Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.
SilkTork

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

That article has seen a succession of edits which do not even show a pretense of seeking a consensus. I suggest that it be locked in the pre edit-war form. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've locked the article. That's good. Please review the recent history of edits, particularly the edit summaries. I've just noticed that our new moderator is not an admin. I recommend an immediate topic ban for Xenophrenic, perhaps in the form of a temporary injunction, until ArbCom makes its final ruling. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a week with no internet access, so I am not fully aware of what is happening. It may take me a while to catch up. But following Collect's alert above it was pretty obvious to anyone that edit warring was taking place. I have to confess some disappointment that nobody had protected the article earlier. It may well be that there is a chill effect on the article because ArbCom is involved (and that in itself is a cause for concern), or it may be that nobody is sufficiently interested (and that is representative of a wider concern for the community). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My observations, if I may: yes, and yes. There is a chill effect on any article when ArbCom is involved, moreso when an ArbCom member becomes directly involved with the article, and two things are happening to the admin ranks over the long term: (A) many admins are becoming less active and (B) some are becoming desysopped over time, with inadequate numbers of replacements coming up. It's a war of attrition. Appropriate candidates should be actively recruited, and we should consider reviewing former admins to restore admin status. I do have a few candidates in mind. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing. Xenophrenic has violated 1RR. [1] [2] Please review those two diffs and focus on the first seven words, "The Tea Party movement focuses on reform." He reverted the same content twice within 25 minutes. There was some other content that was removed for a second time a few minutes later.[3] [4] [5] This demonstrates that it wasn't a fluke or a mistake. Accordingly, since I was blocked for 24 hours for violating 1RR, in spite of my honest belief that I was removing a BLP violation, I respectfully suggest that Xenophrenic should be blocked for editwarring. His most recent block for editwarring was 48 hours in February, so this one should be longer. Also posting this at the editwarring noticeboard. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I notice the ruling that Arthur Rubin isn't allowed to take admin actions on Cyber's behalf. Since Cyber isn't an admin, how is he supposed to edit a protected article?

Xenophrenic is facing a topic ban from all articles related to the Tea Party movement. The vote is currently 2-0. This topic ban is expected to take effect within days.[6]

He's facing this topic ban because of the overwhelming evidence against him regarding his tendentious editing.[7] This includes new evidence of recent editwarring, which led to the current full protection of the article by you. He violated the 1RR article probation with that editwar and, if you hadn't locked down the article, Xeno would have been facing an immediate block and topic ban for the editwar. Since his previous block for editwarring was 48 hours in February, this one probably would have been for 72 hours. Mark Arsten ruled at WP:3RRN that a block after your lockdown of the article would have been punitive rather than protective, and gave Xeno a final warning.

Since Xeno dodged that bullet, he's continued his tendentious behavior on the Moderated Discussion page, unabated. This post on the Moderated Discussion page [8] can only be seen as an act of deliberate provocation and mockery. I have run out of patience. Please impose the topic ban on Xenophrenic that should have been imposed when he started the recent edit war, to continue until the ArbCom ruling becomes final, as an admin taking action under community sanctions. And when contemplating this action, please recall how easy it was for North8000 and me to get a topic ban, and for me to get a 24-hour block. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave a comment on the discussion page. I didn't have time last night. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I did try asking subsequent questions of the committee in my first post. Do I really have to start a new thread to get them answered when I am named as one of the parties to the current thread?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of time anyone will wait for a response to a query will vary depending on circumstances. The Committee is composed of unpaid volunteers who all have real life commitments which will have varying pulls on their time so it is not to be expected that all members are available at all times. Committee members are expected to make reasonable efforts to respond to queries, though as those queries will pop up in various places, it can be difficult to keep track of them. We attempt to manage between us to be available and to respond reasonably promptly to the varied calls on our time, though there may be some delays on occasion. If you have not had a response within a few days, it is quite OK to prod an individual Committee member, or to send the Committee an email. If you'd like me to look at your questions please let me know and I'll do so - though I think I may need to look further into the situation to get a better understanding of what has occurred. My response to Sandstein's questions were general, as the questions appear to me to be worded in a general way - looking more for a general guideline than for input and opinion on the events that prompted the questions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi. If it's no bother, would you like to voice your support/oppose and comment at my FA nomination of Confusion (album)? It's a relatively short article to review. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Left some comments. Ping me if more is needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia, and while I was looking at dispute resolution, I noticed the editors help section where you are listed as an editor that is willing to help. I have tried to change an article 3 times, where there is no source listed.I added a reliable source, but my changes were removed three times. We have talked extensively on the Talk page, to no avail. I also tried the dispute resolution page, but the other editors did not want to be involved, so it was closed. I would like to find out what my options are at this time, because any changes I make, however minor, are removed from the article. Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!Docia49 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)71.213.14.57 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the discussion on Talk:Burzynski Clinic, and it seems things are progressing fairly and appropriately. People there are by and large giving the right advice, and are listening patiently and civilly to your comments. It can sometimes take time to appreciate the ways of Wikipedia, and to understand why things are done the way they are. It is important to note that Wikipedia is the summary of information published in independent reliable sources. As such, the approach taken by the article is the right one. It is a neutral summary of what independent reliable sources say about the clinic. If you find that you continue to disagree with the approach taken on that article, I suggest you leave it alone and edit on less contentious and controversial topics for a while - gaining a deeper understanding of how Wikipedia works, without having to deal with your edits being reverted. Then perhaps come back to the article in two or three months, and see how you feel about it then. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hellow SilkTork, I am sorry to trouble you. This year, I have had to remove the same hoax from Nescafé 3 times. Is there a case to be made for having the article protected in some way and if so, who would be the best person to approach? Op47 (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nescafé article does experience occasional low level unhelpful edits from IP accounts; however, the article also benefits from edits from IP accounts, so blocking all IP accounts from editing the article at this stage would be inappropriate. I have tracked down the IP account responsible and blocked it for three months - see User talk:94.192.35.21. Even though it appears a static account, unused by anyone else, and it has made inappropriate edits a year apart, and also to the Crow article, we don't generally issue long term blocks on IP accounts, especially for such low level disruption, so three months is the most I can dish out at this stage. It is possible that the person behind the account may do it again next year from the same IP account - if so, let me know, and I'll give a longer block. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Op47 (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you added a well-reasoned point to the proposal last time and would welcome your contribution to the discussion :) --Gilderien Chat|What I've done 23:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, which I have moved into the general discussion section as per the note at the top. I shall probably write out a reply later, but I must say I hadn't thought of the idea that the prohibition of prior DYKs could be counter-productive. I suppose the writer could always wait a few weeks and the net effect on DYK would be the same number of submissions but of higher-quality. Unfortunately, both on the current page and in past discussions (and I'm sure the links are on the page), the idea the GAs should have their own section has been/is being rejected as unworkable. Personally I think it sounds like a good idea in theory, but in practice it probably would fail miserably.--Gilderien Converse|List of good deeds 22:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the proposal for a GA section at the bottom of the page, and taking on board the comments of those who feel it would further clutter the main page. I feel there is room to bring readers' attention to the GA project, and I understand that is what this proposal is about, but I don't think it's appropriate because of the extra workload on DYK (and the GA backlog is nearly always quite big because of the time required to read through and understand the average GA article, so that problem would likely also occur at DYK), and the juxtapositioning of two distinct projects which might result in both confusing and diluting their identities. Personally I'm not that fussed about the main page. I know some editors are, as they feel it brings them attention. My view is that if someone wishes others to notice their work, they should edit high profile articles. They tend to be the more demanding articles - they are often complex, and need lots of research - but are the ones we really should be concentrating on anyway, as they are the articles that most readers want to read. Having minor topics briefly appear on the main page, either as DYK or FA, gives those articles a temporary hit of extra readers, then they go back to their regular reading figures.

I also note the comments of those who feel that encouraging new articles is no longer what we should be doing. If people are thinking and saying that now, it might well be the case that GA articles come to dominate DYK, and may even completely replace new articles. I'm left wondering if that would be a good thing or not.

I'll add a link to my comment so people can find it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm Persian Wikipedia users. Complain I'm a bureaucracy and a user. They did not respect the rights of others., Please investigate this issue. I could tell you what is my problem? (Translated by Google Translate) ((Note: I'm sorry if I do not speak good English because my native language is Persian))--Boyabed (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read on jimbo;s talkpage, you have either had access removed or you have been blocked on the Persian Wikipedia. If that is the case, then you need to speak to the people at the Persian Wikipedia. You need to find out why they have blocked you, or taken away your tools. We can't help here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent motion would set a very bad precedent, for many reasons, but User:Iselilja spotted the most important: people will be unwilling to become involved in contentious articles, if everyone is probably going to be topic banned, whether they've behaved themselves or not. You've already been worrying that ArbCom involvement has had a chilling effect, on both editors and admins, in doing anything to make the article better. This would bring the chilling effect to ice storm level, on any article where ArbCom becomes involved. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying. However, if the worse that can happen if an editor gets involved in a contentious content dispute is that they are asked to step back for six months if the dispute is not resolved, I think that is a small price to pay. If an editor only gets involved to help resolve the dispute, and they were not emotionally or intellectually involved in the topic, then being asked to step back, not individually, but as part of the bigger solution, shouldn't be a significant issue. I have ideas on how the article could be improved - and I would like to have a crack at it, but I am voluntarily going to restrict myself from editing the article for the next six months, as I think that is appropriate because I got involved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see, If I have understood correctly, is that editors for whom there are no findings of faults will be included in the list of "restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior". Will you change the wording of the lead to that page, or place the restrictions elsewhere? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. I'll raise it with the Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Wikistalking problem with WLRoss? Plenty of evidence to support the topic bans and interaction ban I've recommended for him, but this "solution" allows him to continue. As I explained in the Evidence section, he's smart enough to cool it for a couple of months, then he'll be following me to wherever the next content dispute occurs, and joining the other side. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I received a notice from Callanecc today that there was a proposed motion on an ARBCOM case that affected me.[9] Penwhale notified me of the case 16 July.[10] I did not reply because no comments were made about me. AGK, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and Silk Tork have voted to ban me. Could you please explain why I am part of this case. TFD (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, those who were seen to be active in discussions or editing of the article were added to the case. I was responsible for adding some. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]