User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 19

← Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20 →

FAC: Trees (poem)

I decided to go straight to FAC, thinking the article had sufficient substance to be considered there. If you'd like to take a look and offer your suggestions and comments, the FAC is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trees (poem)/archive1 Thanks. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made a couple of comments and watchlisted the FAC page. I'll try to get back and have a deeper look in the next few days. Please ping me if I haven't done so. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed your comments at the FAC discussion for Trees (poem) located here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trees (poem)/archive1. Could you please review whether your comments have been sufficiently resolved as I seek to improve the article and to obtain support for this article's promotion to FA status. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I appreciate your assistance. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Great rabbit photo above. ;-)

Thanks for nudging me. I'll try to give it a review against one or more the FA criteria in the next few days. Again - please do not be shy about nudging me if I haven't done so. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi SilkTork, recusal from the ArbCom case and including yourself as a party was admirable. There may be more who should be added judging by TFD's observations. However, I'm not here for that. Some time ago, you blocked me for a violation of WP:BLPTALK which I accepted without appeal. I have a question in regards to your blocking summary:

• 03:15, June 7, 2013 SilkTork (talk | contribs) blocked ThinkEnemies (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks or harassment)

Is it appropriate to say I was blocked for violating WP:NPA when that policy seems explicit to interaction among fellow editors? I tried to find other examples to reference, but blocks for BLPTALK are quite difficult to locate. At least by my limited means. Thanks. †TE†Talk 20:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a drop down list for block reasons; that was the nearest fit to the more detailed reason I gave on your talk page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. In the future, when using your authority to dole out blocks of uncommon causes -- Would you please consider using the edit/block summary for a "more detailed reason." After all, the entire purpose of these summaries should be to provide the most accurate description of your actions possible so others can decide whether or not they require further review. With blocks, in particular, it's even more critical not to half-ass the summary as review can't be done with a single click. Just something to be considered as this project moves forward. Cheers! †TE†Talk 13:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Agenda_of_the_Tea_Party_movement

P&W has created this page on the sly basically, as the agreement in the Moderated discussion centered on creating a subarticle entitled "The Tea Party and The Constitution".

The objective would obviously seem to minimalize the centrality of The Constitution (though it is described as such) in order to reduce the attention that would presumably generate, leading to scrutiny of the movements motives, etc.

I would like to rename the article, which I gather involved some sort of page moving operations with which I'm not familiar. Could you provide the relevant information for carrying that out, or perhaps links to pages describing the process? Thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You should check this, too [1].--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am no longer involved in the Tea Party movement and related articles either as moderator or arbitrator, and have voluntarily withdrawn myself as editor for six months regardless of what happens with the ArbCom motion. That sub-article was not one I created, so it is possible there was no consensus for its creation. I suggest that folks have a discussion about it on the talkpage of the new article. That would also be the appropriate place to have a discussion about a new name. Provided the name chosen for the article is not in use elsewhere, then any editor can rename an article by clicking on the Move tab - see Wikipedia:Moving a page. If the desired page name is a redirect but has a history, then an admin needs to do the move as it involves some deletion.

You don't need to go through a formal process to hold a discussion and make a simple move, but if you preferred to do that, then you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. A neutral admin with some understanding of page name policy will then decide the consensus and make the move. This can take some time, but may be more satisfactory. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment?

Hi. I'm close to losing my composure (probably have already) at a POV discussion here with two editors who regularly contribute to the article in question and have been contesting what I feel are my improvements to the article. If it's not too much of a bother, would you care to chime in? An impartial view would be much appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I know how much these things can weigh one down. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: The (Fabulous) Wailers

Hi, I realize that the name of this particular band is a bit difficult given the inconsistency surrounding which name they've used in the past. I know that the band is often known as "The Fabulous Wailers"; they are also often known as simply "The Wailers". The use of "(rock band)" is necessary if the shorter name is to be used to avoid confusion with Bob Marley's old reggae band. So I'm not trying to simply impose my own standards to article names. :)

I don't really agree though that "the article is clearer, more helpful, less confusing, and follows policy better" with the longer name; we don't make article naming decisions simply to shoehorn them into some random Wikipedia policy; we choose the most appropriate name reflecting common usage (up to a point). Part of the reason for the reversion to the old name was that the user who made that move is relatively inexperienced and did not discuss the matter on the article's talk page (I can see that there is a need to do that, especially now). How about we move discussion there...*right now*? ;) Regards, Bumm13 (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For some people The Wailers (rock band) could refer to either the reggae or the garage rock band, while The Fabulous Wailers clearly identifies who the article is about, and uses the common name which the band themselves currently use to uniquely identify themselves. That is why I feel the The Fabulous Wailers name is "clearer, more helpful, less confusing, and follows policy better". Policy does say to use a natural and common name rather than one employing disambiguation brackets. When using brackets it means that editors have to pipe links and amend templates such as {{findnotice}}. I find the notion that an acceptable move is objected to because the user is inexperienced to be understandable though inappropriate. However, the user does need a warning that they shouldn't be edit warring over the move (I note from the history that they have moved the page twice). If on reflection you still find the The Wailers (rock band) to be preferable, then yes I will open a move discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Language question

Thanks for the nice welcome without rules! Over a tea, I have a language question regarding infoboxes, English being not my first language. You said: "I think it is true to say that Andy Mabbett's involvement in editing infoboxes should cease." How should I understand "true" in this line? I is true that Andy helped me more than anybody else to understand infoboxes, what they are and what not (not to summarize the article, for example, only facts, - some opposers seem not to understand that), and how to create a template {{infobox Bach composition}}. I am late to infoboxes and simply find them useful. Why they create such excitement is beyond my understanding. - Over the second cup, please go over Andy's recent contributions in 53 debated infoboxes and tell me precisely what you think has to cease. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Why should he cease? I thought I had given my reasons. Perhaps I haven't been clear. Could you take another look at what I said and come back here and give me your understanding of what I have said. Not your views on the case, but your understanding of what I said. Just in case I need to be clearer. That would be helpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't ask "why he should cease", I asked about the "true" or "true to say". You mentioned "I took a look at the first six months of 2012", and I wish you would add "I took a look at the first seven months of 2013". (I watch him ceasing many things he formerly did, but you asked me not to give my view.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"True" in that context means "I agree with what has been said". It can be a "that is true, however I also feel this should be taken into consideration", or "true, and here is more evidence to support that". When looking into the contributions of someone who is applying to be an admin at RfA, I'll pick one or two months from the previous year, or at least six months ago. That tends to give me a gauge of what the person is like outside of the near history. The principle is that I am looking at a period of time where the person will likely be behaving normally: neither on their best behaviour because of an impending RfA, nor under their worse behaviour because of the stress that caused the ArbCom case. I saw what I saw, and in the context of this case, and Andy Mabbett's history, it gave me cause for concern. If it didn't give you cause for concern, so be it. We do have a Committee, so it's not just one person's perspective. Committee members, like yourself, will assess what I saw in the context of Mabbett's better, more valuable, behaviour, and make their own judgement. It is something that Committee members do as a matter of cause - we weigh up positive contributions with negative, and come to an assessment of net worth. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to explain, I am learning. The comparison with an RfA, however, seems not right, because this case came as a complete unwanted surprise, nothing to prepare for. - Thank you for your time, I will leave you in peace and create content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the ARBCOM posting their votes (and sharing their thoughts) as they cast them so they are viewed by the community (I'm fairly new to the DR part of Wikipedia). I'm curious though, are the committee members given a time period when they need to draw their conclusion and post their votes? Something like 24 hours? 96 hours? a week?
While transparency is great, I'm sure it must be a little anxiety-inducing to see the decision-making process slowly evolve over a few days (and votes can be changed!). The cost-benefit balance of transparency, I guess. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 00:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What has been posted is a "proposed" decision - that is, it's the suggestion of those Committee members who first looked into the case and put together some findings. The rest of the Committee will - to a greater or lesser extent - have kept an eye on the evidence and workshop as it evolved, and may also have given some comments on the proposed findings; however, this is the point at which the Committee as a whole seriously gets involved and makes a decision as to what is to be done. Some or all members of the Committee may on reflection, agree with the proposed decision, and it's carried without incident. But usually what happens is the proposals are rigorously examined, fine tuned, new evidence brought in, new remedies suggested, and alterations made. The views of the parties involved and other commentators may also impact on how the Committee as a whole accept the proposals. So the posting of the proposed decision is not the end of the case - in many ways, it's actually the start of the case. Or, at the very least, it can be considered the start of the end of the case! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

FAC: Trees (poem)

Would you be able to give the FAC nomination for Trees (poem) a second pass. So far, I've resolved a lot of comments, but the article does need a little support.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Tied up at the moment. Will try to get to this later today or perhaps over the weekend. Sorry for delay. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've done a review. I have a number of concerns which I have listed, which prevents me supporting at this time. Please ping me when the concerns have been addressed, and I'll have another look. It's a long and weary process taking an article through FAC isn't it? Sometimes you get so far, and everything looks fine, then someone comes along with even more queries and objections. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

While in hold

Hi SilkTork, while Meher Baba is still on hold, can you please take a look at what we have done so far and let us know if you see further issues? I have commented about one point that is not up to us to fix. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 16:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Tied up at the moment. Will try to get to this later today or perhaps over the weekend. Sorry for delay. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The lead still needs work. What is the "one point that is not up to us to fix"? You can make comments on the GAR page, I have it watchlisted, so I will notice. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What I think Hoverfish is referring to is the request to explain better the significance of things like Baba's silence and New Life. Hoverfish is right that this is a problem. It is agreed by all in and outside Baba that no one actually knows what the significance of these strange stages and developments of his life meant. He simply always said they had "inner" meaning, and never clarified at all. In fact, his first biographer Charles Purdom wrote: "How often in the course of this book have I had to use the words, 'Baba has not explained'!" (Purdom p. 443). This is what Hoverfish meant that one problem we can't fix ourselves. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, could you be more specific about 'more work'? We did work quite hard on the lead on what you said, and we added the section on teachings and worked to reflect the sections in the article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it later, and do a bit of work on it. At the moment there are loose sentences, and the Legacy section is not appropriately represented. As regards the teachings - what do you recommend as the best guide - both accessible and authoritative? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

BWV 35

Sorry, I am not in the mood for tea right now, I feel sick. Please bear with me, looking at one infobox case: Peter Planyavsky. I am the author of that article. I wanted an infobox. Nikkimaria reverted it, more than once. Andy helped me. You write: "That he deliberately parachutes into infobox editing disputes in such contentious areas:" (this one, 13 March 2013) "concerns me deeply." There is so much talk about the wishes of the main author! Please respect my wish and let this not concern you deeply. I want an infobox for "my" article, I still don't have it. What else can I explain for you? The title of the cantata BWV 35 translates to "Spirit and soul become confused", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned for how the community behaves as a whole. That was one incident out of a number that I took into consideration. I will be looking more closely at Nikkimaria's involvement shortly - there are aspects of her behaviour which concern me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That was the incident you pointed out. What did you mean by saying "deliberately parachutes"? If you look at the debated infoboxes you will see that I inserted more than Andy. Where is fairness??? As several pointed out recently, Andy was not liked by content editors who want to control their articles. Is that a reason to ban? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Basis for banning

This is inexplicable. Editing in contentious areas is not only permissible but a bedrock of collaborative editing. I raised a question on the talk page, which no one has addressed, about the basis for Fof #4. I'm still waiting for an answer. Is Talk:Cosima Wagner/Archive 1 the answer? I can see nothing there which would justify banning. It's a discussion, and we don't ban good-faith people from the project simply because their point of view is uncongenial to some or their mode of engagement somewhat abrupt. Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I probably expressed myself poorly, so I would welcome your views on how I could better explain myself. An editor who is aware that placing infoboxes on certain articles is going to be contentious, and who has previously been sanctioned for doing so, deliberately places an infobox on an article knowing it will be contentious, and does it at a time when it will be the most contentious, then responds as though he is unaware that such an edit would be contentious and challenges others to debate with him. In internet jargon that is called "trolling". Is there some aspect of that that you disagree with? If not, then how best can I explain it so that everyone understands? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you entire premise is flawed and amounts to an editing version of the Heckler's veto. What you leave unexamined is why such edits might be controversial. In general, adding and/or editing infoboxes is not controversial. There are over a million of them in use. In this localized case there is staunch, stubborn opposition which amounts to ownership, which the proposed decision half-heartedly acknowledges. If I were to accept your view, a WikiProject could decree that certain types of edits are forbidden and react angrily to anyone from outside project trying to change consensus or simply edit an article. That's not the wiki way. That's not collaborative. Trolling is an accusation that should not be made lightly, though many who oppose Mabbett call him that too. As an arbitrator you're suppose to remain above the fray and not internalize the arguments of one side. Does WP:COMPOSER (or some other wikiproject) now dictate policy? What if I write an article on a composer and I decide to include an infobox? Suppose I'm reverted because of "local consensus"? What am I supposed to do now? Gerda's asked you the same question, and you didn't answer her. If the entire encyclopedia functioned this way it would be utter chaos. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Peter Planyavsky is such a case. I, who wrote it, added an infobox. It was reverted, not because of "local consensus", but with edit summary "compresses badly". I tried an improved version, reverted again: "definitely prettier, but doesn't solve and lead image should be of the person". There was a discussion, Andy participated, helping me. I fail to see problems like "ignore" procedures, "disruption". - It's the case mentioned in the vote to ban. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We have various procedures for dealing with such issues: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Users who continually ignore such procedures, and disrupt Wikipedia in order to make their point, do tend to end up being blocked or banned. Andy himself has indicated that he is now understanding this. It is a shame that it has come so late after causing unneeded friction and disruption. As regards WikiProjects dictating policy, etc, I think you need only look at the various comments I have made on the PD page and talkpage to see how I feel about that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

On top of the above, Cosima Wagner again was 2012. It will not happen again. - I was sarcastic in the workshop. I am sick now (see just above). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I also gave an example from March 2013. I also took into account Mabbett's behavior and comments during the ArbCom case - including his attitude (which I quoted on the PD talkpage) toward another user during a current bot request. He has appeared largely unrepentant, and seemingly unaware of the problems and resentment he has been causing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The words I found before: "This is a project in which I volunteer, so far it was fun. ...". (see PDT) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel stressed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Cosima Wagner

Cosima Wagner was not a classical composer and the article isn't even in the scope of WikiProject Composers or WikProject Music. It's a Featured Article and three-quarters of Featured Articles have infoboxes - with a higher proportion common among biographies. Why should anybody be required to assume that adding an infobox - much less merely discussing it - must be treated as controversial? --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it was two days previous to Mabbett's edit a FA of the day, and he is aware that his editing of such articles is controversial. If Mabbett had not learned from that and previous sanctions that his editing was contentious then that is as much a reason to ban him as if he was fully aware. Either way, we cannot have a user continuing to be provocative (either knowingly or unknowingly) after several warnings and sanctions. I think that he needs to rethink his strategy of how to implement the metadata technology on Wikipedia. It is clear (to me at least) that his current method is too confrontational to be effective. He needs to slow down and explain the features and benefits a bit more, and pause and wait until people are on board with the features and benefits before rolling out the technology en mass. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder how you think Mabbett will accomplish this if you ban him for a year without sanctioning anyone else. It's also clear given the adoption of Infoboxes throughout Wikipedia that in the main people agree with Mabbett and think he's on the right track. There's no evidence of a broader problem. There's plenty of evidence that this is a specific, localized problem. Your proposed decision ignores all that. Mackensen (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what decision have I proposed? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You have voted to adopt certain principles, findings of fact, and remedies in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision, one of which is to ban Mabbett for a calendar year. "Your" in this case refers to the committee, of course, but this is hair-splitting. It's certainly not my proposed decision. I'm concerned that you have not addressed my main question, which is how Mabbett is supposed to take this advice onboard if he's been banned for a year, with an uncertain reprieve. If you ban him and it sticks you'll make it very difficult for him to return and be productive. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

People are banned and return. We used to ban for a fixed period and when they returned there was no certainty that they had taken on board the reasons for the ban. We now tend to ban until the person shows on appeal that they have taken on board the reasons for the ban, and indicates willingness to address the issues so that the reasons for the ban do not occur again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of that. You're surely aware that you're holding Andy's two previous bans against him in this arbitration. This would make three, and do you really think the other parties in this dispute would do anything other than try to get him banned again? This is a no-win scenario you've crafted that completely ignores the bad faith and disruption on the other side of the discussion. I'm not the first person to point this out and I won't be the last, and I'm disheartened that you refuse to address it. Banning Mabbett doesn't solve that problem, and if you think that's the main issue then I'm concerned that you've missed the forest for the trees. Mackensen (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Tea in hand (What, no choco cake!) No attacks intended while agreeing with Mackensen above:

• In part, decisions in this case have been made on the erroneous position, and an opinion, that one way of dealing with a contentious article is better than another, that when faced with a contentious article the appropriate way to deal with that article is to walk away rather than try to work through a dispute. This implies tenacity is a fault. There is no policy that says an editor must walk away, and there is nothing in this case that deals with why an article is contentious, that by definition a contentious article is at least two sided. What happened to the other guys. My point is that at the moment when we define contentious appropriately that is multiple sided, emphasis falls on many editors, not one, nor those on one side, and takes the weight of blame off of one person.
• Andy Mabbett has already said he will attempt to amend his bahaviour. Is it punitive to apply sanctions to an editor who has within the case itself said he will amend his behaviour? Is a sanction applied to an editor who has over time improved, and even as the case is ongoing says he will improve behaviour further need a time out to think?This is punitive seems to me.
• Any one using two past arbitrations to support another sanction should in my opinion look very, very closely at the past cases to make sure those past cases are not lending themselves to the creation of a false narrative about an editor. And if an editor has improved since a last arbitration what then?
• Another editor recently emailed me saying because of the way the case had been set out he thought Andy Mabbett was at fault. Only after looking more deeply did he change that position. The point is that this case from the beginning had implicitly identified editors as being in the wrong. Is that, just, or even fair?

Silk Tork: At one point you commented on a remedy that seemed more creative to me, and just, given the points I've made above. I thought such a remedy was indeed thinking outside the box and could open the door in the future for remedies and sanctions that were more nuanced than what is in play now. Such a remedy allows an editor to prove himself. I'm sorry to see you've discarded that idea. I'll try to find the diff. Thanks for your time... just some thoughts on what seems an unfortunate case.(olive (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC))

I still have the notion of a suspended site-ban in the back of my mind, and have not rejected it completely - indeed I was going to comment on that when I supported the site-ban, but felt I was already saying a lot, and thought I should either do something about it (propose the suspended site-ban myself), or shut up about it. Where I am uncertain about a suspended site-ban is in the awkwardness of such a suspended ban, especially as it could be gamed against Andy. If there is a suspended site-ban, and there is a discussion on metadata and infoboxes and Andy is provoked into being incivil, so he ends up being banned, it would have rather more unforgiving consequences: "Look we gave him a chance and he blew it, so what's the point of giving him another chance?". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You could insist on him having a mentor starting now. What he needs more than anything is someone to tell him "walk away - it's not worth the pain", because he's glaringly bad at recognising when that point has come. Over the last few weeks, he's often emailed me to ask my opinion on a given debate and most often I've told him to walk away - to his credit has done that each time. I won't offer to be his mentor because I'm never going to be seen as impartial and when this is all over, I'm gone. But if you don't get someone who can help him spot when his best option is to step away - even when he's right - then you might as well ban him forever. That would be a tragedy because the guy really loves Wikipedia and still has so much to offer if it could only be channelled into the places where it would be most productive. If you think that the ban that is passing right now will accomplish anything positive, then go ahead; but if you still think there are more productive ways of moving forward, then I'd urge you to speak out. It's not yet too late. --RexxS (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

@Silk Tork: I think what I originally saw in your comment and which at the time I couldn't express well is that while its thoughtful and kind to consider the aftermath on Andy of a suspended site ban, the fact that others will attack him seems to be an unfair reason to limit his activity. instead what sticks in my mind is that your statement must be based on past activity and if so how is it that we can ban one editor across Wikipedia when we know there are bullies in the bushes, and presumably we know who they are. Anyway, thank you for your reponses here and best wishes...and I like Rexx's points, very sensible.(olive (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC))

Could you review a survey?

Hi, SilkTork, I hate laying "work" requests on people, but would you be willing to review the survey at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Survey and the conclusions at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Summary_of_survey?

The essence of the debate was really triggered by the retrospective pronoun changes on the Bradley Manning article, advocated by MOS:IDENTITY which stated Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life.

The survey collected reasons for and against retrospective application. Things became complicated when the survey was unfortunately compromised by an editor who canvassed votes off-site. There were about 100 of these votes; the editor who caused this and myself removed these votes (in good faith), but restored them after a request at ANI and tagged them as canvassed. All the votes cast are present, but some are in collapsed boxes.

A summary of the survey offered some conclusions (offered by both sides), which I enacted here: [2]. That edit has since been reverted, on the grounds that despite the tacit acceptance there isn't a consensus for the current wording, there isn't a consensus to actually change the wording. It's clear now that we need this survey formally closed by someone uninvolved. I was wondering if you would do the honors? The reason I am asking you is that I think it is impossible to approach this debate impartially i.e. whoever it is will have a preconceived stance, so we need someone who will at least review the arguments objectively. If you are too busy or don't feel well placed to do this then that's fine, but I figured there's no harm in asking. Betty Logan (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look. It's an interesting situation. Yes, I will close that. I'll need to read it a bit more - and there are various linked documents to look at, which I've only glanced at so far, so it may take a little while. I have collapsed the entire section so people do not change or add anything while I finish reading. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've closed as no consensus. That has taken up my morning, and I'm now late for a meeting. I will be available later this afternoon to deal with any queries resulting from that close. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for closing the survey. I am sorry it caused you to be late for your meeting, so I hope that didn't cause too much inconvenience. I've only glanced at it so far and will look over your comments more carefully this evening. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No probs. My intent wasn't to complain; my intent was to explain that I didn't have time to hang around - though I can see how it was poorly worded. I was in a rush at the time! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey SilkTork. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)