must be identified in advance. The nature of Wikipedia is that editors often disagree. So, anyone who does not agree with my position can claim to be "in conflict" with me. I agree also that DYK and GA have not been significant problem areas. Art LaPella stated in my original arbitration the DYK has not been a problem. I believe that Geometry guy would say the same about GA. The exceptions have been two cases of "FAC editors", who I will certainly avoid in any event. I agree not to involve myself in FAC and FAR. There are some FAs in which I have been a significant editor, so I would like to feel free to continue to maintain them without problems. There are also cases where I am asked to copy edit an FAC. Recently I have been turning down all such requests. Do you think it is necessary for me to continue to turn down these requests? Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 13:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that until we have clear guidance on the issue from ArbCom it would make sense to put a hold on copy editing a FAC. Indications are that the case will be closed soon, and we will have that guidance, so waiting another week or so is acceptable.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
-MBK004 06:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FunnyGirlPoster2.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:FunnyGirlPoster2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion's regarding Mattisse
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be found here
 * is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
 * Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.
 * Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose.  Modified by next two motions. 
 * "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
 * User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Original Annoucement

Mattisse Alerts Page
I have created the alerts page with a simple placeholder. I was unsure on the format to be used and having queried with an arbitrator there is no simlar page to base it off and I was told that its probably down to the mentors to build the page. Ill be more than happy to lend a hand if you wish. Ping me if you do. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 19:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The archives have been moved out of user talk space into namespace and now show up :) Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. G Guy has done that. Thanks for getting back to me.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Ah, I see you did it - I was under the impression that G Guy was going to do it! Thanks again.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just about to do so when Seddon did! Luckily we didn't ec. Geometry guy 20:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

beer breweries in greater st. louis category
why did you redirect that category? If anything it should go the other way. DaronDierkes (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize that the four breweries there are all in St. Louis, but many small breweries that are not in St. Louis are in Greater St. Louis. St. Louis is an Independent City.  DaronDierkes (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Daron. Category:Brewing in Greater St. Louis is a non-standard cat. The standard beer cat scheme is Category:Beer and breweries by region to Category:Beer and breweries in North America to Category:Beer and breweries in the United States. In the rest of the world the cat scheme continues down in the same manner - Category:Beer and breweries in Europe to Category:Beer and breweries in the United Kingdom, etc. In those cats, beer brands, beer companies, and articles related to beer and breweries in the respective regions are placed. A few years ago an alternative cat scheme was introduced just for the United States - Category:Beer brewing companies in the United States by state to Category:Beer brewing companies based in Missouri. This is already an awkward category because the name doesn't allow for articles on beer brands or other beer related matters to be placed in such cats. There were a couple of discussions about it. The new scheme was undone once, but then restored. To prevent further disruption, the alternative scheme was kept. In order to now accommodate the beer articles that could no longer fit into the new scheme, a new cat was created - Category:American beer brands, and a supercat to hold that - Category:Beer brands. This is working - and we don't wish to impose a new category system upon that.
 * Category:Beer brewing companies based in Missouri already has a subcat - Category:Beer brewing companies based in St. Louis, Missouri, even though the two cats together only hold six articles. It could be argued that Category:Beer brewing companies based in St. Louis, Missouri is already a cat too far, so adding another cat - Category:Brewing in Greater St. Louis would just make things even more cluttered and difficult to navigate.
 * The cat Category:Brewing in Greater St. Louis doesn't fit into the existing cat schemes, and it's not needed, as already there are more than enough cats for breweries in St. Louis, Missouri. I would suggest that any brewery articles you wish to create would fit quite well in either Category:Beer brewing companies based in St. Louis, Missouri or Category:Beer brewing companies based in Missouri (but not both).
 * I hope that helps to explain why I redirected Category:Brewing in Greater St. Louis to Category:Beer brewing companies based in St. Louis, Missouri.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that there's a category discussion area and that these sorts of things are done by consensus and applied top-down to all articles regardless of fact. There was a debate a year or so back about companies based in Las Vegas, Nevada vs. companies based in --- county.  All the businesses that were supposedly from Las Vegas were outside the city limits.  I understand that a metro region is named for its principle city, but if you're referencing the region, then you should do so.  If you're referencing Las Vegas, Nevada or St. Louis, Missouri you are talking only about what is confined within the city limits.  Including anything else is simply non-factual.  Likewise a category for the state is only useful for talking about the state.  How many NYC companies are based in New Jersey?  How many Kansas City, Missouri companies are actually in Kansas and not Missouri?  I really think the way categories are used on wikipedia is nonsense, and I have no truck with it.  I usually ignore it altogether, but what you did was an outright blow to logic so I had to ask, that's all.  DaronDierkes (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several decisions made on Wikipedia that I don't agree with, so I understand your feelings. However, if we wish to edit here, we need to abide by consensus - even when that frustrates us - as consensus is the strength of the project. The collaborative nature of what we do - people working together - is what makes this project special. And when we do disagree with something, we talk it out in the appropriate forum. You did the right thing in discussing it. And if you wish to discuss it further, then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories is a good place to start. I'll probably be off-line now for the Christmas period (more than likely stuck somewhere between Ebbsfleet and Marseille, caught up in the snow and mess of the EuroStar disaster! Cross fingers we make it all the way!) - so have a great Christmas break. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Enjoy your holidays.  DaronDierkes (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax  01:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)



Happy Holidays
Dear SilkTork, wishing you a Happy Christmas, and using this occasion to thank you for all the work you and your fellow mentors have done supporting Mattisse. -- JN 466  15:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Hi SilkTork, Wishing you the best for the holidays and many special moments with that precious little girl. Thanks for all your help this year. Cheers, Agadant (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)