User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 24

← Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25 →

Second opinion and advice

Hi SilkTork. Would you be willing to give some advice and a second opinion on a matter related to an arbitration case you were active on? I can understand if you don't want to, but I've been wondering who to ask about this and I think you would be able to offer better advice than I could. Carcharoth (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Fire away! I'm online for another 15-20 minutes, then going for a run. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll aim to get my thoughts in some semblance of order and post details here by the end of the day, there's no great rush. Carcharoth (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool - speak to you later. I'll now take advantage of the sunshine and go for a run! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I got sidetracked by other business. What I wanted to ask you to look at, if you have time, is the aftermath of the Ottoman Empire-Turkey naming dispute case (where you will recall I recused). I'm not sure how closely you followed the discussions after the case, but the start of my involvement (after the case closed, summary here) was trying to work out how things got to the state they did (an editor with barnstars and several good articles in a topic area managed to get themselves banned from that topic area with no appeal allowed for nine months - what to make of the barnstars and previous GAs, I'm still not sure).

One starting point would be to read User talk:RoslynSKP (permalink) and maybe the last few sections of the now-archived posts before the current page. You will see that I and another editor (EdChem) gave advice there. Whether that advice was helpful I'm not entirely sure, but I hope it was of some use. You will also see there what happened with the three good article nominations (that dated from before the case was opened). The current status is that RoslynSKP withdrew the nominations, has decided to leave the userspace drafts in limbo, and to move on to editing other topics for the next few months, though I get the feeling that after having worked intensively on those articles she is not quite sure what to turn to next.

One of the suggestions I made towards moving on from this is that she remove material from her userpage relating to the disputes that led to the case. She is reluctant to do so as you will see from her edit here. One of my concerns is that the arbitration case didn't really address, as far as I can see, the interpersonal interactions - it was these, not the rather superficial naming dispute, that was the underlying root cause that needed addressing in the case, IMO. The problem is that I don't have the time or inclination to take this any further (mainly because I want to get back to editing and helping out in the topic area and that is awkward while still discussing this), so I was hoping you would agree to have a look at this. It is a big ask, but would you be willing to give RoslynSKP advice on topics to edit, and how to address or move on from the unresolved tensions? I understand absolutely if you don't have time, but as someone familiar with the case but no longer an arbitrator, your perspective may help. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I was disappointed with the outcome of that case on two levels. The first was that the Committee opted for the topic ban solution, which I remarked at the time would be effectively a site ban, and wouldn't be helpful to the project, as we would be removing an excellent editor in her enthusiastic and active prime. Having made my views on that solution known to the rest of the Committee, and suggesting nuanced alternatives, my second disappointment is that RoslynSKP's behaviour and attitude was such that it was becoming clearer that nuanced solutions would be messy, and that the topic ban solution, crude as it was, was actually the more appropriate outcome given that we have limited time to spend on nursing individuals. I have aligned myself with the nursing as opposed to amputation solution several times in the past, and it has created more work and disruption than going for the quick and clean amputation. I feel that efforts mentoring Matisse, for example, were entirely wasted; and that efforts to assist the editors on the Tea Party case simply dragged out the case. I have been somewhat disappointed and hurt by those outcomes, and while my personal and emotional inclination is still to help and nurse, experience and logic indicates that unless problematic editors are willing and able to help themselves, and to see things in perspective, that giving them help and advice is merely prolonging the inevitable - indeed, it may even make matters worse by encouraging a belief in a delinquent editor that somehow their dubious behaviour and attitude is justified, indeed, supported. I will take a look into the matter, but it may be that RoslynSKP needs to sit out her ban, reflect on what she can do to avoid confrontation in future, and after a successful appeal, come back and continue her good work. If she then encounters problems and is able to handle it appropriately by following the designated conflict resolution routes, then the outcome will have been successful, and the project will benefit; if she doesn't, and ends up in trouble again, then everyone loses out - but I do think that is more in her hands than ours. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the links you gave me. Seems you're giving her support and advice; and you're doing fine - she appreciates your attention. I don't see how my involvement could improve matters. Perhaps you might consider a discussion with her at some point on how she can avoid trouble in future; perhaps also indicating to her that you are prepared to give her your time and attention not because you feel she has been unjustly or inappropriately topic-banned, but because she is able to add valuable content to the project. It would be harmful if you gave her the impression at any point that her topic-ban was not her own fault. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, SilkTork. I may be able to devote more time to this later, but not right now (other than what I am saying here, which is as usual far too long!). The reply I left on her talk page will have to do.

My primary concern here was first the two drafts in her article space (thinking that the topic ban would deprive readers of being able to read them). Having looked closer at the articles, I'm less concerned about them as they are relatively specialised topics and may be 'overwritten' (too long), something that was also pointed out in some of the reviews of the withdrawn GANs. I've not looked at the earlier GAs. One thing I'm no longer sure about is what level the quality of the articles really is, both by Roslyn and others who edit in this area.

The disagreements between editors over how to write articles in this topic area was really at the core of the dispute (including the ANZAC vs Anzac dispute). I don't think the arbitration case really identified or addressed that at all (whether the dispute was impacting on article quality). As a reader of Wikipedia, I'm not happy about that. I'm also not too sure about the footnote that is being used in many of these articles now. It goes back to the key question of whether 'Ottoman' vs 'Turkish' is really a naming dispute. IMO (this analogy was used in one of the MILHIST discussions, but not really taken up), saying that this was a naming dispute is like saying that a disagreement over whether to say 'Napoleonic' or 'French Empire' is a naming dispute. It is more a disagreement over terminology and the right context for using that terminology. A 'pure' naming dispute would be where one name is replaced directly with the other (e.g. the Macedonia/FYROM and Ireland/RoI naming cases), rather than being largely synonymous (depending on the exact context).

To that extent, I think both 'sides' in this dispute were wrong - people writing on Ottoman history should feel free to use either or both terms in the appropriate context. Picking one and sticking with it is an over-simplification, one that most academic texts don't make, and one that we shouldn't either. Better to tell the reader they are largely synonymous and then carry on using them interchangeably. At the moment, if I wrote on Ottoman history in this period (something that is not easy to do without reading up on it), I would use the terms used in my sources (which use both the terms 'Ottoman' and 'Turkish'). I am not sure what would happen if someone came along and pointed to a MILHIST consensus for a footnote to use one term instead, a footnote that will potentially end up in hundreds of articles (and need changing if different sources are used).

Finally, on a technical point, I do think that the provision stating that appeal of the topic ban cannot take place earlier than nine months from the close of the case is unhelpful - if an editor can be productive in another area for several months (I suggested three), do you think ArbCom would consider or reject an earlier appeal? Anyway, now I've got that off my chest, I will leave your talk page in peace and go back to my plans to help out at the current MILHIST backlog drive. Thanks again for the advice, it was really much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Any drafts she has, either in her userspace or at home or, indeed, in her head, can wait until her ban is over. We can only hope she still has the same enthusiasm when she returns to the task. There is a tendency among some quality contributors to overwrite, and to favour WP:Short citation; this can be off-putting to the general reader, and can irritate users such as myself who do want to check the sources not just take them for granted. But, really, in the scale of things, that is a small issue. I would rather we had such writers as RoslynSKP with their tendency to over write and over complicate the citation system, than writers who don't cite sources, and who can't write and research properly. As regards the length of time: that has been set by ArbCom so she now needs to wait until the time is up. Right or wrong, the special thing about ArbCom, is that decisions are final. Even when we disagree with the decision, we accept it, and move on. ArbCom is not intended to be right. ArbCom just makes a decision in order to end a conflict. It's really cool when ArbCom do get things right, but in the nature of conflicts, it is almost impossible for that always to be the case! :-) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, SilkTork. Would you have any advice on what I said about the footnote? I only became fully aware of that footnote after the case closed. I would like to ask some questions about that in the appropriate location, but I don't know when the timing would be right. About RoslynSKP, you refer above to waiting until her ban is up, but the topic ban is indefinite: the nine months is the minimum time before any appeal can be made. It makes more sense for someone to appeal their topic ban when they are ready to appeal it, not some arbitrary figure. If someone is not ready after nine months, no point in appealing. If they understand what they did wrong and are ready after three months (e.g. of collaborative work with a mentor and others), why wait another six months? On the philosophical issues, enthusiasm is not enough. You need to be able to work with others. That seems to be the real cause of the disputes here. Jim Sweeney (the other editor primarily involved in the case) is making excellent progress with editing in this topic area (he works from a sandbox in his user space, like RolynSKP did). The initial statements made at the case request stage made much of the interactions between these two editors. If this is not addressed before any topic ban appeal, I fear the same problems will arise again. As I said to AGK below, if he is happy to leave things the way they are, that is fine, but it is something to consider. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry to butt in here, but the sanctioned editor has nobody but herself to blame for the topic ban. We told her not to add the words "XYZ" to the related articles or she will be immediately topic-banned; several days after the case closed, she added the words "XYZ" with impunity. If we hadn't adopted a decision that provided enforcement of the foregoing ("or she will be topic banned") somebody would have filed an amendment request asking us to topic-ban her anyway (or an administrator would have blocked her indefinitely). It seems to me that the decision adopted was the embodiment of WP:ROPE, and the editor in question chose to hang herself. The only question for a post mortem is "why do people have to insist they're right?" (Hope you're enjoying your new freedom, SilkTork.) AGK [•] 11:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comments will always be welcome here AGK - no need to apologise. I think we are whistling the same tune regarding RoslynSKP's contribution to her situation, and I think Carcharoth feels the same way. I think Carcharoth was just looking for a second opinion on how best to keep RoslynSKP onboard as a valuable contributor.

"Freedom is hard work. Ignorance is bliss." 1984. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

AGK, I've said a bit more about the arbitration case in my reply to SilkTork above (same timestamp as this comment), but now may not be the right time to discuss that in any great detail. Having got good advice from SilkTork, I'm looking to leave this for now and move on to other matters over the coming month, and the impression I get from RoslynSKP's most recent response on her talk page is that she is looking to move on as well. One thing I am still concerned about is the material I suggested she remove from her user page (the notes made prior to/during the case, complaining about other editors). In most arbitration cases I've been involved in, it helps to prompt parties to remove such material after the case closes. If you are happy for that material to remain, then probably best to leave this matter here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for assessment

Category:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for assessment, 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. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Looks like you still need to complete the nomination. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Indef semi

Hi Silk, would you consider unprotecting Synthpop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's been protected for around 2 years, and it only gets around 1100 views? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to raise the question on the article talkpage, see what people think. I'm not actually involved in the article, so I don't know what's happening or what is needed. It looks like I did a GA review and did the protection at the same time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mattisse

Hi. I don't know if you've acknowledged before that your efforts mentoring Mattisse were wasted (IMO worse than wasted), but I'm glad to see it now, after all these years. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC).

Category:Beer and breweries in multi regions

Category:Beer and breweries in multi regions, 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. BDD (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Commented and agree with rename. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That discussion was poorly informed, and the end result was that instead of renaming the category, it was deleted. So I've now created Category:Multinational breweries. Sometimes the Wikipedia process dopesn't work as it should, and more work is created than is neccessary. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Brewing article

Hello,

I've added a very small section on software and internet web developments into the Brewing article if you'd like to check it out to see if it fits in properly.

I'm trying to stop an article on brewing being deleted at the moment, if you'd like to help please look at BeerXML - cheers Liam Devils In Skirts! (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've not yet looked at your additions to brewing, will do shortly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A request

Hi SilkTork. I am an editor and GA nominator of Norwich School (independent school). I have been reading over your reviews of a number of UK schools GA candidates and I was hoping if you might like to review the nomination which I made in December--but naturally only if you would like to do so. Your expertise in this area would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, Duffit ^talk 19:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I've glanced over it (not read it), and it looks detailed and has plenty of cites. Looks like it will need some tidying up of images and there's a tendency toward listing near the bottom, but there's nothing really obviously bad screaming out at me at this stage. I'll do the review. I am slow and picky, but I do always prefer to list an article than fail, so will work toward improving it, and am always prepared to keep a review open as long as positive progress is being made. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Regards, Duffit ^talk 12:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just saw your message on my talk page. Thank you for the thorough review and useful suggestions. To address your points about the 1096 foundation date and the history around 1540 I will need to go back and check the sources next week. In the meantime I've tried to implement your other suggestions. Duffit ^talk 11:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Norwich School of painters

I have for the second time moved this to the correct capitalization, after you moved it back with a completely misleading edit summary. Don't move it again without a discussion on the talk page, and before you start one, you had better try to find some usage of your title outside book titles. Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it. I had assumed I had made a mistake when originally moving it. Good catch. Nice to see someone is paying attention. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Johnson

I read your comments on your modus operandi. Thank you. Dapi89 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't envisage any problems with the article. I'll probably start the review tomorrow. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, there are serious issues concerning the alleged copyright violation. I have put that allegation to the sword, and I would urge you, for the sake of an easy and more harmonious review, to get a copy of the book and look at. There is no such wording in the entire book and not around the pages cited for that paragraph or concerning that information. I hope you can appreciate the frustrating position of someone who is not guilty of a copyvio here. Please see my comments on the GA review. Dapi89 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. OK, I will do that. My response to this situation is informed by my experience on Talk:Roman Dacia/GA1 where I raised concerns regarding copyvio, but didn't follow up on it, and then it later turned out there was a lot of it. As I said, I don't think the copyvio is deliberate, but it can happen that when using a source, an editor remains too close to the original text for one reason or another. When I raised the concern on this review I was assured there was no copyvio, then my first random check revealed there was, so my concerns remain; and I feel slightly disappointed that a more thorough check was not done by yourself before those assurances were given. I would have preferred that the checks are done by yourself as you have the source material, but I am comfortable doing it myself, though we'll have to wait for the book to be delivered. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just tried out a few more phrases, and keep getting the same results for Johnnie Johnson: Spitfire Top Gun and Wing Leader - indeed, too many results for accidental copyvio, and it would be highly unlikely to be deliberate copyvio given your history on Wikipedia. I have got an email address for Dilip Sarkar, so have written directly to him. That may be quicker than waiting for the book to be delivered. I am now suspecting this is an odd glitch on Google Books. You can try it yourself - cut and paste some sentences at random from the text, then paste them (within "quotation marks") into a Google Books search - you'll note that Sarkar's book often comes up as a result, but if you change one of the words within the quoted sentence, then the book no longer comes up as a result. Odd. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to be sure I did it again and it does not appear. I searched for Johnson's first contact with enemy fighters did not go as planned. Bader undertook a patrol with Dundas as his number two manually and cannot find it. I checked from pages 44-54. I just want to be vindicated on this point as a matter of principal. I have tried your search and it brings up Wikipedia, his own biography Wing Leader and, as you say, Sarkar's book. This is weird. Dapi89 (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this may be a glitch. How would you like to proceed? I have already emailed Sarkar and we can wait for his reply, or you could scan or take a photo of, say, pages 44 - 45, and email them to me, and we could clear this up today. I understand the frustration you must feel, and - given your history, and your clear assertion that you have checked carefully - I would be prepared to continue the review without further checks, but if you wish to be more clearly vindicated (and I understand that) I am quite willing to wait a little longer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not in a rush to complete so I'm content to go ahead which ever way. Over the next day or so I'll clear up all the other matters and loose ends. Dapi89 (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Everards logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Everards logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. There was a mistake made in the article, now fixed. Your choice, but it may be worth taking a look at the recent history of the named article for non-free images to see if there was an error or a vandal edit before nominating. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:AIAssessment

Template:AIAssessment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Left comment. If there is an assessment process for the Draft namespace, then the template could be renamed and adjusted to fit there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)