User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 11

← Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12 →

Category:People associated with The Beatles

Category:People associated with The Beatles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Do you have a viable alternative for how to categorise the people associated with the Beatles? Deleting that cat will simply push those people unsorted into the main Beatles cat. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed it: Template:People associated with The Beatles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Takashi Yanase

Takashi Yanase - please restore the old version, he is clearly notable for wikipedia. See for example [1], [2], [3]. -- M.Marangio (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate to restore the article as it is unsourced. Your links, though, are interesting. I'm not sure they are enough by themselves to allow a stand alone article, but the first one appears to contain a reasonable amount of information to allow a start to be made. I suggest you start an article in a subpage of your user space, and when you feel it is ready to move into mainspace I'll be happy to look it over for you. If you are not sure how to set up a subpage, let me know, and I'll do it for you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC close

Thanks for the close. I've read it through a couple of times, and it's fair, thoughtful, and makes the key points for both support and oppose. I appreciate the time and effort you put into it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci et al

Extended content

While I understand that arbitrators have the misfortune to have to make comments based only on snapshots and summaries, to anyone who remembers the relevant events of 2009 this will read like so much ill-informed twaddle. CIreland (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Am I mistaken that the dispute started with the Jeremy Dunning-Davies article? I would welcome any assistance in understanding the history of the conflict. I am aware that things are not always what they seem, which is why I am thinking that a case to examine evidence might be helpful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC) You are mistaken, SilkTork. A.K.Nole created one of his first sockpuppet accounts on 2 March 2009, before A.K.Nole had made any edits as part of The Wiki House (talk · contribs). That account was Holding Ray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Things are far more complicated than you imagine and, as Cireland writes, what you put on the RfAr page was "ill-informed twaddle". Please wait for the LTA to be prepared when I am less ill. Whether or not A.K.Nole was active before that, I don't know. Somebody did tell me that his WR username is Grep, which goes back to 2008. He certainly had it in for Elonka: his name is Elonka spelt backwards (as various admins have pointed out) and he edited the article on Simutronics, where she used to work. Holding Ray was blocked by CU Shell Kinney as a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole after I left a note on her talk page.[4] Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC) [Sock posting removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)] (edit conflict with Mathsci, pardon any repetition) A.K.Nole was part of web of sock or meatpuppets (more likely the latter) - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Wiki House/Archive for example. The A.K.Nole account itself seems to have been created originally to target User:Elonka who identifies as Elonka Dunin (Obviously A.K.Nole is Elonka reversed; some of the account's earliest substantial edits targeted Simutronics, the company Elonka works for). I was never really sure why Elonka was singled out; it could have been just a result of the prior controversy concerning the Elonka Dunin article (see the AFDs) or maybe it all stemmed from one of the areas of dispute resolution Elonka was involved in: since A.K.Nole was obviously not a first account, it's impossible to be sure. As to where the harassment of Mathsci started, it's again impossible to know. Maybe it was a chance dispute at Jeremy Dunning-Davies; maybe a sock had had a prior run-in with Mathsci; maybe s/he was just stirring the pot. What is clear is that immediately after the deletion of the Jeremy Dunning-Davies the harassment of Mathsci began in earnest; following Mathsci to obscure mathematical articles, editing the article Mathsci, some kerfuffle about Mathsci's name being trademark infringement or somesuch. And, if we assume, as seems highly likely, that the A.K.Nole account et al. are related to the Echigo mole sockfarm then that pursuit has persisted for over three years now and has increased in severity in include "We know where you live" style edits to articles on Mathsci's town, street and nearby landmarks. Some arbitrators have suggested that Mathsci "step back" from the "dispute". If there ever was a "dispute" that started all this then it is no longer tenable to dignify it with that title; there is now only harassment. As for "stepping back" - the socks deliberately target articles on obscure advanced mathematics (just as A.K.Nole did) so that only Mathsci will spot them or they inject themselves into other content disputes so that when Mathsci points out what is going on, those unaware of the history may misinterpret Mathsci's understandable impatience as battleground conduct. Mathsci tries to do what is recommended - files SPI reports, informs admins, asks for help at ANI etc., and is absurdly told by some that if he just stopped chasing the socks all this would simply stop. I hope I have illustrated why the suggestion you made on the arbitration page that this may all be a result of Mathsci's "manner" is untenable. I hope I also made clear why characterising three years of harassment as "needling" was also not the best choice of words. CIreland (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the information, both of you. The Holding Ray account had two minimal edits unrelated to Mathsci, then popped up again in 2011. We have no evidence for the connection, and the blocking admin is no longer active on Wikipedia. However, it "could" be indicative of a larger pattern. For the purposes of the start of this "dispute/harassment", however, Holding Ray does not apply as the two edits before the Jeremy Dunning-Davies incident are unrelated. Worth bearing in mind though. The Elonka spelled backwards is interesting, and again worth bearing in mind, as these things can count; however, as presented, we have three students who openly set up a joint account called The Wiki House (talk · contribs), they know another student who has an account called Brichester (talk · contribs), who informs them they should use separate accounts. They promptly closed down the joint account and start individual accounts - Groomtech (talk · contribs), Kenilworth Terrace (talk · contribs) and A.K.Nole (talk · contribs). Their edits under the joint account were each identified by the initials of the individual - A.K.Nole using AK, and on their joint user page they list their names: Alex, Jo, Chris. So we have a possibility that A.K.Nole is Elonka backwards, or that it is the users name - Alex Nole. Either is possible. If it is Elonka backwards, and this account was deliberately set up to annoy Elonka, then it has been an elaborate set up, especially as the other two accounts involved, went on to edit until 5 February 2011 in Groomtech's case, and 8 February 2011 in Kenilworth Terrace's case, both productively and with no problems. The sock puppet investigation - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Wiki House/Archive - came to the conclusion that there was no cause for concern. A.K.Nole's edits to Simutronics are to add positive material and to question and remove material that is dubiously sourced or unsourced, or promotional in nature. Rather similar to what happened on Jeremy Dunning-Davies. The user discusses the matter on the talkpage, and makes good points. The actions are within policy, and - as pointed out - what Jimbo has encouraged people to do. The user keeps up a collegiate discussion regarding the matter, and praises a fellow user for finding some appropriate sources: Talk:Simutronics#possible_references. Difficult to see in that any reason for concern. Looks like appropriate and good editing - the sort we want to encourage. We then come to the interaction on Jeremy Dunning-Davies, which occurred on 12 June 2009. Until then, the user had not been a problem The sock puppet investigation cleared the accounts to carry on, and the editing on Simutronics was positive. The interaction on Jeremy Dunning-Davies by Mathsci is curious. There had been no prior interaction, the user was in good standing, and the query was valid. Mathsci responds with a dismissive "editor doesn't know what he's talkg about", and a hostile "On a personal note, looking at your editing record, you seem to be a somewhat inexperienced wikipedian editor. It is not a very good idea to continue pushing a point of view contradicted by multiple sources, unless you wish to be blocked indefinitely." Now while the user has gone on to needle/harass Mathsci, it still appears to me from what I can see that Mathsci's manner of interaction was - let's say - not helpful. And that is what I am pondering. It is perhaps part of the whole civility/collegiality issue that is currently concerning the community (in fact has for some time). The way we interact with each other has an impact. We can choose to be reasonable, civil, and use evidence and explanations. Or we can shout and insult, perhaps in the hope that people will shut up and go away. I feel that the concern in the community regarding this, is that uncivil conduct DOES chase people away. And we may have an imbalance of users who feel that bullying tactics work as a way of getting what they want. I have not looked at or analysed Mathsci's other interactions, but what I have seen in this case does concern me, notwithstanding any later discovered network of sock puppets with a motive to target Mathsci as at the time of the interaction there was no awareness of this. The explanations above do not account for that initial poor interaction. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC) The blocking administrator of Holding Ray was an arbitrator and checkuser, so dismissing their evidence is not tenasble in this situation. Where have I dismissed the evidence? I have said we don't have that evidence (unless you can indicate to me where it is), and that the person who did the block is no longer on Wikipedia so we can't ask her. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Indeed it's morally/ethically worse than using deleted articles to try to make a WP:POINT. The article is the evidence that your interaction with that user was sub-optimal. I like to use reason and evidence rather than supposition, and while I value and take on board the opinions and views of others, I prefer, where I can, to look at the evidence itself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Administrators with more competence mathematically than SilkTork have indicated why A.K.Nole's edits to Butcher group seemed to be trolling. I have not mentioned Butcher group. That happened after the interaction in question. I wonder if you are reading carefully what I am saying? There is a possibility that some people could read your response as being an attempt to divert attention away from the real issue. In order to reassure people that you are taking the issue of your conduct in that interaction seriously, it might be beneficial for you to consider and respond to what I am saying rather than diverting attention elsewhere. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Cireland indicates that A.K.Nole was not his first registered account (see the socks below). Others have said he was already active on WR as Grep in 2008. That user developed a fixation on Elonka and me. Can you provide evidence for this rather than assertions? At the point of the interaction, as I explained above, there is no evidence to suggest such a fixation, and your conduct was poor to that user. That the user reacted to your poor conduct in that interaction rather than had a prior intent is quite plausible from what I have seen so far, and you have said nothing to counter this. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC) There is no need to try to provide a scientific theory of how or why the wikihounding started, but it became crystal clear with the editing of Quotient group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There can be no "neat explanation" since numerous other sleeping sock accounts predate A.K.Nole's following me to articles/AfDs in 2009, the earliest so far being registered in February 2009. These include Caderousse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Krod Mandoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Laura Timmins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Leon Gonsalez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Reginald Fortune (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rita Mordio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), The Phrontistery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), The Ringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tryphaena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Taciki Wym (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). These do not support SilkTork's attempts to portray A.K.Nole as a normal editor. Krod Mandoon was indeffed by CU Courcelles. Analysis of this situation should use all the information currently available, not a blinkered view based on a snapshot for 2009. Mathsci (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC) What I am attempting to do is show that at the time of the interaction the user A.K.Nole was presenting as a normal user, and if - as I assume you are trying to argue - the edits on Jeremy Dunning-Davies were designed to bait you, then the baits worked. You behaved in a sub-optimal manner. I agree, however, that there are a number of accounts which were created in 2009 which were then later used to make comments against you. It is disturbing that this is the case. Why this is so, and what the connections there are between those accounts and the Wiki House accounts, is not clear. I am aware from a recent email that ArbCom received that some of those users you have (rightly) challenged, can be very devious, and can steal the identity of another person in an audacious attempt to pass themselves off as legitimate, so you'll note that I have not ruled out the possibility that the Wiki House accounts, including the A.K.Nole account, were set up to hassle you. What I am working from, however, is that it is also possible that something else might have occurred, so I am keeping an open mind; and also that at the time of the interaction on Jeremy Dunning-Davies, the user appeared normal - so even if it was a trap, I am still concerned regarding the nature of your interaction. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If I have made any edits in 2012 outside arbcom-related space that show a widespread problem that could result in a sanction at AE or a lengthy block, please could they be pointed out? I cannot see the relevance of isolated edits in 2009 on a deleted fringe science BLP. Any comments should be placed within the context of my cumulative content editing prior to my health problems. Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The relevance is that you appear to be in dispute with several users, and this is disrupting Wikipedia, and stressing out those users and yourself. The start of the current case request is that you removed an edit that you felt to be of a user who has been hounding you. I wanted to look into the history of why that hounding started. Though we have been looking at the interaction on Jeremy Dunning-Davies, it may be the case that the story starts earlier: you have pointed out accounts that may be related to the Wiki House account, and which pre-date the interaction on Jeremy Dunning-Davies. It may well be possible that this is related to edits years earlier on other fringe scientists.

You have a manner about you that is combative and abrasive. When in disagreement with other users over content on Wikipedia there is already a certain amount of stress; that stress can be substantially increased or decreased by the way we interact with people. I am concerned that your manner of interaction can at times be disruptive in itself. The edit you made in removing the notice from Cla68 has had a significant impact. It has eaten up a lot of time and generated a lot of ill will. Cla68 is responsible for some of that as he over-reacted. But you are also responsible because not only was the edit itself unwise, but your comments were inflammatory.

Given that the IP account used a proxy, and given the nature of the comment, it is highly likely and reasonable to assume it was a banned user, and that it fell within the motion. By the letter of the motion you were right, but the motion was designed to reduce disruption, and so by the spirit of the motion you were wrong. There is an amusing verse about Albert poking the lion that comes to mind!

I'm not sure what the answer is to this situation, but chasing down socks and getting them blocked doesn't appear to be working. There is someone out there who has an unresolved grievance with you, and it could well be about differences of opinion regarding fringe scientists, or it could be about the way you have treated them in the past. When Barack Obama was elected President, he said during his acceptance speech I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. I found that a profound remark. It is really not easy to listen to someone when one disagrees with them. One gets angry and entrenched, and one dismisses everything the other person says.

Do you think you could become someone who listens carefully and openly to someone with whom you are in disagreement? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I really feel that this discussion should not be taking place here. Please make any point you wish to make, with carefully chosen diffs, on the RfAr page. There I have shown that, even before the account A.K.Nole was registered, the same user had created at least five sleeping sockpuppet accounts that were later indefinitely blocked at WP:SPI after disruptive editing. In addition you have allowed sanctioned or banned editors freedom to break their sanctions/bans on this page. That has included unscoring edits by a suspected banned user, in violation of this motion.[5] I have added more detailed comments on the RfAr page and will not comment further here. Wikipedia is not an exercise in social engineering. There is no magic pixie dust that makes editors experts in academic subjects beyond their competence in RL. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

I think a similar thing happened with Scibaby. Scibaby has been a disruptive presence in Wikipedia for years, but if you look at how he was treated before he was banned, I think you can see that that a few established editors helped create that monster. This may be a similar situation, but with more wikihounding involved by the original parties. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Is there any evidence that A.K.Nole is indeed the same person, or group of people, as Echigo Mole? Mathsci has asserted this as if it were fact on numerous occasions, but as far as I can tell no other editor has said so, and there has been no such determination at any SPI. The user page tagging and creation of the sockpupper categories have all been performed by Mathsci himself, in an understandable if regettable anticipation of any such finding. If there is evidence off-wiki that we are not allowed to see, then a statement from someone in authority who has access to the evidence would be helpful. Cireland has stated that it is an assumption. If in fact they are different people or groups then it would explain the anomalous dating of the sockpuppet accounts. Another possibility with the older accounts is that they are disused accounts that have simply been compromised. Meanwhile, Mathsci appears to have published what he believes to be A.K.Nole'susername at another site. Is that permissible? 92.41.189.130 (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC) There is no comparison with Scibaby, since A.K.Nole has only wikihounded one person and his editing is not specifically related to a particular subject, just whatever I happen to be doing at the time (e.g. as with the creation of Charles Sanford Terry (historian), a biography of the Bach scholar). Regarding Scibaby, I understand that Cla68, still sanctioned under WP:ARBCC, might be confused because he was and might still be too emotionally involved (wasn't the world WP:BATTLEGROUND used to describe his conduct?). In early 2011 there were lots of edits in the vodafone range 212.183.0.0/16 which I initially thought were due to Mikemikev. Elen of the Roads informed me on February 16 2011 that CUs on arbcom had determined that the edits were by A.K.Nole, not Mikemikev. Then three sockpuppets and the iprange were blocked by Shell Kinney in the following weeks. That provided the continuity with the new sockpuppets, which used that range and had similar editing profiles. Prior to that, A.K.Nole's socking was dealt with by CUs on arbcom (mainly Shell Kinney). The continuity with Echigo mole was established with this characteristic A.K.Nole edit to the article Echigo mole by 212.183.140.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [6] at 10:55 20 July 2011. This was followed almost immediately by the creation of the sock account Echigo mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 11:00 20 July 2011. The Echigo mole socks frequently referred to edits of the A.K.Nole socks when the SPI page was unprotected and when they trolled on noticeboards, another characteristic of A.K.Nole. Echigo mole was used as a convenient frame of reference after that just for continuity, since previous accounts that had been abandoned were stale and therefore unusable for future CU comparison. The editing style and tell-tale traits, however, did not change and many sleeper accounts from 2009 were reactivated. The vodafone iprange was replaced in December 2011 by 94.196.0.0/16 and 94.197.0.0/16. The tagging of accounts occurs to aid continuity. Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Note the two IPs commenting here are undoubtedly ipsocks of Echigo mole. They are IPs for the ISP threembb, the same as for the two ranges mentioned above. Mathsci (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC) They may be, but is what they are saying correct? I believe a full case is needed to fully examine the history here. The fact that I get in one debate with you in an AE thread, then end up one-way interaction banned even though I've never even edited the Race and Intelligence topic area, should be a sign that something may not be completely right. You might be completely right, Mathsci, or perhaps one or the both of us has lost some objective distance on the situation. I think we need to get it all aired out in an ArbCom case. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC) By the way, I assume that it's ok for me and Mathsci to address each other here since it is related to ongoing dispute resolution. If there is an objection by SilkTork or Mathsci, please let me know and I will make a correction. Cla68 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC) What they are saying, and apparently you are trying to enable (yawn), is incorrect. Holding Ray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was never reported at SPI. There were two Mikemikev reports concerning Rrrrr5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the first by Maunus, the second by me with CU. There was a curious twist in the second because it turned out that the account was a sockpuppet of a hijacked admin account, Spencer195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). What are the signs that Holding Ray iwas a sock of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole? The main one is that I reported them to CU and Shell Kinney confirmed them as an A.K.Nole sock. But the on-wiki evidence is clear enough. The account was created in March 2009 as a sleeping sock. They trolled twice at a Mikemikev SPI, indicating that checkuser would not confirm they were Mikemikev. They followed me and specifically agreed with me at an AfD.[7] They used one of A.K.Nole's favourite words "hoax" on one of a series of MilHist articles on battles in the Thirty Years War.[8][9] That resulted in a trolling AfD.[10] I then made a CU request directly to Shell Kinney that this was an A.K.Nole sock and she confirmed that.[11] I find it creepy that Cla68 should even now be trying to enable A.K.Nole ipsocks. His unhelpful reference to Scibaby seem like a last-ditch attempt to muddy the waters. One characteristic of Echigo mole has been his lying, particularly in unblock requests (eg Static web page (talk · contribs) / Flexural strength (talk · contribs)). Cla68, you seem to be trolling here. You are in addition continuing to violate your topic ban in a creepy way. Please stop it. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC) [Sock posting removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)]

Interaction tone

Provided Cla68 continues to discourse politely and in a helpful manner, I have no objection to his presence here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I hope that you and the rest of the Committee have noted the tone and tenor of mine and TDA's comments about Mathsci and compared/contrasted them with his comments towards us and others when weighing the appropriateness of the current iban situation. Cla68 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I would welcome some difs that show examples of what you feel might be inappropriate tone. If I feel the tone is appropriate for the circumstances I will not support a mutual ban; but if it appears that the tone or content is inappropriate, I will seek Mathsci's explanation, and if that is not satisfactory I will support a mutual ban. I would be keen to get this resolved in the next 24 hours. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you wish to have diffs from during this RFAR request, in the events immediately preceding it, or over the course of our interactions? I could provide diffs in spades from any of the above time periods, but I am just wondering if you want to limit it to more recent events.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I leave the judgement to you, though examples of interaction over time is useful in addition to more recent interactions. I would be particularly interested in interactions since the ban has been in force. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I left a comment not too long ago at the case request with diffs regarding my initial interaction with Mathsci. My initial statement also included diffs of how the events preceding the interaction ban played out. After AGK blocked Zeromus, Mathsci also left a comment suggesting that I knew something about it. He backed this up by claiming that I "boasted of my ongoing off-wiki contacts with TrevelyanL85A2", which is completely bogus. Trev sent me two e-mails, one before and one during the request for amendment, and I was upfront about the contents of those e-mails as well as the fact that I wasn't acting on what he suggested in those e-mails. Any claim of "ongoing off-wiki contact" is pure fabrication on his part. He has been pushing that "proxy-editing" angle against me without any meaningful evidence for months now because of those two e-mails and he has done so repeatedly during the course of this case. If you look at how this recent flare-up began (detailed in my initial statement at RFAR) it was because he went to an unrelated AE case to make the same kind of accusations. During the RFAR he has also claimed that this diff involved some "implausible conspiracy theory" or something.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

TDA, I believe SilkTork is asking for anything that may be relevant. In my case, Mathsci did not go so far as to tell me to "F-off" or anything like that, he just addressed me in what I perceive as a threatening, confrontational, condescending tone, especially since blocks and sanctions were implicitely threatened in many of his posts. And, after I disagreed with him, Mathsci made two AE complaints against me, which is, of course, somewhat threatening and confrontational. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Now, as an experienced editor, I can handle other editors talking to me this way, personalizing disagreements (see the last two diffs), or going overboard on administrative intervention requests. It has happened plenty of times in the past to me and others. The thing is, in this case somehow I ended up with a one-way interaction ban. How is it that when someone acts this way towards others, the others are the ones ending up with the one-way ibans? I still don't understand how, after TDA asked about the nature of the ban and Mathsci posted this confrontational, almost taunting comment, that the administrator involved still defends a one-way ban, even though the comment was made on his talk page. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How do you feel, Cla88, in retrospect, about your response to Mathsci's removing the edit, and his message? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I overreacted. I didn't edit war with him, which was right, but my resulting comment at AE should have been less angry. It's too bad I was online at that moment, because otherwise I probably wouldn't have been so irritated. IP edits, likely from banned editors, have been made to my talk page several times over the years, and no one saw fit to remove them if they weren't insulting or vulgar. Nevertheless, I should have taken 10 minutes before responding, if I responded at all. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your interaction ban is the result of that incident, which though you admit was an over reaction on your part, was initiated by Mathsci. It would be helpful if you could identify the recent interactions you had with Mathsci prior to this recent event, and indicate which were initiated by you and which by Mathsci. Perhaps the five to six interactions just prior. Not cherry picked, but chronological. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The AN discussion Cla cited at RFAR is important as that AN discussion covers a very similar situation (see Nyttend's initial comment there especially).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's useful for the general picture of Mathsci, though I feel I am getting a handle on that now. It seems very complex, and could well go back further than 2009. I would like now, however, to look at evidence of the interactions between yourself and Mathsci. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I left a comment above actually with a sampling of diffs. It is just stuff from my statement at the case request and a few comments Mathsci made on that page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To be specific the comment above with the evidence you are asking about is in the threaded discussion with you at the top of this section.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest Disengage at RfArb.

Until you are ready to post your vote. It only incites further wall'O'diff FUD tactics. When you engage directly you are facing someone who will not only back down but will keep escalating it further. Which is partly what has led to the situation in the first place, a bunch of irresistable forces confronting each other. Turning one into a rock doesnt make the other force stop pushing. (This applies to one/two-way interaction bans as well) You cannot engage that sort of mentality head-on otherwise you will end up rolled over. Suffice to say, I consider titling a section 'Silktork enabling sockmaster' a personal attack given your remit includes investigating all issues you deem relevant. I am not sure why you and the rest of Arbcom dont. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I leave policing of the ArbCom pages to the Clerks, as that ensures impartially. Unless, of course, it is the Clerks who are being attacked, then it would be appropriate for a Committee member to act. As regards putting down my rationale for why I am pausing to think, I feel that is appropriate; other Committee members would do it differently, and therein lies the value of a Committee, we are composed of individuals who each have a slightly different way of doing things, and a slightly different view on matters. The reason I have paused (as I was one who felt that a two way ban was appropriate) is because I have read the comments of the those Committee members who have voted against a ban, and the views of others who have given their opinions. If people hadn't given their thoughts, I would simply have gone ahead and voted to support, so communication is valuable. I have changed my mind in several cases based on arguments put forward by others. I have listened to the view that a two way ban would assist those who have been harassing Mathsci, and I have looked into it, but I am not finding that convincing. If an ipsock leaves a note on, say, Cla68's talkpage, about a discussion involving Mathsci, then it's irrelevant, as Cla68 is banned from taking part in that discussion anyway, so Mathsci does not have to rush to remove it himself, he can leave it for someone else to do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What people seem to be overlooking is that the (ongoing) harrasser of Mathsci is not only trolling Mathsci, they are also trolling everyone else involved. Arbcom, Cla68 and TDA included. When you know Person A will not drop a grudge, and that Person B will attack when provoked. Setting them against each other is incredibly effective. If Person A or B is then forcibly banned from responding, this doesnt stop the other party, it only reinforces that their attack-dog actions were correct, and so the cycle continues when the harrasser picks another target to instigate them against. A one-way ban assists the troll in harrassing Mathsci far more in this regard. Ideally Cla68 and TDA would realise they are being made fools of as much as Mathsci and quietly focus their energies on not being someone else's pawn. However since they feel personally attacked by Mathsci, thats not going to happen soon. Likewise Mathsci should realise that everytime he responds *personally* to his harrasser, he just plays into their hands. However he cant accept that and so the obsessive sock-hunting and ultimately annoying other editors goes on. Its not like there are not any number of Admins who would be happy to play whack-a-nole for him if he went to them in private. At one point there may have been a legitimate issue his harrasser had, but now his harrasser picks him because he is easy to provoke into escalating events. And with every incidence it gets even easier. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, and I have observed that a number of others hold a similar view. I don't think there are many who are encouraging Mathsci to respond to the "mole troll"/"aggrieved user", though there are those who feel that there is a principle that a user on Wikipedia should be protected as far as possible from the harassment/engagement of a banned user, and will vigorously defend that principle. While I hold a personal view that as long as a user's involvement in Wikipedia is valid and helpful I am not concerned who they are - the internet is a great leveller, and age, gender, race, nationality, religion, disability, disfigurement, etc, of the contributor matter little as compared to the content of the contribution; however, I also support strongly the notion of consensus. Wikipedia works by consensus. We work to devise guidelines that ensure Wikipedia runs smoothly. If we all abide by these consensual guidelines then things are fine, so I don't work to undermine that, and will accept that at times my personal views are not as important as the smooth running of the project. So while I agree that there is a lot of effort spent on something of small importance to the project by itself, I understand and support the principle of the thing. There is the bigger picture. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC) There is a difference between encouragement by silence (as many admins and Arbcom are guilty of), and encouragement by active participation. In the latter some of the admins at AE have been a bit too quick to rubber-stamp some of Mathsci's requests, which has led to the situation with Cla68 & TDA. Without resorting to incivility, the aggressive response when their judgement was questioned/challenged speaks volumes. Personally I see the whole sock-hunt-tag-talkpagewarning before an SPI has even come out conclusive to be highly provocative. But I deal with it by ignoring it. (As one of the people the troll attempted to draw in). DUCK does not cut it when you warning third parties about their interactions. It will only annoy them. When Moley was being quietly dealt with none of this drama was around. However they quickly adapted when they realised that wouldnt work and so the tactic of involving third parties in a more direct manner kicked it up a notch. Instead of playing the sock-chasing game and doing what the troll wanted, Mathsci should have just ignored the provocation and continued as before. However I am not sure that he is actually capable of doing that without some intervention. And so we end up here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify for you, I do not believe Echigo mole is at all relevant to my interactions and is more of a distraction to addressing my situation. The only time I reacted to anything apparently left by Echigo mole was when I received a notification that I really should have received as I was being accused of tag-teaming and meat-puppetry at an AE case without any evidence. No one is making a fool of me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem was that the R&I review went against WP:DFTT. The first question I was asked "Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?" necessitated an answer about Mikemikev and about Echigo mole. The second question, "Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I area" produced a finding that my SPI reports were largely accurate and that I had not abused the process. The review ended in mid-May and now, for the fourth time (!!) since that closure, those questions are being re-examined. When in 2011 the socks were discreetly blocked by a checkuser, that did not feed the troll. But the review question pushed the troll into the limelight. The motion was one attempt to handle and put a lid on the consequences. The current RfaR, hot on the heels of an AE request, shows that it was too late: Pandora's box had already been opened and all havoc let loose. People are now determined to rehabilitate and canonize A.K.Nole/Echigo mole. How does that serve the purposes of building an encyclopedia? (Note that I am too ill to contribute content at the moment even if I'm temporarily back home.) Mathsci (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between me pointing out that you threatened a user who at the time presented as normal, to that user being declared a saint. This is like a conversation with a child where one is telling the child off for kicking the family dog: "You mustn't kick the dog", "But I gave the dog a chocolate", "Yes, but you also kicked the dog, and you mustn't do that", "But he peed on the floor", "Yes, that was after you kicked him, he was scared", "Are you telling me off because the dog peed on the floor?" "No, you are being told off for kicking the dog", "But he was a naughty dog, and I did give him a chocolate", "You kicked him after you gave him the chocolate", "But he peed on the floor". And so on.... Anyway, at the moment I am working my way through your recent talkpage edits to see where you have instigated an interaction with Cla68. Apart from the talkpage incident which has led to this situation, I'm not finding anything, and I've browsed back to May. In the meantime you have reported a number of sightings of the "mole troll" in that time. So the mole hunting is not impaired by your not being able to interact with or discuss Cla68. However, your involvement on his talkpage has sparked off this situation. He responded badly, but you poked him to give that reaction. If you had been banned from his talkpage none of this would have taken place. You lose nothing by not being able to talk to him or about him, but it helps ensure that we don't get bad reactions. I am going to support the motion, which means that it is now down to Courcelles to make the final decision. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork, please read WP:LAME. You cannot build a case based on deleted edits from 2009. That just shows your own desperation to prove a WP:POINT. A.K.Nole had already created at least five sleeping socks before registering his eponymous account: that is highly irregular and disruptive. A.K.Nole's first edits were all about Elonka's company and video games: that is not normal. I can't see the JD-D article, but A.K.Nole followed me there. His edits were just trolling because it is an uncontroversial fact that JD-D was (and perhaps even still is) involved in fringe science and has made no attempt to hide it. I assume that in 2009 that the articles Ruggero Santilli and Myron Evans contained references to the web organizations where JD-D was a board member. Here's a snapshot from Feb 2008 when I last edited the Santilli article.[21] JD-D seems to have been a major proponent of Santilli's fringe theories. One of the journals cited there, Progress in Physics, is a fringe science journal, one of the worst. If you want to criticize me, find edits in articles that are more recent (2010-2012) and have nothing to do with WP:ARBR&I or Echigo mole socks. So far you seem to have overlooked the majority of A.K.Nole's edits and those of his socks. I think ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) probably gave him the idea of follwing me to articles, since CoM did that on Chateau of Vauvenargues (14 June 2009) and Talk:Butcher group (24 June 2009). I would assume that A.K.Nole was inspired by CoM's trolling. So when CoM ciriticized the word "bastide", A.K.Nole made these edits.[22][23][24] Do you remember ChildofMidnight? Do you remember that he was site-banned for a year by arbcom for disruptive conduct? I did not take part in the arbcom case about ChildofMidnight. Mathsci (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I have made my vote. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I was going to add a comment/question to the almost out-of-control wall of words that is the Polarscribe RfArb, but saw that basically everything I was considering saying was already fairly clearly addressed by you. It is very rarely that I admit that I have not had an original, brilliant thought on any topic that everyone else has to be subjected to seeing or hearing, but this is one of them. Thank you for the thoroughness and clarity of your comments. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I do appreciate it when people reach out with positive comments. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi There

Just came across your name while reviewing some old archived material on my talk page, and in the spirit of the conversations there, I just thought I'd wish you a nice cup of tea and a cookie... and a happy upcoming Thanksgiving!Rosencomet (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Help yourself to as much tea and biscuits as you want - and don't worry about the crumbs! As for the Thanksgiving - I love this tradition!. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just an old grump, but that custom has always embarassed me, as being a little lacking in the ol' gravitas (not to mention rather degrading the solemn duty of executives in power to consider and grant pardons). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Obama was a little out of his comfort zone as well. The awkwardness of it is part of its charm! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello SilkTork/Archive2. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not comfortable in taking part as the software does not allow me to view all the questions before starting the survey, and it will not allow me to proceed to the next page unless I have answered all questions on the current page, even those I am disinclined to answer. While I don't hold my age and gender to be secret (I am a 56 year old male), I question the value of collecting that information as data in a dispute resolution survey - chronological age does not always relate to experience and maturity, and gender does not always relate to aggression or negotiation. It would be similar to asking questions about sexual orientation and religion, and then drawing a conclusion that it is mainly heterosexual Christians who get involved in dispute resolution. Of course if I could see all the questions, I might start to see the context in which such questions are asked. But the survey doesn't allow that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A1 road (London)

Good evening User:SilkTork,
I am really enjoying your progress copy-editing the A1 in London. Excellent work.
I have always been under the assumption that it started from St Paul's – along with the A40 – do you have any thoughts on this?
Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 21:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean. St Paul's is right by Postman's Park, which is the site of the head office of the General Post Office, which is often reported as being the start. Though I believe the head office was demolished before the A1 was established. It is often difficult to get accurate and reliable information on roads. There are often assumptions, which get repeated, but little in the way of reliable documentation. I'm looking to return the article to GA status. I'm first going to finish tidying up, then do a bit more research on the route. Any help is appreciated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I would enjoy that. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 21:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just a note that usually road articles have some form of junction list, so you will probably need to add one. See WP:RJL for an example. I will note that the UK uses a considerably different format than the rest of the world; efforts to change that have been unsuccessful. --Rschen7754 22:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the {{Infobox road}} deals with that. I've not checked if it's correct, but it does have a list of junctions. Is that what you mean? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly; a junction list has more details like mileages. (Speaking of which, the list in the infobox could probably be trimmed, but there's no hard and fast <=10 junctions rule like we have in the U.S.). --Rschen7754 22:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the trimming. There's a lot of minor roads in that list. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Henlys Corner

Nice job here and Mrs DoggieWalkLady definitely needed to go, but isn't the photo probably out of date now? Iridescent apparently took it in 2007 and there's been a big rebuild since then - I can't be sure without going to look but I suspect that this view is noticeably (if not showstoppingly) different now. I wouldn't normally fuss but if you're heading for GA with the A1 article ... just a thought. Hope this helps, have a good one, cheers DBaK (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't settled into research yet, but when doing basic checks I did notice that there was Google links to local council and news items on restructuring, and I have seen an artists impression of an aerial view which looks interesting. I wasn't aware if it had happened, nor how much it would have changed. I might do a drive along the route at some point. It's a while since I lived in London (I lived on the A1 at one point - on Upper Street near the Hope & Anchor), so much will have changed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Yes, it is all done and dusted now, and considerably different - enough, I am pretty sure, to render the photo out of date. It is now less of a straightforward crossroads and more of a peel-right-turning-traffic-off-before-and-feed-it-across-from-the-left kind of thingy, for which I am sure there is a road fans' technical expression such as trumpet, banana, catspaw or whatever. It's really a bit of a sad compromise (or a valiant try, if we are being kind) dealing with the fact that the A1 crossing the North Circular could really really really do with a proper grade-separated junction, and the idea has been on and off like a lighthouse, and they finally (or not) came down with this at-grade solution. It's not great, but is better ... we are probably stuck like that for a while now, a decade or two perhaps, though I am almost sure we were supposed to have personal jetpacks and silver jumpsuits for commuting anyway sometime soon.

The artist's impression aerial view you cite is pretty fair for how it is now, actually. Google Maps' imagery is very old, but Bing is quite interesting in that their aerial and bird's eye views show you the work in progress and give a flavour of the new layout, albeit with construction work all over it! :)

I would love to volunteer to go and take a new photo for you but I fear that it would turn into an unfulfilled promise, so enjoy your drive! I am quite familiar with Upper St having worked for the LBI many a long year some decades back and been in offices up and down the street at various times -- ee, them were t'days. Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The pdf map at the bottom of this page is very useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, very clear! DBaK (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

My landlady at Upper Street worked for LBI. When she fell pregnant she managed to get herself and her partner (I remember he was called Christopher Lee like the actor) and me and my partner council homes because she was aware that there was a regulation regarding the amount of steps in a staircase, and there was one too many. My partner and I accepted a council flat, but my landlady hung on for a proper house. As, a few years later, Maggie changed the law to allow council tenants to buy their homes, and as Islington took off as a cool place to live, she did the right thing, and has probably now sold it for cool million, and is living off the proceeds. We gave up our council flat when my partner fell pregnant as she was too impatient to move into a house - even though LBI were going to give us one. We moved into the Crown Estate near Victoria Park, and the cost of renting there, plus paying for underfloor heating, nearly crippled me. So we then moved out of London, buying a house in East Anglia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The/the Beatles

Hi - your edit comment here drew my attention. The consensus since Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles is that we use "the Beatles" in mid sentence. Essentially, the close is in line with existing Wikipedia style guidance, which are also listed on that page. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Editor should have mentioned that in edit summary. Not sure why I reverted it; it's been awhile. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)