User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 50

← Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51 →

Interaction Ban Question

Hi SilkTork. I am interested in changing my username due to the confusion that I sometimes have had with User:S Marshall. I am also interested in avoiding people thinking my real name is "Marshal" (which may or may not be the case in truth). However, I cannot properly proceed with the changes until a couple of interaction ban editing restrictions are closed (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions). I think that a significant amount of time has passed since the editing restrictions were placed and, given my understanding that ArbCom remedies are not meant to be punitive, was wondering how could I go about asking the current committee to review and consider removing the restrictions. I assume Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment is the venue through which to proceed, but I wanted to confirm and ask for advice on how to go about proceeding with the request. Thanks in advance!--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 20:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in answering, I have been visiting relatives in France. You can change your name at any time, with all your past contributions (and any editing restrictions) being attached to your new name. What you can't do is have a clean start - which is when a user starts a completely new account with no connection to the old account. Separate to changing your name, you may, if you wish, apply for any ArbCom imposed editing restrictions to be lifted at Clarification and Amendment. I have checked, and I was inactive for the case in which you were involved; as such I don't have any knowledge of it, so am not in a position to say if your appeal would be successful or not. SilkTork (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries; I appreciate the response. Patience is always important. I'll make a decision in a few days and plan the best course of action. Thanks again SilkTork!--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 01:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Fodbold-fan (again)

Reaching out for advice/assistance with Fodbold-fan (talk · contribs) before I escalate at ANI or similar. You know the backstory. I am concerned he is slipping into his old ways - for example he "updated with Soccerway", including adding height. Except that Soccerway doesn't mention this person's height, and another source which does has a different one... GiantSnowman 08:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I just got back from France. I'll take a look at this in the morning. SilkTork (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I looked into it. What I see is that he updated the data in Alex Oikkonen based on what he knew. Most of it is accurate in the existing Soccerway source in the article, but the height comes from other sources, such as Google and TransferMarkt, which are not in the article. You have changed the height to match with what an existing source in the article, NFT, says. That source says they get their info from "GBO", but it's not clear who GBO are. Anyway what is it he's done that you feel needs another admin to sort out? SilkTork (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hope you enjoyed Europe while you still can... :(

My issue is that this is a user with a long history of adding unsourced content to articles/using misleading/innaccurate edit summaries. A word from somebody else would no doubt help.

PS Transfermarkt is not a reliable source, by the way. GiantSnowman 16:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing his edit summary as being problematic enough to warrant a word. The main edit as I see it was to update the club the player is signed to, and that is the really significant information, and he did that fine, mentioning that it could be checked against an existing source. He added the height information which was not in the article, using information that is prominent on the internet. If you put "Alex Oikkonen height" into Google what you get in your face is 1.84 m. You have changed that to 1.80 based on another source which is relying on GBO for its info (who/what is GBO - do you know?). We don't at this point actually know which info is correct. Usually in cases where sources differ we make a footnote (as in George Harrison regarding his middle name) or omit the detail if it is minor - see Wikipedia:Conflicting sources. You haven't done that. So, neither of you have made a perfect edit, but you have both done what you both feel is an appropriate edit to try and improve the article. Any imperfection in his edit or yours is not serious enough to warrant a specific talking to given we are dealing with something so minor. But it may be something we bring up as part of a wider discussion in a neutral or even positive/encouraging manner.

My wife is French, and her job is to facilitate bringing in European funding. She is currently working on bringing in 68 million Euro to fund research into tidal energy. If there's a hard Brexit, the funding will not go ahead, and the British government will not take it over. So, the funding will be lost, the research into tidal energy will not go ahead, and my wife will be out of a job. And she fears for what will happen then. She is employed by Norwich Local Authority, and they are applying for a Leave to Stay on her behalf, but the applications are not as straightforward as the government is leading people to think, and those that have already applied have encountered difficulties. If there is a hard Brexit, and she does not have a Leave to Stay in place, she is effectively an illegal immigrant as she is here as a European citizen. While she may not be expelled, she may find it difficult to return to Britain if she visits France for any reason. So, yes, enjoy Europe while we still can! What is particularly frustrating is she came over to the UK in the late 1980s under a government initiative to encourage native French teachers into schools. And she has been here ever since, always working, always contributing to the UK, always paying taxes. Whatever happens with Brexit, I can honestly say that the past two years have been stressful for us, and for friends we have who are in similar situations. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Contact

Hi, would it be okay for me to email you about a personal concern I have, or would it be inappropriate? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. SilkTork (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit dispute/misunderstanding

Hi SilkTork, I tried to make an addition to the MH370 article in the section "In Popular Culture" but this was deleted with an explanation that my added reference is an original research. I explained that I added a reference to the book of fiction (nowhere close to the original research) and revised the wording of my addition to explain it, but it was again deleted without explanation. I am new to Wikipedia and understand that I can make mistakes in my first posting and the ensuing commenting on it (e.g., I did not know that I can only comment on the talk page and not on the edit summary and I am sorry for that mistake) but I still think that my addition to the section is appropriate and of value. It would be immensely helpful if you could look into this matter. Thanks a lot! Regards, Kenneth.

I see you have been helped in this matter. SilkTork (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Case comment

Hi SilkTork. Just as an FYI in response to your comment at the recent case request, dispute resolution was already tried quite a bit on the talk pages; Feyd finally conceded to the content others wanted over at Insect, but then went over to Decline in insect populations to repeat the same issues where others already commented too (and I've talked to them about WP:POVFORK too). I'll definitely admit the talk page is a mess from trying work through various issues with them. The main issue though was the violation of discretionary sanctions through aspersions I mentioned in my case comment. Normally once editors start doing that, they are topic banned from the topic at AE (I've lost count of how many we've had to do this for now), so that would be the next dispute resolution step as I said I was planning to pursue before I saw this case. Given the recent violation at an actual case filing though, is it better to wait for you all to decide on something, or is such behavior at a case request supposed to be handled as DS violations at AE instead? It's a bit of an out of the ordinary process question compared to situations when we've had to deal with editor violating the principle. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It is always better to wait until one formal discussion ends before opening a new one elsewhere. So wait until this case request is dismissed before starting a new dispute resolution discussion elsewhere. The exception to that is it would be permissible (and a good idea) if you and FeydHuxtable talked together to clarify your points of disagreement, so if you are to raise this at any other venue, you are able to give folks there a much clearer idea of what it is you want. Though you may find in talking openly, politely, reasonably, and with commitment to FeydHuxtable, that you are both able to find a way forward. After all, you both want the same thing - to improve information on insects on Wikipedia so readers will be accurately and neutrally informed. SilkTork (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer on procedure, and that's kind of what I suspected. As for the rest you mentioned, that had already been tried extensively across multiple talk pages. I wasn't about to give a blow by blow there, especially due to the word limit. Combine that with the battleground behavior and violating the GMO/pesticide DS, and we're kind of at the point where reasonable routes have been exhausted and the DS need to be enforced instead despite holding back on that option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Abbreviation of "St" in church articles.

Hello, I need to ask you to, at least for the time being, cease your current wholesale changing of article names for churches to include a full stop after "St". Such mass changes of this kind without first seeking some consensus among the Wikipedia community is likely to only cause conflict and other problems with those editors, such as myself, who follow the now well-established and usual British English style for Britain-focused articles which is to not use the full stop in this way. The MOS on such matters is somewhat in conflict with itself on this matter and it requires clarification on the appropriate MOS talk pages. Can we try to do in this a constructive way please. Thank you. Anglicanus (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed - the MOS probably needs to recognise an ENGVAR difference here as well as in place names. Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork and Johnbod : I've raised this matter at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. Please also comment there if you wish. This matter needs clarification. Thanks. Anglicanus (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - meanwhile these moves should stop. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Anglicanus; I hadn't realised that restoring the dot in St. Paul's, Deptford would be controversial as I was following the usage as outlined in our guides MOS:POINTS and WP:CHURCH. I will take part in Johnbod's linked discussion. SilkTork (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

RfPP

Can you please consider actioning this request. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a reason for protection. Can you explain further? SilkTork (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

THe IP is changing years active, children field a couple times, and also making unsourced claime here: Alan Tudyk - FlightTime (open channel) 23:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That is annoying, but the edits are minor and few, and meanwhile there are positive edits on those articles by other IPs. We tend to only protect an article (which prevents edits by all IPs) if there is evidence of long term abuse by IPs. You are doing the right thing in quickly reverting them. The person behind the edits is using the Spectrum cable service in Columbus, but their IP address is not fixed, so blocking them wouldn't be effective, and I know nothing about range-blocks. Quickly reverting them is a good approach because that way they will soon get fed up of making their petty edits, and go do something else. SilkTork (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've already reverted three times. - FlightTime (open channel)

New articles

Now that I'm over half way to my next appeal date I think we should start discussing some possibilities. I have listed some at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks that could be done with a bot. My main priority is creating missing (current) parishes. While I don't expect that (providing a disclose the editing restriction) anyone would have a problem with me organizing a bot request to create new articles with the current restrictions, I think it would be best to wait until my page move restrictions are removing since the new articles would probably involve lots of page moves to (such as disambigating existing articles that conflict with the new articles and the new articles would likely need moving to).

Given that it might take a while to organize and approve that it might make sense to propose it in a month or so, since that would give about 2 months until the approximate time (mid July) that my restrictions would likely be changed.

Adding the census data to existing articles is probably more difficult than creating new articles (for a bot). But I believe that bots are more reliable and there's less risk of human error etc even though some editors dislike bot page creation, as long as I demonstrate that articles with reasonable content that is more efficiently done with a bot there's no reason why this couldn't be done. (new bot article example) (existing article example).

If we manage to create new articles with bots then I would have far less of a problem with the editing restrictions since that would remove the need to create obviously notable topics and mean that those that are less obvious (and require manual creation) could be done with approval. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• And for reference there's Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BotMultichill 9 (see List of listed buildings in Kilbarchan, Renfrewshire for example) which could used as an example for the listed buildings in England. The only problem which I can see with those articles (which isn't much of a problem, never mind being one to merit not doing it) is that the articles include unnecessary disambiguation (there are no other uses of Kilbarchan, never mind places that have listed buildings). You can see from here that the English Wikipedia doesn't have many bot-created articles but I have faith that its a good idea to do so. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you would likely encounter resistance to the notion of creating articles with a bot. I am not interested in assisting you with that. I suggest you look elsewhere for advice and assistance. SilkTork (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There are users who have done this before (the other example is User:Rambot) who probably know a lot more about this and would be able to assist. As far as the actual contributions go an experienced bot operator (not me) would probably run the bot (which would obviously be done after community consensus). While the edits to existing articles (again with community approval) might be done with a script created by another user (since I don't have the understanding of how to do this and the community would probably not trust me to do so anyway in addition to the fact that I wouldn't feel confident creating/editing the script myself) but then I or another person (or bot) could preform the actual edits. My main concern with the current situation as noted with creating new articles is that I would likely also need to move existing articles. If the community aren't going to remove the page moving restriction in a reasonable amount of time I might just have to make do anyway but I don't see why the move restrictions will likely remain in place since I don't believe there's a significant concern currently and most of the undiscussed moves I would probably make are just housekeeping. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Saini recipients of military awards and decorations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Saini recipients of military awards and decorations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saini recipients of military awards and decorations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KCVelaga (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Peaceful penetration.

Hello. Could I suggest you take a look at these observations?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peaceful_penetration#Not_well-informed.

Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. SilkTork (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Renaming an article (U.S. intervention in Venezuela)

Discussion moved to article talkpage

Best greetings to you. Some days ago, I had created an article by the name of "U.S. intervention in Venezuela", but a user (Jamez42) renamed the title to "Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis" although there was/is disagreement for such change, from first. And even I mentioned in the AFD that: "...this title ("U.S. intervention in Venezuela") is the best related-subject to present the concept of the article; and such phrase is notable enough based on news/media to have an independent page..." On the other hand, another user (Mhhossein) expressed his disagreement for this change, and mentioned (in AFD [1]) about the necessary of request for such rename (to see others' view). E.g., in reaction to such rename, Mhhossein said: "This is not how we decide on the titles. I suggest you make a move request after the AFD is closed" --but-- Jamez42 renamed it without starting to survey the view of others. Afterwards, I'd undo this rename (to return it to its first title), but seemingly I hadn't/haven't such option to undo that. So, I appreciate your help --to solve the discussion (to return its first name). Thank you. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @Ali Ahwazi:, what you are doing is called "forum/admin shopping" and it is a discouraged practice. You were already asked in the talk page of another uninvolved admin if you discussed the issue with me, which you have not. I can continue the discussion that we had at the talk page and the AfD before, but I feel it would be easier if we talked this directly. Best regards, --Jamez42 (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC) The name of an article should reflect the contents. If the article is about U.S. intervention in Venezuela, then that would be the appropriate name. If the article is about Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis then that would be the appropriate name. It may be appropriate to have two articles - one focusing on U.S. involvement/intervention in Venezuela/ the Venezuelan presidential crisis, the other focusing on Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis. These are matters for editorial discussion on the talkpage of the article. SilkTork (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @SilkTork: To be frank, Jamez42 hijacked the article by moving the former title, despite the clear objections, and then changing the title. Anyway, we can now have two separate articles. @Jamez42: You had to start a discussion before making such a contested move, specially when you are advised not to do so before making the move. @Ali Ahwazi: I suggest re-creating an article focusing on the previous title. --Mhhossein talk 13:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC) This conversation needs to take place on the article talkpage, not my usertalkpage. I shall move it there now. SilkTork (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks Before leaving, I just wanted to give thanks for the move. Best wishes, --Jamez42 (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The Rama arbitration case

As you noted Rama did something that is in effect unsanctionable, and largely what is expected of an admin. That's the purpose of my text on the role of admins in the fight against vandalism, and that it feels to me that there is much in this case about the duties of admins but very little about their purpose.

You express concern about what you call the battlefield mentality Rama exhibited. But I think this concern is overwrought and open to abuse. Rama was effectively the victim of a pile-up, (which Fram admits using such circumlocutions as 'ill advised actions'). The pile-up could have been coordinated, or just happenchance, it's not really possible to know. It should have been the role of other fellow admins to show support for Rama and try to defuse the situation, and absent that, and the extremely rapid escalation to the arbcom, anyone would have felt tense, and indeed Rama was pretty chill about it.

If this is found to be a fault, you are then saying that any group of vandals (and I'm not saying this is the case here) being boldly blocked should pile up on the admin in the hope of making them write unkind words and then use that to have the admin in front of the arbcom within a couple of hours, with some odds of getting them desysopped. That's not a good system to minimise vandalism in the encyclopedia. And this is particularly problematic when more and more political interests try to tweak the encyclopedia in their favour.CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we put aside talk of vandalism, as that doesn't relate to anything I said, and is anyway not remotely connected to this case.

I don't think we are seeing Rama's responses in the same way. But that's OK - there are always varying ways to interpret what someone says.

If you feel others are victimising or harassing Rama, then please bring evidence to me of that, and I will look into it and give my views.

I have already done so and indeed Fram got admonished in Commons for their cross-wiki behaviour. The timeline also shows Rama facing aggressive questioning from a surprisingly large number of users given the topic's apparent non-notability. (One has to have found oneself at the receiving end of a pile-up to understand how it feels. It's much worse from the inside...) There is also Sitush suggesting that Wade's contribution should be scrutinised more and 'she ain't seen nothing yet'. It's all in the arbcom page.CyrilleDunant (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I am having difficulty following what you say. Are you French? If so, you could post to me in French. My wife is French, and would help me with the translation. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I could write it in French but I don't think this would help :). But I believe in trying to make my views clear, so let me try again.

When Rama re-establishes the article because they think it was removed in error, this is indistinguishable from re-establishing the article because they think it was removed as a form of vandalism. It has to be: the actions taken by Rama are the same and the reason they give is the same ('the topic is notable'). If that's OK -- I think it is, it's the job of an admin -- then we must be very careful about what follows. Imagine, if you will, that you are a vandal. What would be the best outcome for you? I would argue it is that you get rid of the admin who foiled you.

It means that if there is immediately following a controversial use of admin tools a very low threshold of error for an admin to get arbcomed and perhaps desysopped (you know, they used the wrong words, or they replied in more than 10 minutes to queries) as a result of this cases, then every vandal will try to provoke every admin and in fact, in many cases will succeed and obtain a desysop. This outcome would not be helpful to the encyclopedia.CyrilleDunant (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

When you talk about vandalism you completely lose me. Can we just leave vandalism out of this because it is not relevant and is diverting attention from what you are saying. SilkTork (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What's the purpose of an admin? What are the conditions that allow admins to fulfil their purpose?CyrilleDunant (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Rephrasing previous: If there is immediately following a controversial use of admin tools a very low threshold of error for an admin to get arbcomed and perhaps desysopped (you know, they used the wrong words, or they replied in more than 10 minutes to queries) as a result of this cases, then every unhappy contributor with an axe to grind will try to provoke every admin and in fact, in many cases will succeed and obtain a desysop. This outcome would not be helpful to the encyclopedia.CyrilleDunant (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

If you are concerned that Rama has been inappropriately treated by someone, please use diffs to indicate where this happened so I can look at them. SilkTork (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it not be inappropriate for me to repost the diffs already provided in the arbitration page?CyrilleDunant (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No it would not, but you could also direct me to the place on the arbitration page where those diffs are. Up to you. Just as long as I know what you are talking about I can respond. SilkTork (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

A piece of advice

Because you seem so keen on advising others in the most inappropriate way. A man with a gun cannot advise, he can only threaten. As an arbitrator, you cannot advise people you are to pass judgement on, only threaten them.

You don't get to tell yourself you only tried to help, because you did the reverse, which was obvious to anyone outside your bubble.

I don't know that you are capable of understanding this piece of advice, but I have hope.CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Bot created articles

I've now made some drafts for bot articles at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current), User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Listed buildings and User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Scottish CPs and have notified the projects. Notice that for the English civil parishes that I have suggested a low creation rate of 10 a day of which I could check (and possibly improve) the articles. As far as the listed buildings articles go I'm far less concerned if that's done and if is isn't they could just be added to the parish article anyway. In order to be able to do the bot created articles efficiently and properly at least I would need to have the move restriction (and be allowed to create DABs and redirects in mainspace) removed. IMO this is a relatively low request on my behalf since I would clearly like to create many articles with bots but CPs should be the absolute minimum. As far as my AFC submissions have gone, every one of them have been accepted (the only issue there was was at North Clifton, see User talk:Eagleash#North Clifton copyright but was simply some long-standing text in another article). Obviously there will be many articles that I can't have created with a bot but if we just allow me to move pages and create DABs/redirects in mainspace that would be sufficient at least for the bot articles. Given that I'm allowed to create pages in other namespaces now and DAB pages and redirects in the article namespace aren't subject to the same rules (but rather those similar to content in other namespaces) I can't see an issue with allowing DAB pages and redirects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) SilkTork, see my comments here. Unless I'm wildly misreading this proposal, I'm inclined to block this bot on sight if I see the slightest indication that it doesn't have approval both from BAG and from the relevant projects; this looks like yet another attempt to crapflood the wiki with stubs. (Begoon, you were there last time around, do you have any thoughts?) ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be an existing bot (say like User:BotMultichill) I don't have the skills or understanding anyway to create a bot and am restricted to 1 account anyway. @Iridescent: you did misunderstand in that you thought I was intending on creating an article for every building, there shouldn't be, just one list for the entire parish. Yes it will need approval from BAG. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent, I haven't looked deeply into this particular case, but I do share your concerns about "crapflood[ing] the wiki with stubs". At a minimum this would need BAG approval and that of the projects concerned, yes. I'd also like to see an explicit statement from Crouch, Swale that they would STOP the second ANYONE asked them to - for the protection of the wiki, and the protection of Crouch, Swale from reimposition of blocks. I confess that, given the history, I'm uneasy about Crouch, Swale exercising sufficient judgement in this area. -- Begoon 23:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon: the process would be something like (1) I make suggestions and form ideas for the articles (which I have done at the subpages) (2) I ask for feedback from the relevant projects (which is going on now) (3) it would go through BAG (4) a bot operator would use a bot to preform the creations, as opposed to me! unless the community though it better for me to use a script to semi-automatically create them in which case yes I would stop the moment anyone asked me to. And yes if there was even the slightest concern the I'd ask the bot operator to stop (or change) the process. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for Crouch, Swale to present their ideas to others such as Begoon and Iridescent. As well as not being in favour of articles being created by a bot, I am not familiar enough with bots and bot approval to be able to give appropriate advice on the matter. SilkTork (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you see how the suggestion of doing something like 5 a day is reasonable for the parish articles? There are around 700 missing articles so if we did only 5 or 6 a day then the project would be done by the end of the year. However it wouldn't be possible to have a creation rate that slow for the lists of listed buildings since there are over 10 thousand CPs in England if we did it at 5 a day it would take years! However I'd be OK with the listed buildings articles being declined since there just an ancillary part of this the most important part is at least having an article for every CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Civil parish bot but noted that I intend to delay it until after my next appeal so that hopefully I will have the page move restriction removed (since the process will likely involve many moved) and page creation restriction (so that I can create DAB pages). Hopefully my restrictions will be removed entirely but at least if the moves and DAB creations were allowed that would be workable for the bot project. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: Brewing

Thanks! Your explanation was clear and to the point. I don't do no tea, cookies, or kittens. Have some PASTA. Tapered (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I do like pasta. SilkTork (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

urgent help needed with my Wiki page - query

urgent help needed with my Wiki page - query[edit source]

Dear SilkTork:

I need help with my Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michael_Cummings

I myself did not create the article. In 2010 or so, a librarian in a West Virginia public school did. She is deceased. Since, editors of journals having published my short stories and a former literary agent added to the page.

Recently, I made changes to the page, specifically uploading two photos of my book covers. But I did not follow protocol. Tags at the top of the page appeared, one after another, each worse.

I myself have not touched the actual article since this incident started six weeks ago, but have instead remained markedly earnest and cooperative and forthcoming on the User Talk page.

On my USER TALK, page you will see extensive dialogue between me and who seems to be only Wiki editor involved "Bonadea." She's well-informed and reasonable.

A few weeks back, she redrafted the page to sound encyclopedic, but she removed too much, I think. I had thought at the time, she was ready to remove the tags. Not so. She still feels the page is "autobiographical," even though I have dug up many links to reliable sources for her. Today, she's less and less available to help, as she is a teacher with a heavy class load.

I so much want the page to exist at its best. It would make me very proud, and I honestly feel who I am as a writer and what accomplishments I have made are of note.

But the paragraphs about my article become scant as the descend, and the entire page is lacking my most important accomplishments.

Again, I have available all links to the entirety of my USER TALK page.

My first novel won The Paterson Prize for Books for Young People 2009 (Grade 7-12), with a link to a reliable source. This a great award. But it is not listed.

I want acknowledgement of my receiving an Honorable Mention in The Best American Short Stories 2007, again a great accomplishment, with a link available.

I want acknowledgement being nominated for The Pushcart Prize - a fabulous achievement not listed.

I want all my 75 plus published short stories listed, not just a handful as shown on my page. All stories are reputably published is good university journals and commercial magazines. I want them presented in columns and set off my the lines of a box around them, as I seen on many sites.

I'v spent thirty years of my life - every day devoted - to becoming a writer of accomplishment. I sacrificed income and the great life experience of having a family I could support.

A few questions:

How quickly can you get to work on the Wiki page?

Do other editors get involved with you?

Will you willingly communicate with me here on your email page, rather on the USER TALK for all the world to see. I think "Bonadea" would prefer not seeing my comments, as I am the subject of the article, and would prefer working only with a professional Wiki editor.

I look forward to a prompt reply.

Thank you very much.

LankyKeller (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello John / LankyKeller. I took a look at your article. Unfortunately it does not appear to meet our inclusion criteria, and appears to be a promotional article written to generate interest in your books, which is against policy. As such I cannot assist you with this, and have listed the article for discussion with a view to having it removed from Wikipedia. You may join in the discussion and give your views as to why it should be kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Cummings. SilkTork (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Monmouth Street (disambiguation)

Thanks for moving Monmouth Street. Wouldn't it be best to delete the redirect at Monmouth Street (disambiguation) though? No such disambiguation page exists, so keeping the redirect is needlessly confusing, and I can't see any WP:ATTREQ-related reason to keep it either. All the best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, now done. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for supporting transparency on Wikipedia :) starship.paint (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Insufficient.

		The Original Barnstar
		For supporting transparency on Wikipedia. --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I do like tea and stars. SilkTork (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'm glad you accepted the review. Personally, I think it's well within the realm of possibility that the ban was reasonable/appropriate, but the lack of transparency is atrocious!!! If they can do this to one user with impunity, they can do it to others for personal or political reasons. Transparency removes that possibility (at least not without public backlash). A secret court with no checks and balances is ripe for abuse and I appreciate you taking steps to hear out the matter! Buffs (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF Conversation

I appreciate the line you're drawing about off-wiki and on-wiki work and ArbCom. It's principled and I know appreciated by many. The one piece I would ask you to consider are the advantages of real time communication and discsussion. Text based discussion has its advantages - I have stopped myself more than once from saying something I'd regret because I had the chance to filter it through my fingers rather than my mouth - but voice conversations have advantages too. Can you find a way to promote that on-wiki transparency through things like minutes being posted, while not losing the advantages of real time communications and access you have to the WMF as part of ArbCom? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you by Guettarda

I appreciate the clarity and directness of this statement. I also appreciate the sentiments expressed. Guettarda (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming ARCA

With less that a week before my appeal I'm wondering what you think about some possible outcomes. A suggestion I have for the next 6 months is so that I can do the relevant cleanup with the bot created civil parishes that my restrictions be changed to allow:

• Page moves (with a 1RR or 0RR restriction)
• Allowed to create DAB pages in article namespace
• Allowed to create redirects in article namespace

Obviously as with the geographical NC restriction a suspension that the prior restrictions could be reinstated by an uninvolved administrator. I think these requests are reasonable an the community should accept them. Obviously if the community are happy with removing the restrictions entirely then that's great by focusing on the bot task of missing (current) CPs seems reasonable for now.

As far as page moves go I'd defer to my comment in January that only 4 were contested and only 1 of those wasn't moved (which I'm sure you'd agree could easily have had consensus to move).

As far as creating DAB pages and redirects in mainspace they don't follow the same rules as articles in mainspace since they aren't articles, the rules rather are similar to creating pages in other namespaces (which I'm now allowed to do anyway). This would have prevented cases like User talk:Crouch, Swale#Broxtowe.

Note that another way we could do the bot creation if even the 6 a day in mainspace fails is to have them created in the draftspace (or similar) and I could them move them into mainspace (another suggested way for WP:MASSCREATION). Obviously if the bot process isn't possible at all (which wouldn't seem reasonable) then we'd need to think of another way but as long as the bot process works I'd be happy with these suggestions for 6 months. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

I've always had a great deal of respect for you, but during the unfortunate series of events that are plaguing us, I've noticed you've been calm, collected, and sensitive to your fellow volunteers, while maintaining a high level of professionalism. That means a lot to me, and I'm sure, others. I'm not sure how this story will end, but I wanted to make sure I told you that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ha! And there's me thinking that I have been overly emotional, at times militant, and pretty close to being chucked out of ArbCom for being unprofessional. ;-) Thanks for the note. And WMF think we are a toxic community. If only Katherine Maher, and others in WMF, spent some time here they would discover exactly what sort of community we have. It's not perfect, but it's 100% better than they appear to think it is. This extraordinary community built this encyclopedia, and wrote all these policies and guidelines regarding assume good faith, consensus, and no personal attacks. And we did that in our spare time while holding down jobs in hospital emergency departments, building up our own companies, feeding our children, and doing the everyday shopping. Yes, there is split milk and biscuit crumbs in between the words of every article. There is also hope, despair, anger and frustration, and sometimes these things are unpleasant. But I have been here for 13 and a half years, and worked most of that in some form of dispute resolution, and for most of that time I have found the community to be warm and supportive. The only problems I encountered where when I was new here. And looking back at that time, the problems were mainly due to misunderstandings and lack of effective communication - mostly mine. At the start of this year we heard the GiantSnowman case, in which an admin had been inappropriately hostile to a number of new users, and had harassed some for long periods. What he had been doing was totally unacceptable. But he was also an experienced and respected long term admin. We didn't desysop him or give him a one year ban. We looked closely at what he had been doing and devised a solution to steer him away from harassment and keep him doing productive work. If WMF had been paying attention, they would have noted that this community and this ArbCom can solve tricky problems and keep the project working. SilkTork (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If you weren't emotional, with just a little militant tone in your voice, I wouldn't be thanking you ;) That just shows you care. I'm pretty mellow, until I'm not, and I can be a bit more militant than you, although we both share the same respect for process and accepting it even if it doesn't go your way. That is what is missing here: process. Of course, you already know this. We need Arbs to advocate for us, not just "tow the WMF line". If we need to develop better processes for harassment, ok, then we will, as a community, we are 1000% more flexible than the Foundation. One RFC and a week later, we can make radical changes when necessary. It seems their focus is more about appearances and fund raising, but I was here when Wikipedia was poor, and the content mattered more than anything. It still should. The same for the people that make that content. Anyway, good luck with the next couple of weeks. You're going to need it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)