← Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11 →

Hello SilkTork! I found your name on the WP:EA list, and I was wondering if you would be willing to help me in resolving a problem I have in communicating with another editor. It doesn't seem to be a very personal problem, but the editor and I have disagreed over a few issues, and have not been able to find any consensus, which may be partly due to my ideals of editing. The issue has been stagnant for a period of time, but I'm quite interested in finding some way to resolve the issue. If you are available to help, please let me know, and I can give you more details on the issue. I would appreciate it if you could place a whisperback on my talk page. Otherwise, I'll be checking your talk page from time to time. Thank you in advance! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, {{whisperback}} is a less flashy alternative to {{talkback}} that I like to use on talk pages. Just a small preference of mine, but it doesn't really matter. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK; if you give me some details of the situation I'll see if I can assist you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not explaining the template, it's fine if we don't use it. The editor whom I've been engaging with was having an active conversation with me in the section above the one you posted the copy in, so it's a tad awkward if we converse on my talk page. I think the main issue is with our conflicting styles of editing. In a nutshell, when I started to edit, one of my goals was to implement a standard of editing which would be used across WikiProject Curling, since I felt that a good number of the pages were of sub-par quality, and I hoped to make them better. So, after experimenting for a bit and learning the ins and outs of editing, I started to edit curling pages with an ideal of editing, I suppose you could say. However, I met a few roadblocks when working on pages with the editor in question. I think many of our disagreements have been over the formatting of content.

For example, the other editor tends to fill empty curlingboxes ({{Curlingbox}}) with zeroes, as on this page. I had expressed my opinion against that, and he initially responded by stating that the zeroes were necessary in order to display the teams in the Team section of the curlingbox, and that the "box full of zeroes signifies that a game has not begun." My issue with that was that the zeroes in a end column signified a blank end, in which no points were scored. You can see my opinion here. I don't think the editor responded after that, and so I tried to initiate another conversation, which resulted in this. There have been a few other discussions that have ended in the same manner. I've continued to edit and add pages, but whenever I edit a page that the editor in question is working on, I'm always a bit queasy to make any changes to the formatting. There was one discussion we had where I think I may have unintentionally angered the editor to the point where the editor expressed a desire to stop editing because of my actions. I've been reluctant to try to initiate any more discussions, because I didn't want to do something that I may regret, but that may be too little too late... I think I just need help on how to proceed from here.

I apologize in advance for the rambling and for any confusion, as I kind of hoped that you would have some knowledge on curling. If you need me to clarify or explain more, I will be happy to do so. Thank you! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation is fine. There are two main approaches to this situation: 1) You involve the other person in discussion about the situation and reach an agreed solution; 2) You don't involve the other person, and any solution would be one-sided, which would effectively mean you avoiding conflict situations with the other person. Which approach you take depends on your own personality, and how much you would be impacted by using avoidance tactics if you decide to go down that route. My preference would be for a negotiated solution, and nothing is lost by making an initial attempt at that, especially if the negotiations are mediated by an impartial body (such as myself). If negotiations break down, or become too stressful, you can take option two and look for ways of avoiding conflict. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that a mediated discussion would be the most favorable option, since my discussions with the other editor haven't exactly been the most productive, nor the most constructive. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the discussion on Template talk:Curlingbox about the curlingboxes, but I'm a bit hesitant to weigh in, since the conversation seems to be going quite cordially. Should I provide my opinion? Thanks. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The solution offered makes sense to me. If it also addresses your issues, then please join in and say so. That will resolve that particular issue, and go some way to mending bridges between the two of you. Wikipedia is about collaborative editing, and it helps to maintain good relations with people. There will be disagreements about editing, but there's no need to make these issues personal. If we stay focused on the issue, not the person, then we can discuss disagreements in a calm, professional manner with the aim always of improving Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. In my post, I was merely trying to offer my point of view, but I guess it received a negative response. Would you say that I was being a bit uncompromising? Because I think that's what the other editor felt, or is assuming because of previous encounters. I know that, in light of the response it received, my post may not have been the best way to address the situation, so what would you suggest I do? I'd like to respond to the other editor's assertion that I haven't offered anything, since I do have a solution, but then I don't want to be accused of trying to push my opinion on the other editor. So, I wanted to consult you before answering, to get your honest opinion on what I should do. I just feel that I may have upset the other editor to the point where anything I say might be perceived negatively, and I'm not sure that my opinion will really matter in this discussion. Thoughts are appreciated. Thanks for your time. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looked to me that you were putting your point of view in a reasonable manner. It is important that people do give their point of view, and it is important that people listen - especially when they disagree. I am disappointed that there is some personal animosity in this dispute but that is fairly common. It's a bit like road rage. I think there are similarities between road rage and internet rage - there is the same loss of human contact with the other person. It happens to us all at some point, so I understand what Sirrussellott is feeling. But his response was inappropriate and against policy. He has made some attempt to reach a compromise, and I suppose he felt frustrated, but that doesn't really excuse what he said. We'll see what happens, and if there is a deadlock, then see if other members of the Wikiproject are willing to give their opinion. What I am not clear about is why there needs to be a results box placed on a page when a match has not yet played. Does this happen with other sports? I'm wondering how this meets WP:CRYSTAL. I note in football, as here: 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group A, that no score is given until the match has been played. I haven't looked at other sports. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I like your comparison between road rage and internet rage. I've never thought about it like that. I'm really hoping that this can be resolved, since I feel rather responsible for this. It's been interesting, since the only active members of the WikiProject have been the two of us, so I've been unsure of how to proceed with discussions and whatnot.

As for the results boxes for games that haven't been played yet, I've always felt that it's appropriate for results boxes to be posted for events that have posted draw schedules and team match-ups. As I said in the talk thread, I think it's perfectly reasonable to place brackets and curlingboxes in articles when the draws are released. I've worked with WP:TENNIS before, and for any tennis event (e.g. 2012 BB&T Atlanta Open), there will be a separate results page (i.e. 2012 BB&T Atlanta Open – Singles and 2012 BB&T Atlanta Open – Doubles). Those pages would be created after the draws are released. The same has gone for most other events on WP:TENNIS. I've done work with WP:MSE in the past, for events like the Pan American Games and the Olympics, and I think the precedent has been the same (to create pages after detailed schedules and info has been released). So I think that those instances (where schedules/results boxes have been released and posted on article pages) should meet WP:CRYSTAL, because the events are notable and well-documented.

For curling, the draw schedules (which includes which teams play which teams) are usually posted up a week before the event for World Curling Tour events, and for most World Curling Federation events (which are world championships), national championships, or international events, the draw schedules are posted up a few weeks before. So I suppose that posting up schedules should meet WP:CRYSTAL as well. What I feel shouldn't be done, however, is include results boxes long before the event is held and before draw schedules are posted, as in this page or this page/this page and pages like it. Those pages, for events that are maybe four or five months out, just contain empty tables, which I feel are a bit unnecessary. I think something like this page would probably be acceptable, since the draw is out and teams are coming out. I'm not sure if I covered everything, but hopefully this provides a bit more clarification about curling events. Thanks! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I think what is needed, perhaps, is for the project to draw up guidelines for how to present schedules and results. I suggest you inform the other project members of what is happening, and put forward a suggestion for a guideline. As Sirrussellott appears to be an active, knowledgeable and skilled member of the project it would be good to get his input - if he is able to put his personal animosity to one side. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've already proposed and drafted a set of article guidelines for WP:CURLING pages, which can be found here. I had made the proposal to form article guidelines over a year ago, and got support to do so, so I wrote a draft which I thought would cover most of the articles we work with on WP:CURLING. We had some discussions on the talk page, and what I had put down seemed to be okay with most of the members who were participating in discussions. I tried to get more people involved with some posts on the talk page of the WikiProject, but no one really responded, so work stalled on the guidelines. Actually, SIrrussellott had expressed his opinion on my involvement with the article guidelines, which I felt was due to a misunderstanding (which I tried to address in my response), so I'm not sure if he will be open to that... Regarding the issue we were discussing above, I had tried to make a bit of a generalization in the second paragraph of the "Articles on curling events" section of the guidelines, but, of course, my wording at that time should probably be reviewed, since I'm thinking that WP:CRYSTAL should be included somewhere in the wording. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are doing the right thing. You seek consensus for what you are doing. You discuss matters in a civil manner. You seek assistance when you are having problems - reaching out to the rest of the community. You set out to organise and formalise articles in a consistent and policy complying manner. You are a good Wikipedian, and will probably make a good admin one day if you wanted to go down that route. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SilkTork! I'm very grateful for your patience and willingness to help. I'm really hoping that this situation will be resolved in the near future, but any headway that has been made is due in much part to your assistance, so thank you! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of an awkward question, but is there anywhere to progress? The conversation seems to have died down... Thanks! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a bit awkward - Sirrussellott has said he is "done discussing the matter", but has given no further indication of his attitude toward using zeroes in the curling box. I suggest you reach out to others in the curling project. If nobody responds, then I'll take another look at the issue and give my opinion on the best way forward. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By infobox, you mean the ratings template, right? If that's the case, then while it's not mandatory, it's a supplement, and quality articles usually have illustrations in them; wouldnt the template serve as one? How about using the "subtitle" field and distinguishing the scores in one section, release and reception, from a template in the "contemporary appeal" section? Dan56 (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The aim is to summarise the reviews in prose. Read through Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space. This is a long standing consensus. We first moved the ratings from the infobox into a standalone ratings box as part of the process, knowing that it would take a while to convert the links into prose. We didn't want to lose the information by doing away with the links entirely, so the ratings box was intended as a stop gap measure. What I did in Thriller, was ensure that the contemporary reviews were all summarised, and then moved the box into the Legacy section as the remaining links are all to legacy reviews - that is, those reviews which were not contemporary with the release, but are summarising the album's legacy - its importance as seen in retrospect. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but a lot of editors would consider the template to be a useful illustration, it's original purpose notwithstanding. How about a change such as this? Dan56 (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal objections - often I go straight to the reviews from the ratings box anyway as most Wiki editors don't summarise them very well - it takes a Wesley Dodds to do it right! But I do like to follow the consensus - and I fully understand the reasoning behind it. The ratings box actually provides little information other than a series of links - and using Wikipedia as a repository of links is against policy (as mentioned on WP:LINKFARM and WP:EXT). So when I see that there is an adequate prose summary of the review, I follow policy and consensus, and remove the ratings box, especially as I am aware that leaving the box on an article encourages its continued use, and doesn't encourage the writing of review summaries. It's up to you what to do. If in doubt you could raise the matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums to see if consensus has changed since this matter was last discussed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done discussing the matter at hand. I am also done discussing things with the other user. I've been threatened by you twice about receiving sanctions, and yet another user can beat me down within the guidelines of personal attacks and nothing happens to them. It's bad enough the other user puts high levels of stress and anxiety on me, but now the mediators are doing the same, by taking sides. This whole situation is very discouraging and disheartening! Sirrussellott (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, saw that you made an edit not too long ago, so not sure if you're lurking around or not...if so, I just forwarded an email to the Arbitration Committee from the OTRS system (info-en courtesy) but didn't get the usual bounce message, so I'm not sure if it went through...would you happen to be able to check that? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, almost right as I hit save page AGK responded, so apparently it did. Thanks anyway, and sorry to bother you. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGK has just sent you an acknowledgement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The info has been removed, the account blocked, and the user notified. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article I Heard It Through the Grapevine you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 5 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:I Heard It Through the Grapevine for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 10:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I've fiddled a bit. See what you think. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article I Heard It Through the Grapevine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:I Heard It Through the Grapevine for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 17:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the review, and tidying up the prose. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Sirrussellott for a month. I was suspicious after seeing the comment by Tincloth on Template talk:Curlingbox‎, and looking at that user's contributions it appeared likely that it was the same user. I did a check and the IP address and the technical data are exactly the same. I have also blocked the Tincloth account. Being aware of this may make you want to go back to the curling box and rethink what should be done. I suggest getting some more feedback from other users, and not taking into account what Sirrussellott/Tincloth has said. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I'll definitely try for more feedback from the other users on WP:CURLING. Thanks for the heads-up. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not sure if this is important, but I noticed a few similarities in editing style in this account as well. It was inactive for a few months, but there's a lot of recent activity. Thought I might bring it up. Thanks! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. It was Sirrussellott using a proxy to mask his IP address. Unfortunately for him our checkuser software can still pick up his original IP and his computer details. I have now blocked him indefinitely. It would be worth you keeping an eye on curling articles for other suspicious activity, this person seems very persistent. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Notable people. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Notable people redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Scray (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Even though I suppose the situation hasn't been fully resolved yet, I really appreciate your patience and willingness to help, and I wanted to award this barnstar for what's been accomplished thus far with your help, which, I feel, is a bunch, and deserves to be recognized. Thank you! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do like barnstars! Thanks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SilkTork. Based on the issues that need to be fixed, I'd like to work on it at a leisurely pace, and close the GAN early. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 21:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If I get time I'll help out where I can. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. I'll start digging books out. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 21:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, I'm going to have to apologise for messing you about with the GA review of Early Skyscrapers. I suspect its probably time for a wikibreak on my behalf, before I become too jaded; I therefore probably won't be able to make any necessary changes on the article. Again, please accept my apologies - I know you put a great deal of effort into these reviews, and I don't like to think of that being wasted. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'll still complete the GAN. Considering the condition and quality of the article, I am unlikely to fail it. The topic is not a contentious or complex one. I just need to check sources and do a bit of background reading to confirm that the coverage is broad. In the unlikely event I do find a major problem that I can't sort out by myself, and can't find anyone to help out, then the GAN will be closed with a comment which you can pick up on when you return to Wikipedia, or when someone else comes along who wants to move the article forward. Enjoy your break! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was relevant to notify you that there is a discussion concerning User: Agadant and the Web Sheriff article at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Since you were active on the Web Sheriff talk page some time back and because you have worked with Agadant on other articles with good results, I thought it might be appropriate to notify you. I have not mentioned your name in my thread but in case you have an interest and would like to comment on the matter at hand I am providing a link here. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Keithbob. I have left a comment. I am not volunteering to copy-edit the article nor to mediate any discussion - but if nobody else is wiling to do it, then I will consider helping out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Silk, I have not edited the Web Sheriff article or talk page for a year but its on my watchlist and I felt this situation needs some resolution. Let's see what the community wants to do. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silk, sometime ago I created an article called RedBubble at the request of the community (talk page) to replace a contentious BLP for one of its founders. Anyway, the article now has some issues that need the attention of an Admin. ie page protection, sock puppetry and possible outing. I know you are very busy. Is there someone you could recommend that I could confer with as to how to best proceed with these issues? Many thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see an edit war is starting. XcommR, who has a declared COI, is reverting edits. I note that the edits being reverted do make statements which are not supported by the sources, and that you have adjusted the material so that it is neutral. I can see the article as a candidate for protection - but perhaps not quite yet. I'd like to see how things progress. The outing issue is tricky because the outing claims are based on a statement that XcommR made which could reasonably be seen as stating who he is. If I say on Wikipedia "I am the founding editor of Angel Exhaust", and then someone says - ah! you're Steve Pereira, they are not guilty of outing asa the information is all there. If XcommR felt he had made that statement in error and wished to have it suppressed, he could ask for that to be done. As it is, the statement has been deleted anyway, so only admins can now see it. I'm not sure who might be socking. It appears that one of the IP accounts has now registered - possibly in response to XcommR's comments. If there's some specific issue you'd like to talk over, or an admin action you feel might be appropriate, you can always ask me, but at the moment it looks like you have the situation in control. If the edit war flares up again, let me know, and I'll protect the page and/or have have a word with those warring. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good analysis of the situation. You are very astute :-) One more thing then.......I know an SPI is something I would have to file on my own. But perhaps you could advise me. Here is what my research has turned up.

• Note: all of the IP's and Users accounts below have edited exclusively on the RedBubble article and appear to have the same POV.
• 60.240.128.193, 2 edits, Melbourne (TPG)
• 110.174.160.226, 1 edit, Melbourne (TPG)
• 121.214.113.191, 2 edit, Melbourne (Telstra)
• 203.23.153.236, 1 edit, Melbourne (Australia Online)
• 58.96.97.181, 2 edits, New South Wales, North Sydney (ISP Australia)
• 121.44.119.125, 1 edit, New South Wales, Sydney (ISP)
• 111431Q, 8 edits
• Tenzign, 2 edits
• Velocityc, 2 edits
• Elizabethpeel, 1 edit
• 1firstangel, 3 edits
• Torontonio, 1 edit
• UberBubbler, 1 edit
• Muwt5, 7 edits
• Numbvv, 1 edit
• Melbourne is a big city and Sydney is several hundred miles from Melbourne. So there may be more than one person in the above list. But this is very suspicious activity and I feel strongly someone is doing some heavy socking. Thanks for taking the time to advise/help with this. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that RedBubble is an Australian company based in Melbourne I would expect some editors would come from that area - especially as there appears to be some disquiet among people associated with RedBubble. I'll take a closer look at the editing activity later to see what turns up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also

This was just posted on my user talk page under your most recent comment there. Any thoughts on this?

• Martin Hosking blogs on RedBubble that he is editing Wikipedia as user XcommR. His RedBubble blog is publicly visible as well as a feed to thousands of RedBubble accounts and has been posted since April, so it is a bit late for it to be suppressed lol. He cannot complain about "outing" when he is the one who has chosen to out himself. http://www.redbubble.com/people/pilgrim/journal/8731615-wikipedia . About the content of the article itself, RedBubble's decision to promote and sell the Hipster Hitler clothing and offensive children's clothing traumatised and divided the RedBubble community which had previously been a friendly artist's community. The article could do with improvement to tell this story in a balanced way including by referencing media reports of what was promoted and sold by RedBubble and what was said about it. The article mentions one Jewish organisation applauding RedBubble but not what the many more who condemned the products being sold said. It does not mention what the public authorities such as Child Protection Commissioner said about the children's clothing. The article mentions the exact contents of an ironic hoodie about murdering suspicious people but does not mention the content of the clothing people found offensive. Velocityc (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The adding of the second motion [1] makes it difficult to know what the existing community comments are referring to. Could you move it under the existing community comments? Nobody Ent 13:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nobody Ent 15:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. How are you getting on with the GA review of this? I'm doing a bit of expansion on musical style, as suggested in the review, which will hopefully be done by this evening, at which point I think all existing comments in the review are accounted for.

As stated, I will be mostly off-wiki for about a fortnight starting next week, so if you've come across other problems or things that need improving / fixing, now would be a good time to suggest them! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's been off my radar. I'll take a look today and let you know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SilkTork, my name is Mary Kate and I'm a college student at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. For my freshman English class we must write/edit a Wikipedia page. I chose to work on the Desserts page since Wikipedia suggested it needed some work. I was looking at the history of the page and saw you had made changes in the past. Since this is my very first experience editing a Wikipedia page my professor said it might be helpful to reach out to other more established editors. What I have so far is in my sandbox [[2]]. I plan on moving a good bit of content to the main article sometime today or tonight and hopefully the world of Wikipedia will approve. If you have time or just feeling like helping a novice Wikipedia editor then please let me know any thoughts or suggestions you have. Thank you so much!! Mkt324 (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi Mary Kate. I took a quick look and made a few notes which you can read in the edit summaries when you click on history. I am not actually a contributor to that article - I consulted that page for some information, and tidied up some formatting while I was there, but I have done no research on the topic. Research is key to writing articles for Wikipedia, and that's your starting point. You can research and make notes, and then edit after you have finished your research, or you can do as the majority of Wikipedians do and edit directly as you are researching, so other editors immediately get the benefit of your research and your sources, and can work collaboratively with you to improve the article. And you can also benefit from their research and amendments - they may tell you that your sources are inappropriate or out of date, etc. Your local library - your college library, and Google Books are a good resource - see history of desserts search result on Google Books. The main contributor on Dessert is User:Nick Michael, and it may be worth contacting him. I would suggest, given the embryonic state of Dessert, that you could start directly editing it. Don't worry about your additions not being perfect - it is understood that articles are not perfect, and that we are all working towards improving them. Be bold!. If you're uncertain about how to do something, or where to find a guideline or a rule, then you could try typing in a word or phrase in the search box that best fits your query, and put "WP:" in front of it. If you are not sure about the layout of an article - try WP:layout; if you're not sure about external links, try WP:external links; if you're not sure about punctuation, try WP:punctuation; etc. Have fun, and give me a ping if you have any other questions, or when you've made a bit more progress and want more feedback. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork. I implore you to reconsider your support vote to ban Malleus Fatuorum at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum. Malleus' intemperate comments have always stemmed from other editors being rude to him (comment from Malleus). I have been unable to find any instances of incivility from Malleus unprovoked by another editor attacking or baiting him.

At the Arbitration Requests case page, one arbitrator, AGK, called Malleus "a net negative"; another, Jclemens, said "Malleus has himself chosen to join those other groups in his self-selected banning; all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made." (He later revised the comment but his revision makes it no less hurtful.)

In my opinion, the two comments have been more uncivil than anything Malleus has ever said. These upsetting comments written by respected arbitrators are disappointing. Jclemens seems to be kicking Malleus while he is down. As Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) who supported the ban wrote, "@Jclemens ... the fact that you can't see what you wrote as entirely unhelpful to the situation is quite worrying. Are you trying to piss Malleus off so he rejects Newyorkbrad's advice and so you can get him banned?"

They are but two examples of nastiness that Malleus faces on a daily basis from other editors. As a fallible human, Malleus replies in kind. But because he uses "naughty words", he is made the target of sanctions while those who bait and attack him are unsanctioned.

Isarra (talk · contribs), who filed the initial request, asked for clarification about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Malleus Fatuorum topic banned, which prevented Malleus from posting on RfA talk pages. Malleus has participated in several robust discussions at RfAs, as have I. There have been attempts to move these lengthy discussions to the talk page. Participating in lengthy discussions that are moved to the talk page is not disruptive. However, some of his intemperate language has been found to be problematic.

At a recent RfA, he called an editor a "dishonest twat" after the editor made a baiting remark. Malleus' response was too intemperate, however, and he was banned from the RfA by uninvolved administrator Worm That Turned (talk · contribs).

As Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) wrote (my bolding): "Malleus made a personal attack, it was removed, it was not replaced, he was topic banned from the RFA, and made no more edits to the RFA. The motion below appears to be a response to the idea that the previous sanctions failed and the community can't handle this on its own... except the previous sanction did work, and the community handled it just fine on its own. If you were planning on sitebanning Malleus the first time he "disrupted" an RFA, why in the world did you go to the trouble of creating this remedy?"

I echo Floquenbeam's words: The previous sanction worked. A topic ban from RfA altogether or a siteban seems disproportionate and cruel to an editor who has devoted so many hours to helping other users with their articles.

Editors like Lecen (talk · contribs), a non-native English speaker, who thanked him for making numerous improvements during his featured article nomination. Editors like Jivesh boodhun (talk · contribs), another non-native English speaker, who thanked Malleus for his indefatigable work on Jivesh's articles.

Editors like high school biology teacher JimmyButler (talk · contribs)'s students; see "Perspectives from this side of the screen."

Feel the gratitude and glee in Mr. Butler's student, Savannah, as she writes, "I am absolutely bursting with excitement! I will make that change ASAP! Thank you sooooo much for helping me reach my goal! :)"

Feel the pure ecstasy and joy in Mr. Butler's student, Marissa, as she tells Malleus, "Thank you so much for your help on Spotted eagle ray. It wouldn't have passed without your help!"

Feel the appreciation and gratitude in Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs), as he gives Malleus a beer for his work on Chrisye.

These are but a few of the instances where Malleus has helped other editors in need. Non-native English speakers. High school students. Experienced editors.

Malleus has immeasurably improved the encyclopedia with his presence: his willingness to help others on a multitude of topics, many of which he has no interest in.

To call him a "net negative" or to say "he has never been a Wikipedian" cannot be farther from the truth.

The sanction from the Arbitration case has "worked" per my bolding of Floquenbeam's comment above. To ban Malleus Fatuorum would be a travesty of justice.

As you are the arbitrator I am the most familiar with and trust, I am making this personal appeal here on your talk page (though I will also copy part of it to the Arbitration page). SilkTork, please reconsider your support vote to ban Malleus. I will be very disappointed and saddened if Malleus is banned, as will innumerable other editors who will have lost his beautiful gifts of knowledge, wisdom, and altruism.

Best,

Cunard (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean AGK not SirFozzie, and for the record, I support the ban as a last resort, should attempts to work with Malleus fail. --Rschen7754 09:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, missed your clarification later on, but for the record, it was AGK who said "net negative". Which is debateable, but not outright uncivil IMHO. --Rschen7754 09:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your corrections, which I've made. If an editor called me a "net negative" after I spent so many hours improving this website, I would find it very hurtful and cruel. Whether that would be uncivil or not under Wikipedia's civility policy is certainly debatable though. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, I would urge you to examine the recent behaviour of the reviewer in question - he's made similar accusations about at least a half-dozen people across multiple venues (disclosure: I'm one of the people he's complaining about). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I draw your attention to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles, where MathewTownsend called FA writers "divas" (my bolding):

I think this is a particular problem because an editor who has written all or most of the article often seems to feel ownership especially if it has FA. They often talk about "my work", "articles I wrote", guard their watchlist, and act in every way that it belongs to them. There is an article somewhere about "diva" editors. If wp is really interested in retaining new editors, I think this attitude needs to change.

Editors with "ownership" issues typically do not edit collaboratively with the community but write the article themselves, perhaps with a few "trusted" friends. Perhaps wp needs to decide whether they are apart from WMF goals or not. Perhaps wp should be split into the existing encyclopedia, and a special "literary magazine" for FAs (whose editors choose to be in it - e.g. "diva" editors could put their articles there) with different rules. Since FAs usually have low number of page views, perhaps this could be achieved without harming the encyclopedia.

Malleus wrote later in the thread that MathewTownsend's post was "insulting". This discussion is the genesis of the dispute between Malleus and MathewTowsend. I urge you to read it closely. Malleus does not make intemperate comments unless he is provoked.

After this 10 September 2012 discussion, MathewTownsend has done GA reviews at Talk:Liberté class battleship/GA1 (passed 19 October), Talk:Illecillewaet Glacier/GA1 (passed 14 October), and Talk:Alta Airport/GA1 (promised a review 7 October 2012). He performed an FA review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Istanbul/archive3 on 15 October. He is clearly not discouraged or intimidated from performing GA or FA reviews.

In relation to a WP:TFAR discussion regarding an article Truthkeeper88 cleansed from copyright violations (see Iridescent's summary about MathewTownsend's actions here), MathewTownsend has made comments to Truthkeeper88 that are much more personal and hurtful than anything Malleus ever said to him: link and link. I will not quote his comments here as I find them too disturbing.

As Truthkeeper88 wrote, "@ SilkTork - you might be interested in how that very same editor treated me recently. It's two way street and but with double standards. Will provide diffs later. On my way out the door. Suffice to say that personal attacks had to be redacted from Iridescent's page."

In this same incident, at Moonriddengirl's talk page, Moonriddengirl wrote to MathewTownsend: "You seem to be interested in picking a fight here. I'm not, so I'll bid you good day" and "Given your persistent confusion about this, I'll try to clarify in spite of your tone. If you want to discuss it further, please remember that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are policies. Like many, I respond best to polite conversation."

I draw your attention to this proposal by Mogism (talk · contribs):

Those who bait Malleus (as opposed to those who have legitimate disagreements with him) are warned not to interact with him in any way, unless unavoidable; if there is any dispute as to what constitutes "unavoidable" any admin can refer the matter to Arbcom who will issue an ad hoc ruling as to what constitutes "baiting". ("Admin" to act as a natural choke on the number of people referring disputes, rather than as some kind of super-status—any other arbitrary group would do just as well.) If Arbcom rule that the comments are baiting, the editor in question is given an only warning, which covers the next 14 days, to desist from further interaction. If Arbcom rule that the comments are legitimate, Malleus is given an only warning, which covers the next 14 days, to desist from any comment would could reasonably be considered rude.

As Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) wrote, this is "a remedy that at least seemed to have the appearance of equity". Please consider alternative options such as this one so Malleus is not banned. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment here. Eloquently stated and humane.

I am keen to look at and consider other solutions than a ban, but until a viable solution is proposed, I will continue to support a ban, regardless of how much I respect your work and your dedication. If you can propose a solution yourself, I'll be more than happy to hear it. – I recommend this proposal by Mogism (talk · contribs), which I quoted above. Please consider it.

Cunard (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for some of the background information, and for the link to Mogism's proposal. I really wanted a full case to discuss all this. Argued for it on the Committee email list. But the consensus was against it. So be it. And now here we are with a motion. I'm not happy that it's a motion rather than a case. I didn't support the idea of a motion when we had the option of a case. Fought against it because I felt that the situation was too complex to be dealt with by a motion, and that we needed the involvement of the community. As we couldn't agree on a motion or a case, the request was closed; and now here we are with MF again involved in drama which has been brought to the attention of the Committee, I don't think in the circumstances it would be appropriate to just shrug it off. My preference is for a full case to look into the matter. I'd rather we keep on trying to find a solution rather than to give up and allow hostility to be accepted, or to give up and ban MF. But of those two extremes I would reluctantly accept the ban than the hostility. The choices in preference order: 1) A full case; 2) A workable motion that allows MF to continue working and reduces drama and hostility for everyone; 3) A ban 4) Do nothing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SilkTork, for approaching this with even-handedness. I agree that a solution should be found rather than doing nothing or banning Malleus. At the moment, the ban is passing because SirFozzie reinstated his support. You (and many other members of the community) believe that this has been going too fast. Proposals such as Mogism (talk · contribs)'s haven't been considered. Nor has Thryduulf's at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by uninvolved Thryduulf.

Has the committee seriously considered something like Mogism's proposal or Thryduulf's? Banning Malleus should be the last resort. I would like to hear your thoughts about Mogism's proposal in particular since it seems like a viable option. It could be fine-tuned, but it addresses Malleus' intemperate comments and the baiting.

I urge you to withdraw your support vote temporarily (as SirFozzie did) so that Malleus is not banned before alternative options can be considered. The moment Malleus is banned we will have forever lost an invaluable contributor. Cunard (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Townshend

If you believe that stuff---Oh, woe is me, I have been intimidated by an editor by MF---you should send me your bank account information and passwords. I have 10 million dollars coming to me, but I need to deposit it in your account. I'll gladly give you 2 million for your troubles. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, I would take a look at Iridescent's talk page before mentioning Matthew Townsend - there's some context you may not be aware of. --Rschen7754 19:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard has supplied some helpful links above. It looks like that incident is more complex than first appears, but I'm not sure how far back it goes. That's why a full case is needed, so all this stuff can be uncovered in evidence. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus' devotion to the project ready to ban him is breathtaking: "I've done all the thinking I need to do. All I'm asking for now is a 24-hour stay of execution to complete my two outstanding GA reviews."

Can the Arbitration Committee say that it has tried in every way possible to prevent Malleus from being banned? I do not think so.

Only when everything has failed should a contributor be banned.

This situation is very complex. A ban carried out within several days of Requests for clarification post is unfair and too hasty. I implore you to strike out your support vote temporarily so that other motions could be proposed: (i) open a full case, or (ii) enact a remedy like Mogism's or Thryduulf's. Cunard (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering it, and have raised the issue on the Committee email list. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, SilkTork. As this is a discussion of a non-privacy-sensitive topic, I don't think there's any harm in the arbitrator's publicly discussing other options at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This will allow the community to understand the arbitrators' various positions on the issues, so the community can propose alternative options like Mogism's or Thryduulf's. Cunard (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy. In this case, I am letting the other members know that I am thinking of putting a hold on the motion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SilkTork, for temporarily withdrawing your support vote to ban Malleus. Regarding your comment here, I think Courcelles (talk · contribs)'s motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum (2) is the best remedy at this time since it seems most on the Committee do not want to have a full case. Cunard (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork,

I don't think I'm being as arse with this, but do you know any admins who could step in and find a peaceful solution to this childish argument. Cheers. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want all this unsourced and opinionated content to remain, why don't you take the time to source it? It has been in the article, and unreferenced, for years, and you have done nothing about it. My deletion of this unsourced opinion and trivia is in keeping with policy. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this acceptable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not acceptable. Incivility is not acceptable. It happens, and most of us have experienced someone being rude or hostile toward us, and many of us (me included) have at times said, in the heat of the moment, things that were rude or hurtful. My own approach to people being rude is to ignore the rudeness and focus on the essence of what a person is saying and respond, politely, to that. If the comment is just rude, and there is no meaningful content, then I just ignore it.

My preference is for a community that is cooperative, collaborative and civil. But I accept that we are dealing with a wide cross-section of the community, and that communication via the internet is impersonal, and Wikipedia editing can be emotional, so people do sometimes get heated and say inappropriate things.

If I am mediating a dispute discussion, I am aware that feelings can run high, so I will not be surprised at a certain amount of strong language, but will ask that participants focus on the issue rather than on personalities, and if it seems necessary I will remove or archive personal comments or attacks.

If someone is repeatedly rude and hostile, and is not responding to requests, advice, warnings, admonishments and sanctions, and their rude behaviour is in itself a cause of disharmony within the community, then we do need to look seriously at removing them.

The problem, of course, is how to signal to users early on that their conduct is inappropriate, when many users do it occasionally (so it is all around us), and when, often, the best approach is not to tackle it head on, but to ignore it!

Talkpage comments can be particularly unpleasant, and it is difficult to know exactly how to deal with them, as that depends on the circumstances, and the individuals involved. How do you feel that this incident should be handled? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its a preference, like we'd all prefer to live in a world without wars, famine, greed, crime and corruption. But that's life. Its a sort of wiki utopia and given the massive range of editors and personalities we have on here I rarely find a situation where everybody agrees or somebody isn't angry or upset with something. Add to that the difficulties of wikipedia and content disputes and different perceptions of things at times its impossible to understand how others are feeling. In practice wikipedia is never going to be the civil website you desire. Too many restrictions and different sorts of people. I don't think making Malleus a Martyr for the Civility cause "he sets a bad example to others, ban him" to follow this principle will have any effect on others, and given what Malleus does do when he is focused on content with copyediting and reviewing would be a crying shame. I'm not excusing anything he has said which some people on here have considered "uncivil" but I'm saying that it only becomes a major issue because you make it one. I was pretty uncivil to Malleus last week over something where he really got to me and I spouted my mouth off at him about his attitude. But his reaction in the aftermath shows considerable strength of character and with his assistance and reviewing an article is now at FAC. That sort of input is invaluable.

If I'm honest I didn't take Ceocil's comments even remotely seriously because they were so aggressive and OTT and I responded light heartedly to him. I thought my argument was fair, I don't like to see time wasting. But without a shadow of a doubt his comments were grossly offensive and he made it personal by insulting my own work which frankly is not true. I'm just wrapping up a 92kb expansion of an article! But if he is like that with other people somebody somewhere is going to take great offence and leave the project. I would have liked to have seen you, Clemens or New York Brad at least comment after what he said or left a message on his page warning him but you did absolutely nothing, in fact Brad said made out as if I was equally to blame which is wrong. I've seen editors like Malleus blocked for much lesser comments. If you are going to stick to your guns with advocating good standards of civility between editors I want you to be consistent. He needed a warning at the very least that he should not be talking and attacking editors in that way. Its the double standards above anything which get to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's this. Why are administrators allowed to get away with calling another editor "you serial liar", and ordinary editors are not? Can we have an end to the double standards, please? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ceocil has apologised to me now, so I accept that, nothing further needed, but do remember what I said Silk about the double standards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "...There is strong support on this page for MF, that cannot be ignored. And at the same time, a curious low level of participation from those who are concerned about incivility. It may have something to do with some of the comments that some of my fellow Committee members have made, and people not wishing to be associated with those comments; but that is speculation..."

I'm merely expressing my opinion, based upon what I've seen (before, during, and after other not dissimilar furors).

I think that many editors dive under the covers during such times, especially when a group of like-minded editors rise up in support of a friend.

For one thing, there are those who may dislike conflict, and see such situations as too potentially conflict-ridden to interject themselves into the controversy.

For another, Wikipolitics (as much as I try sincerely to ignore them) are very real for some. And there are those who may decide that no comment is better than commenting. Perhaps because it could serve to seem to be painting a target on one's self, and because, on Wikipedia, all comments remain in edit history, and so also fear of future target painting. (Not to mention, not everyone may be fluent in Bradspeak : )

This is multiplied when the situation may seem to appear complicated.

(Among many other reasons people may decide to stay quiet during what may be perceived as a firestorm of controversy)

I don't think anyone is suggesting WP:CIVIL shouldn't be enforced. To me, I see people wanting to support their friend who they think is being baited and/or attacked, not that they think WP:CIVIL is bad.

Though other unfortunate comments, and/or the wordings thereof, has had a perhaps not unforeseen effect as well, as you note.

Just some thoughts I had while reading your comments. - jc37 23:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I had similar ones. The situation is interesting for those of us interested in how Wikipedia works as a community. We observe and we learn and we hopefully improve. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. And nod, I agree. - jc37 01:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sidelines are safe. But the players on the field move the ball. (The ball being the over-all discussion about Civility). The field needs to expand from focussing on the actions of one editor, and editors need to leave the sidelines and participate. Protecting a Wiki friend is a noble cause but it clouds the issue. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone lists get press, but not all get individual WP:N notability. I suggest moving instead to Rolling Stone lists of best albums, and including RS's 500, and the various International RS 100's. Basically, sticking to Rolling Stone lists. I mean the "500" article is rather freakishly short, by itself. Sticking with only Rolling Stone lists avoids the WP:COATRACK issues with non-Rolling Stone lists... --Lexein (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thoughts. I'm going to copy over your comment and respond on the article talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I don't agree with everything you've ever said or done on ArbCom, but I think you're not only an extremely honest person, but brave in the forthright defense of your beliefs and reasonable in showing a willingness to amend them when a developing situation dictates. Thank you for your excellent work on behalf of Wikipedia in an extremely thankless position. Carrite (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Much appreciated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork, I was considering taking {{list}} to TfD, but I wanted to hear your perspective first. The main reason I question its value is the existence of {{prose}}, which has a longer history (4+ years) and many more transclusions (2353 vs. 66, according to Jarry1250's tool). I don't actually want to delete List; I'd just rather see it redirect to Prose. There seems to be very little difference between the templates, with both pointing to the same MOS section. I understand that Prose refers to a whole article in list format, as opposed to List referring to a series of lists, but I'm not sure how important the distinction is for tagging and cleanup. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant to add that the ability of Prose to refer to something besides the main article via parameters is what makes List look truly redundant to me. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. I cant remember why I created that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was an (unattributed) fork of {{Prose}}, I see no reason why it should not be unforked. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Works for me. "Redirect" was actually misspelled; I've fixed it so List now works for Prose. --BDD (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your recent submission to the Editor Fatuorum talk page. I have added it to User:Buster7/Incivility (with some edits, of course) which has become more of a collection of thoughts on the subject of Civility rather than an essay. As I was naming this thread, the thought struck me that maybe a solution to moving forward with the long and winding discussion is discussing Courtesy rather than Civility. Maybe Courtesy is a broader more universal and uniformally International concept than the arguable more abstract concept of Civility. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting thought, but I don't think it would make much difference. Civil works for me because it is part of civilisation. When people come together for a mutual project, we create a civilisation, and in order to make that civilisation work effectively we adjust our behaviour. Humans are social animals, and on the whole we do work together well, and we adjust our behaviour to accommodate others. We are polite, helpful and welcoming. However, there are noticeable variations within this sociability. We are more sociable to those we know / like / admire / recognise as being part of our group. We tend to be less welcoming to strangers than friends and family. We tend to be less welcoming to those who don't share our values, or who may give the appearance of not sharing our values. Racism comes from that trait. It's possibly a primitive survival instinct - go toward the familiar, and you are safe. Baby elephants will instinctively follow a large moving object, such as a Jeep - this is safer, as the large moving object is more likely to be an elephant than a tiger. We are, of course, more sophisticated than baby elephants, and we have developed since the times of tribal society, so racist and uncivil behaviour is now quite unacceptable.

There are, however, going to be reasons why people occasionally react in a primitive manner, even though they are otherwise urbane, sophisticated, knowledgeable, mature and intelligent. The internet is a recent communication system which divorces people from the emotional signals that we have picked up over generations, and which warns us to modify our behaviour at tense times. It is similar to driving a car, in which we become disconnected from our surroundings. People, on the whole, do not behave the same on the internet and in cars as they would do in a close contact social gathering. Added to which there is pressure/encouragement to behave in a certain way - sometimes positive, sometimes negative. People who continue to behave poorly on Wikipedia have been allowed, even encouraged to do so. Some people get trapped in that behaviour without intelligently analysing it. They might even enjoy the attention they get from it. This is often the case with children - so parents and teachers are instructed to ignore poor behaviour and praise the good. And added to all that, is the emotional aspect of editing Wikipedia. People often edit subjects which are meaningful and important to them - they place a good deal of their self worth in the subject matter - it could be religion, politics, ethnicity, pop idols or sports teams; when others add negative material to such articles, people take it personally. And there's also the pride and self worth people feel from doing work on Wikipedia, and they feel belittled if this is attacked or undermined. It's all quite complex, and cannot be summed up or dismissed easily. How do we ensure that civility is maintained on Wikipedia? We draw up a civility policy, we try to enforce it, and when the community struggles with that, we take the issue to ArbCom. But when the committee feels unable to deal with it, then the community needs to have a serious think about the way forward. With elections coming up, perhaps the community will vote in stronger committee members, and that may create an imbalance going forward, so that ArbCom becomes rather tougher than the community as a whole actually wants.

While I don't like incivility it doesn't have a significant impact on me. I am concerned, however, for how it impacts on the wider community - the unseen silent majority. Strong debate should occur, and sometimes this will descend into hostility and cutting remarks. OK, but when those affected by the hostility raise the issue, then we should do something about it rather than shrugging it off, or excusing it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of Courtesy was just a conversation starter for those that have a problem with the concept and the restrictions (their viewpoint) of Civility. I too much prefer "civis", civilization, the concept of civilians. Better yet Citizens with the responsibility of citizenship. Editors hold their article and edits and word choices as precious and can't bear to see them changed. They have great pride in their work and saving it becomes a mission. They need to be reminded that editing is not just a matter of deciding what to include. It's more a matter of what NOT to include. Because they misunderstand this fact, they see experienced editors as having a "cruel hands". And the first response when threatened is attack. And the only tool the editor has available is.....words. But it's never the word choices, really. Its always the attack mode behind them. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Cents for Sense
		Sometimes two cents is worth considerably more than it seems. Thank You for sharing and providing insight into the discussion surrounding Civility. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're one of the arbitrators who suggested making our interaction bans mutual, but I see the other arbitrators now are voting to take no action. Could you please offer an opinion on what I said here? Assuming ArbCom will take no action, I would like to know whether they have any long-term plan for how to stop this conflict continuing to spread and involve more editors. Zeromus1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts like these have no end. This one has been raging for centuries if not millennia. Tribal instincts run deep, and there is likely an evolutionary underpinning which explains why people feel the need to define tribal superiority as an innate quality. The fate of one (or many) Wikipedia editors is not going to change that, as the links you posted more than adequately illustrate. aprock (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict clearly is not just about disagreement over the R&I topic itself, because some of the editors who've been drawn into it (such as Cla68 and Collect) have never actually participated in R&I articles. Zeromus1 (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please also tell me how I should respond to the accusations Mathsci is making about me in his statement? Following this request, NuclearWarfare has told me I must request an interaction ban waiver from the committee before I can respond to him as I've done. I think that when statements about me are made in an arbitration request such as "he is deliberately misrepresenting me and twisting facts in a way indistingusihable from the project-space edits of Captain Occam and his friends", it should be possible for me to respond to them. I don't know which of the arbitrators to contact, but I hope you can understand it's important that the committee address this question, because that's what one of the clerks requires. Zeromus1 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]