User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 17

← Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18 →

River Welland

Thanks for your help with the article. Have a Picture Postcard. I hope you get the chance to visit the Welland one day, it is well worth it.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I was rather taken by Trinity Bridge, Crowland, and will probably visit that soon. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

When I was a kid octogenarians used to gather there and swap yarns & tall tales. News from the bridge meant a story that was very unreliable.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Like SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you can help?

Please refer to my post at RSN. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Left comment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• "This is a ridiculous application of the recommendation". I think that edit summary may refer to your recommendation, which I cited in the talk page discussion. I feel as if I may be banging my head against a brick wall through contact with one rather intransigent editor. I'm now preparing a retort, which risks being rather too long. I'm not optimistic in "cracking the nut" and faulty thought processes guiding this editor.<sigh> -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is hot at the moment because it's a current event. It is very difficult to keep such articles in a stable and appropriate state, especially when dealing with editors who are working from emotion/passion more than logic/reason. It is to be understood that some editors will want certain things of the article that challenge our guidelines. There are various procedures available to deal with such incidents - unfortunately most take up a fair degree of time and effort, especially if editors are intransigent, and explicitly state they wish to ignore guidelines, and some methods can result in escalating conflict; one method that has been shown to work in most cases is to wait until matters calm down, and then bring the article in line with policy. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your advice. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 10:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack at TPm moderated discussion

here--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

possibly the problem post?

[1] has an editor saying:

And by the way, your choice of expression "relligious fruitcake organization" is colorful, but probably portrays that group of sociopaths in too benign a manner. A more appropriate description would be "religious extremist group". Of course, they are fairly sophisticated, Zionist nationalists flying the duplicitous banner of "Constitutional law" whilst spewing biblical literalist interpretations to support their claims to Palestinian lands. --Ubikwit (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I bet yoou suspected some Israel-Palestine seasoning here, right? [2], [3], etc. Just when you thought life was simple, eh? Note especially the quotes from the "references" for Indigenous_peoples_by_geographic_regions#Western_Asia to see where the problem might lie. You might find the posts by that editor calling other editors "bigoted" etc. to be of interest in your valuing thereof (including such gens as Harry Truman was a Christian biblical literalist who also happened to be a Freemason and close acquaintance of Zionist activist Chaim Weizman, which many associate with the Knight Templar, who rose to prominence through the Crusades to the so-called Holy Land.) Cheers. At least no one here is involved in Scientology or Race and Intelligence! Collect (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Malke has informed me that the post where Ubi used "sociopath" wrt the TPM (and which was oversighted) [4] was on the moderated discussion page -- where, indeed, it is proper that your attention be brought. Such bandying of strong language by Ubi is, of course, highly distasteful indeed, and the fact that it was deemed sufficiently egregious to be oversighted is very troublong.. Collect (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dealt with. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 05:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING

Silk Tork, I believe Ubikwit is hounding me. I bring this complaint here because you've stressed that concerns about editors on the moderated discussion should be brought to you directly. If this is something you are willing to handle, please let know, and I will make my case here with supporting diffs. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

A number of users engaged in editing the Tea Party article are engaging in less than ideal behaviour. There is too much hostile personal interaction going on for my liking. The topic itself draws polarising opinions. The state of the article creates friction as editors attempt to balance it. And the editors who are drawn into editing the article are, it seems, not as detached or dispassionate as the situation really demands. I have offered to moderate a discussion to improve the article, and as part of that I am willing to pay attention to and block users who are hindering the process through inappropriate behaviour on the discussion page or related articles. I don't have the time to look into general concerns regarding individual editors if it is not directly related to the moderated discussion.

However, as both of you have made comments about each other here, I will offer both of you some advice. Stop commenting about each other on Wikipedia. If you can both agree to do that, you'll both find editing on Wikipedia easier and more pleasant. If you both prefer and agree, I can assist you both in that by imposing an informal interaction ban in which neither of you can edit the other's user or talk space; neither can reply to the other's comments in discussions; neither can make reference to or comment on the other anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; neither can undo the other's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means). If either of you break any of these conditions I will block you. You both would be allowed to email me with concerns that the other is breaking the agreement.

Let me know what you wish to do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It takes a while to really tell and I kind of look for telling moments. To me that was choice of words and activity a couple months ago which to me indicated a particular focus. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Struck. I'd have to review & learn the current situation better in order to provide a comment where I'm confident that it is pertinent for the present. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Note

Hi, SilkTork. Sorry for the delay, I've been unusually busy here for the past few days. Saw your comment that you were waiting for the draft text I was working on - I'll head over there now. I think I can still get it in under the deadline. ;-) (Should be up in the next 60 minutes or so.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this:

We are talking about ONE PARAGRAPH. Just one paragraph. We've been talking about it for two weeks. Clearly, the strategy of the people who wrecked this article by stuffing in negative trivia from The Huffington Post is to keep raising objections in a piecemeal fashion, time after time, until the people who want to improve the article give up and go away. And I must confess that it's working. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not a helpful comment. Maunus ("butted out"), Snowded ("gave up on the article") and perhaps others have been driven away, but not for the reasons you suspect. I offered a perfectly reasonable summary paragraph two weeks ago, by the way. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I do like the new notification service, it means you don't have to have so many articles on watch. I just took a look at the discussion and in effect its is dominated by a small group of tea party editors with a few established right wing editors over a range of articles. P&W in particular is continuing the behaviour which was so disruptive before the article was locked and which he has followed on UGG boots and elsewhere. To be honest to keep up with this debate you have to be willing to put a lot of effort in and expect entrenched positions and little compromise. While I think it is important I simply don't have that time but I admire Xenophrenic who seems to be sticking in there, and suffering RfCs in consequence. Personally I think it was a mistake to suspend the arbcom review. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. I couldn't be bothered after it turned out that not even by supporting arguments with books written by experts and published by academic presses would be enough to reason with the tea party activists. When they start dismissing out of hand what our policy clearly establishes as the best possible sources, simply because they disagree with the tea party's own statements, at that point continuing the discussion becomes futile.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As I look at the above, I think.....not enough time to work on the article, but enough time to do ad hominem based criticism of the work there. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have plenty of time to work on articles. Just prefer working where there's an actual chance of improving the encyclopedia instead of just duking it out with activists with zero respect for (or understanding of?) basic politics. And if you cared to read what I wrote you'd realize that it is not ad hominem, but an actual dissatisfaction with the standard of argumentation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Improving wikipedia is frustrating when I apply NPOV only to realize other editors' POV is so tilted they've all but lost any hope of following my example. †TE†Talk 23:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM?

Not to distract you from other conduct related issues, but as I have already tried to respond to the first part (budgetary concerns) of the following passage with little to show in the way of response, does this comment in response to your post fall under the above-referenced policy?

...the leftist narrative that the TP only exists to protest a black president. For that to take root, they must have the creation date as post-inauguration, February 2009. The very demographic that is demonized is the very demographic that elected Obama in the first place. "White Christian 50 year old and over males." It is the Baby Boomer generation raised on civil rights. But you won't find that in the article because it's not allowed.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is about. If it is still a matter of concern to you, please rephrase it, providing a little more information and a diff. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Though I've largely disengaged from the moderated discussion, I was interested in the sources and long block of quoted text that you took the time to post [5] in relation to a paragraph under discussion, so I commented.

The initial response to your post begins “Let's not reinvent the wheel here”, and included the statement, "The racism muck is meant to overshadow the true reason for the Tea Party movement which is to stop the government spending" as well as the block of text quoted above in relation to concerns about WP:NOTFORUM.

I followed with a comment (non-personalized) addressing the issue of government spending vis-a-vis a block of text quoted directly from one of the sources you'd posted[6].

I received no response other than an insulting attack on the author of the quoted text, for which you blocked the offending respondent.

When editors fail to address the content of sources and instead launch into monologues of a polemic nature, there is no discussion, yet alone collegial editing.

Meanwhile, the editor posting the above-referenced block of text is aware of the fact that the WP:OR assertion of what they perceive to be "the true reason" is “not allowed” in the article. Furthermore, said editor dismisses the racism related material as “muck”, and makes the tendentiously partisan statement, “the leftist narrative that the TP only exists to protest a black president”. I don't see where the sources state that, and what the sources do state is addressed only minimally.

That is the crux of my concerns about the substance of the above-quoted comment regarding WP:NOTFORUM. In further looking at policy, it is clear that I should have also mentioned WP:NOTSOAPBOX. In any case, since this relates to concerns about editing conduct at the moderated discussion, I trust this is the proper venue to raise such concerns.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

When I saw the "Let's not reinvent the wheel here" statement, I felt that it had strayed into personal comment. However, as it appeared that I was the one being commented on, I felt I could adopt the ignore it tactic that I urge others to do. That the comment strayed into general political discussion which drew responses which led to a block is very unfortunate - though there is a fine line between general comment, and derogatory comment. I remarked on that at the time: "When discussion wanders away from improving the article to general comments on the politics we are pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable, when it gets into unnecessary insults or derogatory comments of politicians, journalists, or commentators then a line has been crossed." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize Silk Tork if you think my "let's not reinvent the wheel" was directed at you personally. It was not. I was addressing the block of text you wrote about the proposed paragraph. It seemed to me to be going in a direction that would be beyond the purpose of a simple paragraph that points to a subarticle. That was all. However, I'd be happy to redact anything you find offensive, as that was certainly never my intent. ThinkEnemies was blocked, as you know, after he responded to Ubikwit's comment, not my comment. Every editor is responsible for their own comments. It seems to me any question about comments made on the moderated discussion page belong on that page for the other editors to weigh it. Or, at the very least, since this is a discussion about my comment, I should be invited to reply. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Since we're cleaning out the attic

This is from a while ago, before the DS notice was posted, etc., and I don't know whether to take it as an indirect personal attack, an attempt at provocation, or what, but for future reference [7] (though I have already linked to this diff at the Workshop talk page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING

Silk Tork, I believe Ubikwit is hounding me. I bring this complaint here because you've stressed that concerns about editors on the moderated discussion should be brought to you directly. If this is something you are willing to handle, please let know, and I will make my case here with supporting diffs. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

A number of users engaged in editing the Tea Party article are engaging in less than ideal behaviour. There is too much hostile personal interaction going on for my liking. The topic itself draws polarising opinions. The state of the article creates friction as editors attempt to balance it. And the editors who are drawn into editing the article are, it seems, not as detached or dispassionate as the situation really demands. I have offered to moderate a discussion to improve the article, and as part of that I am willing to pay attention to and block users who are hindering the process through inappropriate behaviour on the discussion page or related articles. I don't have the time to look into general concerns regarding individual editors if it is not directly related to the moderated discussion.

However, as both of you have made comments about each other here, I will offer both of you some advice. Stop commenting about each other on Wikipedia. If you can both agree to do that, you'll both find editing on Wikipedia easier and more pleasant. If you both prefer and agree, I can assist you both in that by imposing an informal interaction ban in which neither of you can edit the other's user or talk space; neither can reply to the other's comments in discussions; neither can make reference to or comment on the other anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; neither can undo the other's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means). If either of you break any of these conditions I will block you. You both would be allowed to email me with concerns that the other is breaking the agreement.

Let me know what you wish to do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank God for that! Wish it had been done sooner. And N.B. Let's be very clear here. I wasn't doing the hounding. I've tried my best to avoid him from the start. And you'll recall I've explained why before: [8]. There is no 'both of you.' Please review your own talk page, especially the bit, "While we're cleaning out the attic." See also: ArbCom: Evidence talk, Workshop, Workshop talk, Proposed Decision talk, TPm talk, first comment on Moderated Discussion here: [9]. And here [10]. Also, I'd like a rule that he cannot immediately post a comment to every freaking post I make. Thanks very much. Appreciate it. Have a nice evening. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Please let's forgo the 'informal' and make it very formal. What about making it just like the iBan he's got already with Evildoer? If you make it informal, nobody blocks him when you're not around. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the authority to impose a formal iban - that requires broader consensus. For that you'd need to start a discussion at a venue such as AN. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

But if it's informal, you'll be available by email, even when you're not here? Malke 2010 (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Within reason. This is a hobby, not a job. I do, however, check on emails rather more often than I do the websites I'm involved in. But the email contact is not for reasons of speed, but for reasons of reducing drama and conflict. Posting accusations on a talkpage can result in a hostile response, particularly if the accusation is proved inappropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a hobby and I respect that. As long as a block is imposed for violating the terms, even if it takes days for you to find out about it, then I'm fine with that. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree to an informal interaction ban, and the accusation of WP:HOUNDING is baseless. Since Silk Tork issued a warning at the moderated discussion, I've refrained from making personalized comments about other editors in general on pages not specifically related to disciplinary proceedings.

Incidentally, ST, a cursory review of comments I've made at your Talk page would seem to indicate that I have commented only on the substance of posts made by the editor seeking this informal interaction ban.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What I saw was two people making a post on my talkpage about the other person, and both clearly not happy with the conduct of the other. I suggested a mutual interaction ban, and offered to handle it. One party has agreed, the other has not. That's fine - but as my offer has been rejected, I don't wish to hear any more about it. What I advise both of you to do, is to stop commenting on each other. However, if either of you feel unable to do that, then you need to either take it up with the other person, or take it to AN, but don't spread it around Wikipedia. I will moderate the discussion page, but I don't wish to be the referee for every dispute or grievance involving contributors to that discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Moderated Tea Party discussion

I have concerns that User:ThinkEnemies and User:Phoenix and Winslow are questioning the good faith of others in the moderated tea party discussion. Some examples can be found here and the last few comments added here.Casprings (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What is this? †TE†Talk 20:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have given Phoenix and Winslow a warning for the personalised comments, though I don't see that ThinkEnemies has done wrong. I've hatted the section as it wasn't helpful, though I agree that the page does at times become difficult to navigate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Casprings has become obstructive about something so fundamental as archiving discussions that were more than 30 days old. I tried and he reverted immediately a couple of days ago. Hoping he will listen to you and perhaps read WP:DBAD. If you're wondering what triggered my oblique remark, that was it. I created an "Archive 1" page. Feel free to use it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: It's been more than 24 hours and I'm sure you're busy. So I went ahead and archived everything you said you were going to archive. Just trying to save you some time. Created Archive 1 and Archive 2. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing at the unlocked TPm article

There have been a couple of edits made without adequate discussion or consensus. This edit [11] was made with no discussion whatsoever, and as I am opposed to it, but do not intend to revert until you hearing your opinion on the developments. The link to the source, incidentally, is not dead, just missing a space between the URL and title Foley, Elizabeth Price , Sovereignty, Rebalanced: The Tea Party and Constitutional Amendments (August 3, 2011). Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 78, p. 751, 2011.

I've been too busy to get around to raising the Constitution and the TPm agenda, but intend too when time permits. It's possible that another subarticle will result from that, considering the amount of material that has been published recently on the topic. We have, however, as you may recall, discussed the issue previously on the moderated discussion page, so it is not as if it is unknown as a major concern I have with the article, at any rate.

There has also been reverting [12].

If an editor makes an edit without discussion and says "Revert me if you disagree" is this in accord with the procedures set out in the moderated discussion?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just stating the Tea Party is anti-immigration would be a revertible offense. The entire sentence is ridiculous. Sure you can find a couple people to call the movement anti-immigration, or anti-tax, or anti-government, or nationalistic, or against compromise politics, whatever that means, but it's all patent nonsense. According to the logic applied for such statements, Obama is either pro-legalization or anti-law for his drug use as a young man. This is an encyclopedia, the opinion of a couple people shall not define our president or a political movement. †TE†Talk 14:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to lay out what Ubikwit is attempting to "spin up" here ......

• I made 2 what I would consider to be gnome type edits which I think would have zero opposition, but to be triply safe said "please revert me if you disagree"
• I reverted an extreme un-discussed edit and said "please take it to talk"

North8000 (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have topic banned North8000 and Phoenix and Winslow ‎for one week for removing sourced content from the article without consensus. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That was totally uncalled for! It was a gnome edit, the edit summary asked anybody who disagreed to revert me'. Where is the controversy? Who is going to argue that a TPM agenda item is to prevent the states from being allowed to pick their Senators by an election? And I don't even see that rule that you are describing anywhere. Where is it? You are going to turn this article into a fifth rail that nobody is going to want to risk working on.North8000 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

major new proposals at the moderated discussion with "consensus by default"

I would suggest major aticle changes as proposed (and actually made by others) should be fully discussed by everyone -- having one group estopped entirely from that discussion which appeared after the topic bans may be problematic, alas. Otherwise, the changes will have "consensus by default" which I trust was not your intent. Thus I suggest relocking the articles and asking for discussion on such additions to the main article and subarticles. Wikipedia does not function well when a particular "side" has free reign without even paying lip-service to finding a general consensus (which I had thought we had finally reached). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the topic banned editors have not been banned from the moderated discussion, so consensus would not be default, and that is why issues are being discussed there.

The IRS material appears to have been moved from the main article 2013_IRS_scandal.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you reread what "topic ban" entails - as normal Wikipedia usage, it absolutely includes the entire topic, and it would not surprise me if the two take it as a basic vacation from the topic. If I am wrong, then it is likely the two banned editors have my same wrong opinion - and ST can certainly apprise them that they are only barred from making article edits. I consider moving f an argumentative section from a subarticle into the main article to be the same as making that claim in the main article, and is thus a substantive change to the main article. Clearly you suggest that a huge change in a subarticle then can have a huge change in the main article, and it would not be a "suubstantive change" to the main article. I demur, and suggest the major change in the main article ought to be discussed in the moderated page firts. Viriditas is, in fact, aware of the moderated discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you read the section on the Moderated discussion page where Silk Tork writes

They may continue to join in the discussion on this page.

Regarding the IRS material, I left a comment on the Moderated discussion page, but as I have not taken part at the IRS article, I don't have anything to add.

However, Viriditas was not necessarily following the moderated discussion, having not participated in it, so you might have started by raising any objections with him directly, too. Since it was unlocked, there have been at least two other edits made to the article by editors not participating in the moderated discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are topic banned only from one article, and only for one week. They have been told (and encouraged) to continue to join in with the discussion. And they have not been banned from any other article. I want people to edit the article. But I want those who edit it to be trustworthy, and to only edit by consensus, not to revert or encourage or incite others to revert, not to remove or add content that alters meaning without first establishing that it is OK to do do, not to make edits based on guessing or assuming, but to follow the academic principles of doing research FIRST, and then supporting statements with citations, and to follow Wikipedia guidelines on building an article. This is editing basics, and should be done on every article. It is particularly important that it should be done on this article. This is not the article to be making bold edits, nor uncertain edits. This is an article where we need people to be putting their proposals down on the talkpage and getting consensus. Who actually makes the edit after consensus has been done, doesn't matter. As long as that person actions the edit as agreed, and does not add their own twist as they are doing so. I am concerned there is not much time before ArbCom reconvenes, and I don't want edit wars to start up on the article between now and then. So I want all edits to the article to be secure and agreed. And if there are editors who are not able to discern when an edit has been agreed or not, they should be discouraged from editing the article. If necessary, permanently. I can't make that clear enough. The article has suffered for years because editors have taken unilateral action on the article rather than seeking consensus first. On a contentious topic like this it is vital to discus and get consensus. Doubly so when there's a moderated discussion taking place. And triply so when there's an ArbCom case being held in suspension. If I was not restrained by my position as both the drafting Committee member of the ArbCom case and the moderator of the discussion, I would join in with the content discussion, and push things along. What would be helpful here is for more independent editors experienced in NPOV editing to join in the discussion and help things along. Perhaps some recruiting can be done? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, someone just made an extreme undiscussed change in the first sentence of the article. What happens now? North8000 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just notified that editor of the Moderated dicsussion User_talk:John_Paul_Parks#Tea_Party_movement_and_the_Constitution.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is the appropriate approach. I will copy this over to the talkpage so people are clear. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors who might be Shanghaied recruited include Bbb23, YouReallyCan (for opinions on any BLP issues - the AN/I fiasco was unfair as many weighed in on "IDONTLIKEHIM" grounds, IMHO), UKexpat, Jclemens and Ironholds as ones whose soundness of opinion is generally accepted. Some of the most eager to make edits are, IMO, the ones who should be most encouraged to leave the room. Thank. Collect (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will approach them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I trust these are sufficiently respected editors here - sorry that YRC was not included, of course. Collect (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The only user I could find with that name - User:Youreallycan - is blocked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you reverse the article-space page ban?

As you correctly pointed out, the impact is minor but IMO the principle of it is important. My plan then and now is to stay on very non-controversial ground and within the rules regarding editing the TPM article. I felt that the edit was on very safe ground, and triply so not meriting such an action. On this basis:

• I assumed that all would agree even the idea of it it was a clear error and implausible.
• It was done in a gnome and friendly spirit, and I asked that if anyone (=even one person) disagreed with it for them to revert me.
• It (as written) is NOT sourced. At the time I did it there was no source on the sentence and a source on the following sentence (which was on a different topic) was a dead link. Afterwards someone fixed the link on the following sentence and I found the mention in the source and (as detailed on the talk page) it still does NOT support the sentence in the article.
• There is no rule that I was violating. I don't think it would even violate the rule that you wrote afterwards, but if it had existed then, I would not have done the edit to be triply safe & triply easygoing.

My plan then and now is to stay on very non-controversial ground and within the rules regarding editing the TPM article. Could you reverse it? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to admire North8000's determination to continue working on that article, but we have effectively become second-class citizens. We've been working diligently to improve the article for months, in his case years; we've participated with enormous patience in the moderated discussion for three f@cking months, despite all the bullshit; and because we participated in the moderated discussion, we can't edit the article. Meanwhile, anybody with an axe to grind can just show up and change the lede f@cking sentence of the article to "The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to its own view of the United States Constitution," without any discussion on the Talk page or any other page — he just drove by, rolled down the window and did it — and there it stays without being reverted, and the drive-by editor faces no repercussions whatsoever. SMH Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the frustration you folks are experiencing. The topic-ban will end soon enough. meanwhile there is plenty to do on the discussion page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Seventeenth Amendment

Would you mind taking a look at the current discussion on the Seventeenth Amendment at the TPm talk page? There was also this tag posted, which seems inappropriate considering the number and quality of sources that support the statement.

Also, I have suggested that the discussion should be taking place at the moderated discussion page, but am meeting some resistance to that. The situation has not reached the state where exactly the same topical matter is being discussed in different forums in a disparate manner, but it would seem headed in that direction.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you point me to it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to link that Talk:Tea_Party_movement#17th_Amendment.

Note that another discussion overlapping that ongoing at the moderated page has been started Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Wording. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Actioned edit of reference to Constitution in lead

Since there has been more editing to the clause at issue, which is also being addressed immediately above, and given the fact that more than 24 hours have passed with two in support and none opposed (a couple of comments, somewhat unclear), I have restored the reverted edit, adding another source in light of citation tags that have appeared recently, and reworded slighty in a manner facilitating retention of the reference to "the Constitution" and clarifying that it is an interpretive methodology, not an interpretation per se. The clause reads

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates a version of constitutional originalism for interpreting the United States Constitution

As it is not inconceivable that this edit, too, will meet with a clamorous response, I've decided to post this here in advance.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I oppose that edit. There has not been time for proper discussion. The edit should be reverted and a proper discussion opened on the talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The first vote on the edit was made two days ago, and there had not been a single statement of opposition since then. Silk Tork has not been calling the votes on every edit that has been made, he has only delineated basic parameters for achieving consensus for edits. As far as I can tell, the criteria for consensus was met, and a third editor, one who didn't vote, has since stated that the edit is acceptable.

Discussion has taken place, and even at this stage, there are three editors that have voiced support for the edit, one opposed.

As the lead is supposed to summarize the article, it wouldn't be unusual if further modification was necessary after discussing edits relating to the Constitution and the TPm agenda. Perhaps the discussions related to that, of which there is one already started at the TPm Talk page regarding one somewhat narrow point/phrase. That discussion would fall under a broader discussion to be started soon. It should probably be incorporated into that broader discussion according to the progression of that, as the horizon of the Constitution is expansive.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has been unclear. I oppose the recent rogue edit that started this mess, and also the version created by the subsequent edit. It needs to be returned to the last stable form and then a clear discussion started. North8000 (talk)

You participated in that discussion, responding here. after the suggestion to vote on restoring the quoted text. There was a vote in support entered preceding the above-diffed comment. I entered a vote subsequently that was followed by another comment, in response to which I cited an additional source for clarification.

I fail to see what was unclear about the straightforward discussion. Your comment may have been unclear, insofar as it states that you supported reverting the edit you have referred to as "rogue", whereas it did state that you opposed the edit under discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I was pointing out what a confused mess the situation was. Including that there was discussion of edits / versions in place at the same time that people were changing the version in place. It needs to go back to the last stable version and then a clear discussion started. 10:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)North8000 (talk)

Well, you that is not what your comment said, and I repeat, you did not oppose the edit under discussion during a vote.

Although your participation in the discussion was limited, the time frames set by Silk Tork had been satisfied, to the best of my understanding, and it has recently been mentioned that we are under a time constraint here due to the reconvening of the Arbcom case in to weeks.

It does not seem to me to be excusable that editors are objecting to an edit after an edit has been made by following established procedure and in accordance the relevant guidelines.

One would think that under such conditions, editors would be compelled to participate in a more pro-active manner during discussions of topics that are found pertinent.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see previous comment. Your comment does not address it. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I oppose that edit as well. That's three "Oppose votes." My reason is that the source Ubikwit has cited doesn't even support what he said in the lede sentence of the article. He said that the Tea Party supports Constitutional originalism. The source says that "Tea Party activists" support constitutional originalism, not the entire Tea Party. Accordingly the claim is unsourced and should be reverted immediately by anyone authorized to do so. I have implored Ubikwit on the article Talk page to revert himself. Nine hours have passed with no response.

Also SilkTork, I want to bring to your attention an incident of Wikistalking (or Wikihounding). User:WLRoss has been very bitter ever since I started directing admin attention to his mountain of BLP violations at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations four years ago. (The title of the article suggests what a minefield it could be.) After TWO FREAKING YEARS of warfare, during which I became extremely frustrated because nobody was taking this seriously, User:FloNight and User:Nuclear Warfare (what an appropriate name) came in and stubbed the entire article. Ever since then, WLRoss has been following my contrib trail all over the English Wikipedia website like a bloodhound, joining the other side in whatever content dispute I became involved in.

He's Australian and he has never before shown any interest in American political articles. He has arrived at Tea Party movement because he knows I'm editing there and he can stir up some trouble for me. To put it very mildly and very briefly, his presence is not constructive. I raised this issue at WP:ANI at the end of April, and he eventually informed a veteran editor who was looking into the matter, "I stopped editing Tea Party as soon as it was brought up" on May 1.[13] Clearly he was just waiting for the heat to die down, and now he's back.[14] I am asking you, in your capacity as moderator of the TPM discussion, to ensure that this individual stays in his lane as he promised User:MONGO on May 1, and does not become engaged in the TPm discussion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You are another late comer with an objection that should have been raised in the discussion beforehand. I'm not here to waste my time following the rules so that editors that don't agree with edits can ignore discussion of the substance of the content and then make unfounded objections subsequently.

Incidentally, I find the objection you have raised regarding the sourcing to be baseless. I have quoted basic passages from two references that support the text of the edit.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• This exchange shows why the article is going to stay crap. There are literally dozens of books and hundreds of peer reviewed articles about the Tea Party Movement written by experts of American politics, yet these three editors are crusading to exclude all this literature and base it entirely on the movement's own statements. Here they even argue that statements have to be "about the party" and not about the activists - even though all sources acknowledge that the movement is loosely connected around a fuzzy set of ideas, and does not have a single official agenda.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a complete mis-statement of what has happened and been said. So far I have just said that the "discussion" was a confused and confusing mess because it was about the "in place" version which people kept changing. And "job 1" was clearly to get it to the last stable version so that a clear and rational discussion could occur. It also implicitly makes the false statement thaat all of the sources one thing and that that one thing is in conflict with the expressed agenda. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I am going to have to object to the assertion that the version referred to as "stable" was stable. If you'll recall, the restored sentenced had been reverted 6 minutes after I made the edit revert , and so I proceeded to take up the Constitution in the main body of the article, as the lead is supposed to summarize that. After having several versions of the Constitution section revert-warred out, the article was locked.

Therefore, the characterization of that as "stable" is highly misleading. It had been contested since 9 April 2013.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the "constitution" part of the first sentence, "strict adherence to the United States Constitution" says it all, has been in for years (until a few days ago) and, I believe, was the result worked out in a long mediation process. And so what would you call the last stable version? That new POV mess has to go and we need to get back to the last stable version and then start a real discussion if someone wants to change it. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Begging your pardon, sir, but I did start a discussion, and you participated to only a very limited extent.

In fact, I'm somewhat baffled by the fact that you are trying to bring up a content dispute here, when you declined to address it in the proper venue.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the proper venue to discuss editor behaviours. Actioning an edit without proper discussion and especially one that changes the meaning of the original edit, which had been stable, is disruptive. Silk Tork usually always gives a final call for any opposition and then allows another 24 hours. In addition, my understanding is that Silk Tork is the moderator. Questions about edits either by seasoned editors to the page or by new editors, are to be brought to him. They are not to be reverted by us. And this is clearly a revert of not only the new editor's contribution but of the original, stable edit. Getting consensus for major changes is basic editing. Silk Tork has been very clear about enforcing blocks/bans for editors who violate these rules. This is clearly a violation. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Per Silk Tork: ". . .somebody who adds, removes or alters content without consensus and after being informed of the restrictions in place, will be sanctioned. Notify me, and I will deal with it. I will revert the edit and sanction the editor. Anyone can inform an editor of the restrictions in place, but only an independent admin or myself can carry out reverts and sanctions."

And, there is more to that passage

This is an article where we need people to be putting their proposals down on the talkpage and getting consensus. Who actually makes the edit after consensus has been done, doesn't matter. As long as that person actions the edit as agreed, and does not add their own twist as they are doing so. I am concerned there is not much time before ArbCom reconvenes, and I don't want edit wars to start up on the article between now and then(Silk Tork).

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have proposed that edits on the Lead are wound back to the last stable version, and that editing on the Lead is suspended until the main body is sorted out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've done that.

Could you please unhat the section I started that was arbitrarily hatted as described below? That discussion is directly relevant to work on the Agenda section.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that back in order. While you were adding a section on the Agenda section, I was adding another, too Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Other_concerns_with_the_Agenda_section.

Incidentally, I had practically rewritten the opening paragraph from scratch, basically just rephrasing the content that was there in a more intelligible manner and paraphrasing some sources. I had added the following blockquote [15], which was edit-warred out, in relation to the Constitution immediately following that paragraph and specifically to support the last sentence of that paragraph.

The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting Agendas... Yet within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party. This core is particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters.[26]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edit? Arbitrary hatting a substantial material related to discussion underway

Silk Tork, I don't know exactly how to raise issue relating to the somewhat unusual edit in question, but a large collation of data I spent substantial time putting together has just been arbitrarily hatted, even as I received a message on my Talk page while working on the formatting and the like of another editor composing a response.

I consider it to be extremely disruptive, am I right in feeling that way?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing requiring reverting at the TPm?

Would you mind reverting this edit.

I assumed that the person that made it was aware of the sanctions, as he has been engaged in the discussion Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Wording. In the last comment he makes he falsely accuses me of incivility[16]. In that same comment he makes the following tendentious statement in conjunction with an assertion regarding some phantom editing agenda

I will not sit ideally by while a handful of authors push an article that implies such a thing.

Meanwhile the moderated page has been mentioned more than once in the related discussion Talk:Tea_Party_movement#17th_Amendment. Considering the tendentious nature of his the above-mentioned comment as well as the fact that there was obviously no consensus on the revert edit, it would be hard to say that the edit was made in good faith.

Moreover, the text in question is currently the focus of discussion Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Phase_2.

I will post the same type of notice on that user's page as I did the other day.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought commenting on editors was barred on the moderated talk page?

[17] seems quite on the edge of the "Isle of Snark", IMO. I have tried to give sound non-personal statements there, noting that an article based on all of two states is possibly not of universal national applicability, but it appears another editor's "mileage" differs on the ground rules there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, your commenting was tendentious from the beginning of your response to the posting of the text from that source, starting with you falsely asserting that I was "ascribing claims" and that the authors were not "doctoral".

First you attempt to discount the source with no grounds, having not even performed a 10 second Internet search.

Second, the statement against me was a personal attack insofar as you asserted that I was misrepresenting the source; moreover, I had not made a single interpretive remark on the content of the source or how it might be integrated. I don't know if you were trying to derail discussion of the source or provoke me, but in either case, tendentious would seem to be operative term.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A claim of mis-representing a source is not a personal attack. Mis-representing that claim as a personal attack IMO is a little nastier. North8000 (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, and your attempt to weigh in in defense with a further false, unsubstantiated assertion is also questionable behavior. Collect made an assertion about my editing behavior that projected a phantom edit that I hadn't even made. He wasn't simply refuting what I said with by mistaking something in the source. I suggest you read the thread before interjecting biased comments.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh? To what actual utile end is that post? Collect (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully an end to tendentious commenting on Talk pages.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Egregious personal attack - psychoanalysis?

It would seem that P&W has resorted to a tactic of suggesting psychonalaysis for me, claiming that I may have a secret agenda, and that it may only be accessible to my subconscious. He also basically asserts that only primary sources are viable sources for the Agenda section, which would seem to blatantly contradict policy and embody a tactic of obstructionism made on the basis of a contrived recourse to policy. [18]

One thing I must caution against is any attempt by people who are outside the Tea Party, including academics, to have the defining word on what constitutes the "Tea Party agenda." To illustrate, I'll use Ubikwit as an example, if I may. Nobody knows Ubikwit's agenda better than Ubikwit.•I may be able to observe his behavior and read his writings for a while, and if I'm an expert in the study of human behavior and psychology, I might be able to offer a pretty good guess.

•Even if I'm not such an expert, if he's behaving in straightforward ways about the things he wants and how he's getting them, all I need is an opportunity to observe him and talk with him, and I can offer a pretty good guess.

Nothing's better or more reliable, however, than Ubikwit simply telling us what he wants. Ubikwit may have a secret agenda, or subconscious desires that even he's not fully aware of, and that's where both the expert (political science professors, etc.) and the layman observer (journalists) come in. But especially in the "Agenda" area, such accounts must be treated as no better than equals of what the Tea Partiers are saying about their own agenda. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

He then goes on to say the following, which would seem to represent a form of status-quoism, and again chooses to single not only me out but you as well [19].

It seems like just a few hours ago we realized, as a group, that major changes to the article lede (lead section) would be too contentious and controversial, and we'd make each other mad as hell, and not get anything done. I respectfully suggest to all (particularly SilkTork and Ubikwit) that major changes to the "Agenda" section may be in the same category, at least for now. Ask North8000 about this. He was involved in a mediation a couple of years ago regarding this article, and a lot of the first half of this article (including not only the "strict adherence to the Constitution" bit in the lede sentence, but also the Agenda section) was hammered out at great trouble and expense (in terms of time and frustration) — and now they just want to tear everything up by the roots and start over. I've already offered a series of three minor improvements.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That was unwise of Phoenix and Winslow, and I will leave him a note. It is not, however, a serious enough personal attack to really justify bringing it to my attention. We would have a better chance of making progress on the article if people stopped looking to be offended. I do hat unnecessary personal comments, so they can be ignored for a few days. Please only bring personal attacks to me to deal with. It's an odd situation, but the more text I get which amounts to complaints about other users, the less inclined I am to visit the discussion to sort it out. Lots of text on my talkpage and by email, which I have to read through before going over to the discussion, makes me feel that it's going to take some time to sort out, so I will attend to other matters which can be sorted out more quickly, as a way of reducing my overall work-load. Does that make sense to you? I have, say, ten items to deal with; five of which will take around 20 minutes total, and the Tea Party discussion looks like it will take 20 minutes just to read through the text before I start to take action, then I elect to do the five.

The less I am called upon to help out, the more effective I can be. And also, I want to see people working out solutions themselves, so we can return to the Committee and say that contributors have shown evidence they are capable of dealing with this themselves. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that your commenting on a more spaced basis helps to focus various chaotic aspects that develop in the interim between you commenting. It's certainly less than ideal that I have felt compelled to contact you in relation to this so frequently.

Allow me to point you to a related thread at the normal article Talk page Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Academic_sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Beat music / Merseybeat

I'm not sure what you're doing, or why you're doing it. Merseybeat is a geographically specific subset of beat music. They are not synonymous - beat music happened at around the same time around the world (in the US it tends to be termed garage rock), and Merseybeat refers specifically to Liverpool. Can you explain why you have done what you have done? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is about Merseybeat, and it references other related forms of music (such as Brum Beat) which took their name from Merseybeat. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not finished yet - but you'll see that I will dismabiguate the various Mersey beat, Mersey Sound, Beat music, Brum beat, etc articles and redirects so that readers are better informed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No, your fundamental premise is wrong. There was beat music, and Merseybeat was a subset of that. I'll wait till you're finished before clarifying though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I know what you are saying. There are modern discussions on beat music, which retrospectively look back at what was happening in Germany. However, the origin of term beat music or beat bands is obscure. What is known is that Mersey sound and Merseybeat became known in 1963 with the emergence of the Beatles. This is sourced. Recorded uses of the term beat come out of that, with the popularity and success of the Beatles. Again this is sourced - and we have Brum beat, and the Tottenham sound. This is mostly already in the article. The article as written is about Merseybeat, explaining the importance of Liverpool's role. I've not done anything major, so I'm not quite sure of your concern. The article is about Merseybeat / Mersey sound. I've renamed it that. The Merseybeat article was merged into the Beat music article in 2007, and due to the way it was done, renaming of the article would have been difficult.

Where I am not sure now, is about the redirection of Beat music. It goes to Merseybeat at the moment. What I am wondering is if it should go to a disambiguation page offering people Merseybeat, Brum Beat, Nederbeat, Garage rock, Freakbeat and British Invasion. Or if it should remain on Merseybeat as I think most of those things are discussed in context in the article. What do you think? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's take it to the talk page - which is where you should have raised your concerns in the first place before making such a fundamentally misguided move. For a start, the Beatles did not "emerge" in 1963 - they were popular in Liverpool in 1961, and the term "Merseybeat" began to be used soon afterwards (late 1962 or early 1963). We need (at least) two separate articles - one on Beat music, covering all the regional scenes and linking to separate regional articles (so, contain some content rather than merely be a disamb page), and one specifically on Merseybeat. The confusion has arisen, I think, because the article attempts to cover too much, and suggests (or suggested) that the two terms are synonymous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Two articles is a possible move forward - though take care that the one on "beat music" doesn't lean too much on original research. Merseybeat is known and has plenty of sources. "Beat music" and "beat bands" are phrases that occur, though there is not a lot of material directly on what these terms mean. So while we have their usage leading up to 1963, we don't have the same explicit coverage and explanation as we do for Merseybeat or the Mersey sound. Indeed, coverage of beat music in context in the Merseybeat article may be a more appropriate solution. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you for now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thread at AN/I related to moderated discussion

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Violations_of_WP:Disrupt.2C_WP:AGF.2C_WP:CIVIL.2C_etc..2C_at_the_Tea_Party_movement_Moderated_discussion--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, you seem to seek to make mountains out of molehills and to see personal attacks where none exist as far as others can see. I suggest you have a cup of tea or so, calm down, and avoid the drama boards as much as possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I keep seeing you characterizing people's comments and edits in ways, choices of wikiwords that are much more negative and ominous than what most would call them, and venues which be trying to get the person smacked. And in each case you are suggesting a wiki-offense characterization (e.g. "disruptive", "personal attack") rather than letting SilkTork read it for themselves and assessing it, both of which they are very capable of doing. IMHO time to ease up on that type of thing. North8000 (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have seen the thread and left a comment. I don't see any further need for my involvement in that. I will take a look at the Tea Party movement page and discussion shortly, and see what is happening. Given the messages I have received on my talkpage and by email, I am not feeling optimistic that things are proceeding well there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, things there have turned pretty TLDR and boring. IMHO the "collision" point has moved to your talk page, and IMHO the method of tussle has changed to "try to get people in trouble". North8000 (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I think either now, or when the Committee reconvenes, the solution may be to simply topic-ban a whole bunch of people, and then see if the article can be improved. The atmosphere has not been encouraging. I think that the discussion has not worked. However, it hasn't been a complete failure, as the article has made some progress. Though, to be fair, a handful of more neutral editors might have made more substantial improvements in less time, and with less effort. I'm not really happy about the whole thing right now. This Tea Party movement article has been a throbbing toothache in my life since I started looking into the ArbCom case a few months ago. If the end result had been an acceptable article, and a bunch of editors working collaboratively together, it would have been worth the nagging ache. But as it is, the article still needs attention, and people (though a slightly different bunch now) are still at each other's throats. We have a week to turn things around. I'd like to think that everyone will make a real effort to pull together. And it's worth pointing out that if things don't improve by the time the Committee reconvenes, we will likely be looking at the behaviour of editors who have been obstructive in the discussion, even if they were not named in the original case. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that additional neutral editors would help - and I suggested several. Perhaps you could contact them again and some others? I would add more if you like, to be sure. I know I have tried to seek to follow Wikipedia policies here, for sure. Collect (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The feedback I am getting is that it looks like a lot of effort for little reward. There is a difference to stepping in to a happy productive atmosphere, than to stepping into a fairly tense and slow moving one. However, I am not quite giving up yet, so - yes please - grab some people and point them to the article and/or discussion, and lets see what can be done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm considering issuing a notification to Ubikwit that discretionary sanctions apply, and the next time this flair up, let AE sort it out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

re: Adding more editors as opposed to losing them.

Nobody wants to be part of an article they can't edit. The chill is strong, the talk page demoralizing. If you were to allow bold edits, we could flush everyone out of the weeds and they'd be forced to defend their actions (revert, discuss). With this you'd see less reverts because it's far more difficult to oppose well-sourced, NPOV additions when they've been integrated into the mainspace for all to see. Also would make the process of topic-banning (or threat thereof) more effective as other editors pay attention to edits, not walls of talkpage text. It's easier to recognize the intentions of certain editors when get the action going, so to speak. †TE†Talk 13:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. But bear in mind that what you are suggesting is the state of play on the article for the past few years, which has resulted in a very poor quality article, and an ArbCom case. My aim - if it hasn't been made clear - has been more to encourage discussion and consensus and to avoid reverts, rather than to encourage them. We don't want bold, we want considered and appropriate. As long as someone is making neutral and sourced edits on the article there would be no reason to interfere, and I have been encouraging the regulars at the discussion page to leave new article editors alone. The idea of the discussion page is to look at big broad improvements to the article - not to argue over paragraphs, let alone sentences or single words; or sources. I haven't yet had a chance to get over to the discussion page, nor to look closely at the article, but I see that some copy-editing by editors new to the article is taking place, and that is positive. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents. The copy-editing has been positive, but there are major flaws in both the composition and content of TPM. We can find some positive ideas for structural changes buried deep in the discussions, but getting any kind of participation has proven difficult. I have a few ideas, as do others I'm sure. Problem is committing to the drawn out process currently in place. Something that's missing in this BLP has been the emergence of social media in the movement. Quite the phenomena and yet there's not a mention in the article. One of many thoughts. †TE†Talk 13:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Silk Tork you keep talking about banning editors. I think that is unfair considering all the effort the editors have put into this. I know I've not taken all this time out of my life to participate here only to have you get me banned in the end. For what? Show me where I've done anything that deserves banning. What has North done? What about Arthur? What about Xenophrenic? We've all made the effort. I don't see Goethean or any of the others in the case here working to contribute to solving this mess. Why should we be banned? For what?

The only banning needed here is Ubikwit and everybody knows it. He is the single most disruptive force on the moderated discussion and the article talk page. He needs to go. Please stop threatening us with banning. None of us deserve that. We've participated and taken the time and made the effort and that article is improving. None of us have dumped huge amounts of material into the article with no consensus. None of us has made personal attacks, BLP violations that require oversighting. None of us is hounding other editors. We don't address each other with, "What do you mean?" We are not confrontational, disruptive, or just mean spirited.

The admins on the ANI are likely waiting for you. Ubikwit needs topic banning. He likely should be site banned. He can't get along with others. He only wants to cause disruption and get editors in trouble. How many times has he brought our comments here? For what? How many times has he complained that his edit got deleted? About two dozen now, over about as many venues. The same comment about the same edit, as if he's been wronged somehow. That's not a competent, mature editor. You've got the rest of us here in a difficult position. Who started this ANI? Ubikwit. Who makes the personal attacks? Ubikwit. Who causes the disruption by dumping walls of text into a discussion rather than participate in one?

It's not us that needs banning. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. Very clearly. However, can I ask you now to concentrate on improving the article and not in making complaints about other editors. Four days ago I made a suggestion that folks discuss the Agenda section. There has been little progress on that. There has been plenty of side discussions, and some personal comments. I have now removed all that, so the discussion page is again back on the Agenda section. Please, impress me and please me, do some research on the Tea Party's agenda, and suggest a paragraph or two to use in the article. You do that, I'll give you a barnstar. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Then please do something about him. You've not hesitated to discipline others. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

St. Petersburg vs "Saint Petersburg"

Since I see you've already voiced your opinion on this matter, I wonder if you'd like to comment the latest exchange?—Abercius (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It was recently decided to keep the article at Saint Petersburg, so it isn't appropriate to raise the issue again so soon. I suggest that if it still matters to you, you could make a move request in six months time, with a well presented argument, backed up by sufficient evidence. I see more uses of St. Petersburg than Saint Petersburg, but as there is no consensus for that view, it's not an issue that I am interested in pursuing - especially as Saint Petersburg is used by some reliable sources. It's just one of those things. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPS?

This new user seems to be adding external links, to a WP:SPS, to multiple articles: Special:Contributions/Nicengelhart. I wonder what is your view? Do you think any further action is required? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've welcomed the user and left them a note about WP:EL. I'll check on the situation in a few days, and tidy up any inappropriate links that are still on articles. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That all seems very fair. Thank you. That blog site looks very interesting, actually, and is quite well-written! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it may meet WP:BLOGS as "by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", though more as a relevant source than simply as an EL added randomly to an article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Beer in San Diego County

I have been working on developing this article at User:MelanieN/sandbox. It's nowhere close to being ready for mainspace, but when you have a minute, could you take a look and tell me if I'm on the right track? Too much of this, not enough of that, any directions I shouldn't be going? Thanks so much for offering to help, I can see you have a full plate! (Maybe beer \_/ will be more fun than some of the other issues. ) --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look at some point today. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That's very good. You have it spot on, and what you have done can be used as a model for other regional beer articles. You can move it into mainspace as it is, and nominate it for DYK, so it will appear briefly on the mainpage. You could mention San Diego Beer Week: [20], [21], [22]. And also mention San Diego Brewers Guild‎. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification requested on Agenda section

Could you please clarify exactly what the goal is in the agenda section? Are we creating a sentence for the lede? Are we creating a paragraph for the agenda section? Or is this topic to take over the agenda section and replace everything in it? Are we not to consider due weight? And must we have walls of sources posted without hatting? I find that very disruptive to the editing process. It splits the efforts of editors to modify and/or present new paragraphs, and makes it difficult to navigate between versions for comparison. Also, are we expected to rely solely on one academic's paper, or are we allowed to use sources like the New York Times, etc. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the discussion page later today. The aim is to have balanced and sourced information on the agenda of the Tea Party movement so that if a reader wishes to know what the aims of the movement are, they can get a useful, neutral, reliable and accurate summary from Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion requested on Trees (poem)

Last August you did the GA review on Joyce Kilmer, and I enjoyed working with you during that process. I have taken a few weeks in writing an article on Kilmer's most remembered poem, "Trees" and was hoping to prepare it for an FA or GA nomination in the near future (I'm leaning towards FA knowing there would be a bit more work, but know it could pass GA relatively easily now). I was wondering if you could take a little time out of your busy schedule to examine the article and suggest how I can improve/polish it before making the nomination. I appreciate it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, and it seems quite tidy. I would recommend nominating it for GA, as FA reviewers sometimes comment negatively when an article is nominated directly for FA bypassing GA. The analysis section relies heavily on Winchell, who - though the poem appears to move from youth to old age - asserts that the stanzas could be read in any order. Might be useful to have a few more critical opinions. I also wonder if that Scansion and analysis section might be better placed after the writing section. Logically, the poem needs to have been written before it can be an analysed. I also question the use of the tree image. As that is not the tree that inspired the poem, it is a little misleading to use it. The size is also large - such images should not be forced in the body of the article. And the caption is rather long. You also need to disambiguate which Sir John Suckling is being referred to. There are also a couple of paragraphs in the parodies section that need sourcing. There is also an unsourced opinion: "However, as this quotation cannot be found in McMillan's book, Davenport must be in error here" which might be mistaken. Davenport seems to be paraphrasing what McMillan is saying on page 127 in which she is talking about those who hate machinery, such as William Ruskin. Given that there are little areas which can be tidied up on a quick glance, a thorough review would be beneficial. I am already tied up with a review of Fyodor Dostoyevsky‎, but when that is completed, and if nobody has picked up the Tree review in the meantime, I would take it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• It will probably be about a week or two before I propose it for GA, so you have time to finish up Dostoyevsky. Thanks for taking a look at it--I wanted a new set of eyes on it because I've been working on it for several weeks now and might not notice things, so I knew that your keen eye and love of poetry would bring out some great suggestions. I appreciate it. I switched the writing and scansion sections per your suggestion, and disambiguated the two Sucklings. The McMillan-Davenport commentary was material that I haven't figured out what to do with that or to look in the original text to comment on either's work. I inherited that paragraph from older versions of the article (and material originally in Joyce Kilmer), and still have to take a close look at. I asked a local historian in Mahwah for a picture of the house the Kilmer's owned where it was written, and I'm trying to find a fair-use Kilmer Oak photo from New Brunswick. I keep running into one theme in the scholarship...the lack of it because most scholars don't take Kilmer and his work seriously enough to analyse it, so I might be stuck with Winchell. I'll keep you updated. Thanks again. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep me informed, as the Dostoyevsky review may be ending soon. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Poetry

As there is a backlog on move requests please move Poetry Magazine to "Poetry magazine". This would address both your concern and the reason it was at its prior stable title for many years, as there is no reason to use title case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

I would like to set up a Moderated discussion, like the discussion on the tea party movement, for Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. Besides the path the tea party took to get there, how is that done? The article I am wanting to do this has been in dispute for a while now and there seems little that can be done to move forward. I would like to move forward and take the article to WP:FA, again. However, content disputes are upending these efforts and I don't think they can be resolved with normal dialogue. Casprings (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation. There used to be an organised informal mediation process, but that closed as it became inefficient, so moderated discussions regarding content disputes are normally either handled formally by the Mediation Committee or informally by any editor who agrees. I am sometimes approached to mediate, but since I have been on the Arbitration Committee I have not done any apart from this Tea Party one. The success of mediation is entirely down to the contributors involved. Unless everyone is willing to enter into mediation, and are willing to abide by the spirit of the process, then it fails. Indeed, the willingness of the participants is far more important than the experience or ability of the moderator. If you want to set up an informal moderated discussion, and don't know who to ask, you could try asking one of the folks at Wikipedia:Editor assistance . SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I started a session on the talk page to see others are willing. Casprings (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Parting thoughts on Jmh649 RFAR

This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2".PumpkinSky talk 22:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd add that we do no one any favours, not Doc nor the community by not summing up and clarifying what the issues are. How can Doc be expected to know what concerns he has to deal with, that the community sees as problems if they are not drawn up clearly. How can an community feel confident that Doc is receiving the kind of mentoring he needs to address those concerns if the concerns aren't clear and the mentor is kept secret. There are things a community doesn't need to know; this isn't one of them. I've been teaching for a long time. Teachers have problems when expectations aren't clear, and when they sidestep red flags in behaviour until something becomes too big to handle easily. At the least, the arbs should have used this RfArb as an opportunity to create further signposts/ guides for Doc, all admins and the community. No disrespect is meant to the arbs, or to Silk Tork whom I consider to be a fine arbitrator.(olive (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC))

There will be differences of opinion on how to handle a situation, and it is important to air one's views and opinions, so thank you both for sharing this. My take is that ArbCom is not the only way to resolve problems - and this is a view I feel is shared by most members of the current Committee. Wikipedia, and the community, are evolving - and we are moving in the right direction. Dispute resolution and problem solving has moved away from one man, to an elected body, and is gradually being handled more and more by the community itself. This is an important development. The power to resolve matters does not lie purely in the hands of the elected body. Increasingly it lies in the hands of the community as a whole. This empowers the community, and means we can all manage and handle matters, and things move more effectively. Hopefully as we develop further we can get to the point where all disputes can be handled by the community - though there may always remain a need to keep a body for dealing with those situations that the community really, really cannot resolve. As for this situation: the individuals that make up the Committee felt that the matter hadn't yet reached the stage where the community really, really couldn't resolve it. It wasn't a group think. It was several individuals. And I think all of those individuals fully accept that with a different set of individuals there could have been a different result. ArbCom is not always wise. That is not its role (though, of course, the community attempts to select what it feels are the wisest of those who put themselves forward for election). ArbCom is merely final and binding. Right or wrong. And then we move on. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding SilkTork. On rereading my post to day it sounds pretty aggressive which was not my intent. I apologize for that. I also was not clear on what I was trying to say so I'll try and reword.

An arb request seems to me to have three aspects: the request, the arb response and the conclusion. My concern was not with the arb response but with the conclusion-what we do with that response. The system we have, as far as I know (and my comment was not a criticism of the arbs but the system), is to close the request either as an acceptance or not acceptance. A simple close works if the arbs don't have much to say. The arbs in the JMH649 case despite the fact that they were declining to accept had lots to say. What I would like to see is a summary of what the arbs say in a declined case, perhaps a summary created by a clerk, then a close. Establishing what the arb concerns are helps establishes expectation. Being aware of what is expected helps ensure success.

As for community solutions: I don' think we have a system in place that is beyond RfC'S,(which don't work very well, too prone to the creation of mud), AEs which can be gamed beyond imagining, and arbitration. Single admin actions on AE that can only be undone by three editors does not work very well for editors trying to defend themselves from unilateral actions. There's a step in DR that's missing there somewhere. An Rfc/U might work better if patrolled and if the close and conclusions were dealt with by three editors rather than one. Anyway, just some clarification, thoughts, and thanks for your gracious talk page atmosphere.(olive (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC))

I think there are some interesting suggestions there. While on the whole I feel very positive about the progress that the community are making, there is one development that causes me some regret, and that is that suggestions for change are much harder to implement these days. But that is, I suppose, a by-product of the growth in size of the community. When the community was small enough that everyone knew and trusted each other, and the vandals and problematic users had not joined, then changes could be implemented in an atmosphere of trust. The community are more suspicious and cautious these days. Added to which, when something has been in place for a while, institutionalism creeps in, and there is a strong inclination toward the status quo. However, you could raise your suggestions in the appropriate venues, and see what happens.

On the matter regarding the views expressed by the Committee during requests. I return you to my comments on the wisdom of the members of the Committee. Our role is not to be the wise elders of the community that people seek out for advice. Our role is purely to be final and binding. It is hoped and expected that we will make our decisions with care and consideration. But that our every utterance should be enshrined as examples of good conduct would be inappropriate. It should be again stressed that ArbCom is a group of individuals, and that utterances will vary depending on who is available, so what we say is less important than the consensus on a final decision. In this case the message sent was that the community can and should deal with this matter, and that is all that needs to be understood. My personal opinion on the matter should carry no more (nor less) weight than yours or PumpkinSky's. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree for the most part with what you're saying. I have no problem with the committee's position on anything not because I personally agree or disagree, but because it comes out of consensus. I don't support punitive, as both parent and teacher, I don't see it brings the best out of anyone, so helping an editor get back on track if possible is best. For that reason if an arb as that final say on behaviour sees an issue that may bring an editor back to the committee, then the arbs' opinions as arbs, rather than citizens of the community might be worth clarifying. Anyway, thanks for the chat and I'll push off assuming you have lots more to do with your time. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC))

ready to go

I found the latest attempt to force through "immediate actioning" on basically the same proposal over and over to be troubling, and I am tired of pointing out that WP:RS/N does not use Amazon blurbs about a person to "prove" Foley's essay meets RS when no one there says it does. I have sought assiduously and repeatedly to suggest compromise wording consistent with normal editing practices, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and find the current state of discussion to verge on tendentiousness, hence am strongly considering leaving the fray to wall-of-text-users. Sigh. Collect (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in this matter Collect. And I fully understand your frustrations. When I read your section title I had hoped it was to tell me that you thought we were ready to action the Agenda edit, and to move on to the next stage. My impression was that collaboration and focus on task were happening, so I am disappointed at what you tell me, but I am not entirely surprised. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have called for a preference indicator on those versions that have been offered. I will identify the one most preferred, and then we can have a discussion on that version, looking at and overcoming reasonable wording objections. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork, it's not what you think. It's really "haven't seen a viable version lately". Also the page and number of lengty possibilities has become too huge and confused for anybody except a few stalwarts to understand/review. As an indicator, look at Xenophrenic's talk page. Three of us have been trying to coax Xenophrenic to draft a version. Where three people see the best way to move forward as reaching across the aisle in a "request for a draft". North8000 (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you help me here? Could you select the two versions (or even just one) that you least dislike. That will give us one version to discuss, and we can move forward from there. I understand if you don't wish to, and I appreciate you raising your objection here, rather than on the discussion page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy to. I listed a preferred version. Also proposed a way to (hopefully) a quick 1/2 step forward. If you feel it is out of process, I'd strike it. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like I've missed some fun during my brief absence. I appreciate the requests for input left on my Talk page. I wouldn't exactly characterize my perspective as "across the aisle" from Malke, TE and North8000; you'll recall my last major editing and additions to the Agenda section (as seen in this version) were promptly reverted by Snowded, [23] Furious Style,[24] and Ubikwit, [25] while Arzel[26] and Arthur Rubin[27] reinstated my edits. In response to comments left on my Talk page, I'll submit an Agenda section this evening. While it will be significantly different than both Malke's and Ubikwit's latest efforts, I think it will collaboratively incorporate the major information points from each, while also addressing some recently raised valid criticisms. My proposal shouldn't run afoul of SilkTork's request to focus on collaborative efforts instead of new, competing proposals. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, it was really "across the perceived-by-some aisle".  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It may be a lost cause already at this late hour, but as Xenophrenic has not come through with the promised suggested text, and seeing that the deadline is going to be in hte rear-view mirror in less than a day, perhaps the problematic wording in the thus far favored version should be taken up? Is there time to salvage anything out of the prolonged Agenda section discussion? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about that, Ubikwit. The last thing I did before leaving on a road trip yesterday was save an initial draft of my proposed edits -- or so I had thought. I didn't realize until I got back tonight that the save didn't go through, and that was after you guys had made numerous additional adjustments to the most favored versions. (And started doing "readability" testing?) Oh well; Wikipedia articles are forever "works in progress" and are never really "done". Xenophrenic (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Another party heard from at Tea Party movement

Could you check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_movement&diff=562037232&oldid=562018816 and comment to Plumber (talk · contribs) if you think appropriate. I think this is a major edit, partially agreed against, and made now for the second time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the material and left a warning for the user. It would have been merely advisory if the user had only entered the material once, but doing it a second time was clearly inappropriate. If the user does it again without getting consensus first, let me know and I will block. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

my history of readability concerns

See Joseph Widney now with a lead having a grade score of 13 and readability of 30. Then look at [28] just before my first edit there. Grade score or 25 and readability of minus 13. I got it up to GA status this year. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

While basically in agreement that readability has it's place--though that is not defined in policy--I think I have demonstrated, by achieving F/K index to 16/16 with respect to text questioned because of poor readability, that readability is a concern that is secondary to content and can be improved by copyediting text after the various POVs found in reliably published sources have been cobbled together in a coherent presentation.

More specifically, I could easily improve the readability of the text suggested by Xenophrenic, which reflects the various POVs as found in RS in a fairly comprehensive manner.

Prioritizing readability over content (vis-a-vis WP:RS) would seem like putting the cart before the horse.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes and cites can easily handle the "details" some are fond of - I would note The results of this study show that the readability of the English Wikipedia is overall well below a desired standard. Although the average score of 51.18 does not seem far from the desired goal, nearly 75 percent of all articles scored below 60 in the Flesch reading ease test. Moreover, half of the articles can be classified as difficult or worse. This finding confirms our hypothesis that numerous articles on Wikipedia are too difficult to read for many people. from [29] which appears to be a reliable source on Wikipedia readability problems is spot on. Collect (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems common sense to me that collaborative article development should follow a simple procedure:

1) Determine what information needs to be conveyed (reliable sources)

2) Determine how best to present that information (neutral point of view)

3) Copy edit agreed-upon text for readability, clarity, grammar, spelling and other non-contentious improvements

Xenophrenic (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Detailed quotes and the like are generally placed in "footnotes" in the real world. I have cited a study about Wikipedia where it states that 75% of the articles fail a reasonable standard for readability. If we are here to conduct exercises in massive unreadable and illiterate walls of text, then your position has its place. If we are here to create encyclopedia articles which are actually (God forbid!) useful, then we can and ought to work at that goal from the start. If this means editors lose their favourite quotes and tidbits, sobeit. Defending a readability index of 16 or less is, IMO, absurd. We have the choice between the two versions of "Joseph Widney" I have presented - it appears too many here would have preferred the original version, and that is their choice, and relished its specificity. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news media outlet subject to the laws of the advertising and PR industries.

The obsession with readability indexes and the like seems to me a distraction from actual content issues.

And I long, alas, for an end to the use of the Queen's English harkening back to a golden age of yore in these discussions. Personally, I consider such parlance to be somewhat disruptive.

I should further point out that I don't think we need references to "God" here with respect to editing practices, either.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• If we are here to conduct exercises in massive unreadable and illiterate walls of text, then your position has its place. --Collect

What a wonderful thing to say to another editor.

That is opposite to my position stated above. See point 3, where my position says we "Copy edit agreed-upon text for readability, clarity, grammar, spelling and other non-contentious improvements". Xenophrenic (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Page disruption

Extended content

Ubikwit and Xenophrenic are displacing editor's comments after they've been replied to by others. This makes it difficult to follow the comments. Also Ubikwits comments to me are again crossing the line. They are hostile and aggressive, not at all collegial. Xenophrenic is also parsing my comments. I've removed one of my comments until the situation is addressed. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Enough is enough. Here is the comment of hers that she herself removed It is about getting a version that is as accurate and neutral as possible. For example, the bit about Dick Armey is completely misleading and violates WP:UNDUE. When I tweaked Version 12d, I went to the TPm article and copied what was there. I looked for sources and found the New York Times and ABC News. Version 12d doesn't even mention Ryan Heckler's name. It calls him a conservative who came up with the idea. It then gives prominence to Dick Armey. Dick Armey didn't do anything to get that initiative started. It was all Ryan Heckler. He used the internet to generate ideas. He took 1000 of those ideas, narrowed them down to 50, and then he asked Dick Armey to help him sort the 50. But the prominence given to Armey in that paragraph makes it seem otherwise. Who made the home run? The batter or the fan in the stands who yells, "Swing!"? Big difference. It's undue weight, it's slanted. And I'd like to say for one, I think it's time editors here were relieved of accusations of obstructionism and taunts about taking behaviour issues to Silk Tork. I think we need a petition to ArbCom. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC) And this was the reply I posted Is this the ABC source to which you refer? It certainly contains the above-quoted passage posted by Xenophrenic. WP:RS is that on the basis of which we compose articles here, and WP:DUE would seem to give further impetus to including a description of Armey's role in producing the Contract from America, particularly in light of the fact that Wikipedia article Dick Armey describes him as "one of the chief authors of the Contract with America".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I attempted to do a minor refactoring (my above comment[30]) after I'd noticed that the comments had been moved around in a manner such as to make them unintelligible. Many of the comments were direct responses to other comments made in rapid sequence, not in a mellifluously flowing single narrative sequence. This is the diff for my original placement of the comment, directly below the comment by Malke to which it was a response, which happens to be the comment of hers that she has now deleted [31]. Another editor has now removed this comment[32] apparently following suit. Who is responsible for the "page disruption" here? Among other Talk page and other policy violations?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC) You are. And your post displaced North's reply to my post as your diff clearly shows. You were not part of the conversation. You could have easily replied elswhere. And I've specifically asked you on your talk page to stop stalking my comments. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Please do not post your comments on the talk pages of others with my timestamp as if done by me. †TE†Talk 18:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Excuse me, but I posted, as a blockquote, a comment of yours that was a personal attack against me so that it could be assessed for policy violations in the above context. Your decision to delete that blockquote raises further questions of disruption, perhaps. What is it that you are accusing me of attempting to do? Impersonate you? (edit conflict) What you did was posted my timestamp as part of your comments. †TE†Talk 18:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I see now that because I copied the text from a diff text your signature appeared in color, but note the other blockquotes above. The copying of the text from a diff sequence appears to have been a mistake, but your deletion of that blockquote instead of calling the mistake to the attention of those concerned is a something of an overreaction. Note that I have also provided a diff to your edit above, too.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I didn't look at your diffs nor will I as this thread has nothing to do with me. I can, however, provide a diff for what you percieved to be a personal attack by me. Hope this helps. †TE†Talk 18:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Ubikwit's "minor refactoring" completely ignored that I was attempting to restore the comments per time stamp that he and Xeno had disrupted. My edit summaries clearly say what I was doing. In addition, he is actually responding here [33] to another comment I made to Xenophrenic on another thread higher up in the discussion. Xenophrenic for some reason didn't respond back in the same place, but instead came to another thread, disrupted the comments there, and parsed my comments to make them appear they were saying something they were not. I've asked Ubikwit not to comment to me, and I've asked him to stop talking to me in that tone and to stop stalking my comments. Ubikwit is stalking my comments again. I've also attempted to remove Xeno's refactoring of my comment, but he won't respond to a request on his talk page and he keeps putting the parsed comment back. Parsing another editor's comments to make it appear that they have said something else is disruptive. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Parsing another editor's comments to make it appear that they have said something else is disruptive. --Malke Correct. And that is something I have never done. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, you have done exactly that. You've taken the first line of the second paragraph completely out of the context of the paragraph that came before. You're making it seem that I'm saying Heckler did the CfA all by himself. I never said that but parsing my comment and then responding to it makes it read like I did. That's the problem with parsing comments. If you'd simply responded to the whole comment without separating my words from their context, there wouldn't be a problem. But when you parse like that, you change the conversation and put the editor on the defensive. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC) And in addition, you also again reverted my attempt to restore the comments in the order they were made. [34]. This simply creates chaos on the page. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)That is not the post to which I referred above and posted a diff. The fact that you "won't look at it" doesn't alter its status. I am shocked that you would attempt to deceive Silk Tork and others here by posting such a comment and diff. Here is the permalink to Silk Tork's Talk page with the comment you made presented as a blockquote. The only problem is that I copied the text as wikicode, unawares, from the same page I copied the diff, so the color of the text of your signature appears, but the time stamps are about 30 minutes apart (17:21 for your comment at the moderated discussion and 17:57 for my posting here). --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC) The comments (edits) that were being refactored according to time stamp (unbeknownst to me when I moved my comment) were not made in chronological order in a unilateral narrative discussion, but directly in response to specific comments addressing specific topical matter and passages of text in a fragmented discussion involving multiple parties and simultaneous dialogical threads. I think that should suffice.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC) So you concede it's a "problem" for SilkTork to see a comment posted by you on his talkpage with my timestamp attached? I concur. †TE†Talk 18:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC) If you posted a diff of my deleted comment before it was moved, further clarified w/mention of Malke removed then I'll have to concede the diffs, are in fact, different. I'm a bit confused on where your definition of "deception" comes into play. †TE†Talk 18:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC) You can explain to those responsible for handing these matters, I'm just reporting the following out-of-the-blue comment in which you misrepresent my statements and characterize me with respect to my "alternate reality", which you subsequently deleted. The following comment was made by TE at 17:21 1 July 2013 on the TPm moderated discussion page, as per the diff above... Yes, I'm sure Malke approves of your alternate reality where Ryan Hecker and Dick Armey created the Contract from America without any outside participation. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC) The following comment was added by TE at 13:11 1 July 2013 on the TPm moderated discussion page, after being removed, refactored by TE at 12:43 1 July 2013 as per the diff above... Your preferred blockquote from my sourced addition above, "without specifying stages" of others' participation would strike me as being an alternative to reality -- Given what I had just posted above. †TE†Talk 19:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC) May I ask where you see a personal attack, Ubikwit? How did I personally attack you by supposedly misrepresenting your "statements" in the deleted diff that you've posted and more importantly -- How did I not "misrepresent" your "statements" in the diff for which I've provided? Considering you find my diff to be deceptive and apparently doesn't show what you believed to be a personal attack by me. They say the same thing, IMO, which makes your outrage at my diff to be puzzling at best. †TE†Talk 19:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC) TE, I took your comment to mean the version that totally failed to mention Ryan Heckler's name, as if he wasn't important to the process at all. That would indeed be an alternate reality since it was Heckler who initiated the Contract for America, not Dick Armey. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I'm still confused by the reaction to my deleted comment. There was a better placement and I took care of it after responding to P&W at the bottom of page. I'm just happy I checked my watchpage to and noticed the improper usage of my insignia on this page. When I first saw it, I'm like... I said what!?! †TE†Talk 19:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Perhaps the related thread can help you, Ubikwit, help me understand your issue. Because I'm not seeing the misrepresentation or your statements: Per source: "From the original 1,000 ideas that were submitted, Hecker whittled it down to about 50 based on popularity. He then narrowed the list down to 21. He was aided in this process by former House Republican Leader Dick Armey, whose conservative group, FreedomWorks, is the sponsor of Thursday's event at the Washington Monument." Three different people can read 3 different things from this same innocuous statement of fact. Dick Armey was secretly involved from the start. Dick Armey entered the process and helped whittle the 1,000 down to 21. Dick Armey only helped chop 50 down to the final 21. I say instead of arguing which narrative contains the most truthiness, we just follow my example of using inarguable facts. †TE†Talk 11:31 am, Today (UTC−5) Yes, hopefully the text doesn't raise any of those problems, it basically just states that he assisted in the process, without specifying stages ...a legislative agenda created by conservative activist Ryan Heckler with the assistance of Dick Armey of FreedomWorks. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:37 am, Today (UTC−5) Your preferred blockquote from my sourced addition above, "without specifying stages" of others' participation would strike me as being an alternative to reality -- Given what I had just posted above. †TE†Talk 1:11 pm, Today (UTC−5) †TE†Talk 19:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I don't see any problems with your comments, TE. What is disconcerting to me is that I feel like I can't make a comment without being called to task. As if I must justify every comment I make. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Even more disconcerting when certain editors take offense to anything directly said to or about them, but don't give the same consideration to the feelings of others'... especially when the often-offended editors know for a fact they can get away with more against thicker-skinned editors who let it slide. That's when a double-standard is established and exploited. †TE†Talk 23:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Forced actioning of edit to Agenda section

Extended content

Silk Tork, I reverted the actioning of edits to the Agenda section by P&W, which were made even after I posted this, including a diff specifically to your last edit describing the proposed procedure for working on a text for the Agenda section. It's devolved in a sort of mob-rule scenario on the moderated discussion page, and I for one would hope that the Committee acts swiftly to restore order in the environment for editing this article.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, that's right. He did. Here's the diff. [35] The trouble is that he's telling you only half the truth. We call that a "half-truth." Here's the other half. After a lot of very hard work by several people, we had a 4-1 vote in favor of Malke's condensed version of Xenophrenic's V12d for the Agenda section. That's consensus by any reasonable definition.[36] Ubikwit was the sole dissenting "vote" and now that he's lost the content dispute, he thinks he can get a "do over" and came running to you, expecting that you'll approve. Regrettably, at this time I must respectfully request that you block Ubikwit and issue a topic ban for Ubikwit. I see no other alternative. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Here is the procedural directive that was in force and to which I posted a diff. Version vote I'd like an indication now which two of the versions (I think the viable versions run from 7 through to 13) people feel they can live with, and is better than what is currently in the article. The process will be to indicate first and second preference. No need for additional comments at this stage. I'll assess which version is favourite, and then ask what specific objections people have to that version. Depending on the result of that discussion the outcome will be to either insert the chosen version, work on amending it, or continue to search for another version. I'm cool about the format of the vote, though an example might be: 1st 13; 2nd 12. User:Example. 15:13, 28 June 2013 Though this is called a vote - it's just the first stage in establishing consensus. It's about finding a version that most people feel is workable, and then discussing objections. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC) After thinking about it, I recalled an earlier discussion on procedure related to editors already aware of the discretionary sanctions, BLP violations should be reverted on sight. If it's a possible BLP violation it's best to revert and to let me know immediately - I will allow a fair amount of leeway on reverting possible BLP violations. Somebody in good faith adding, removing or altering content is not to be reverted. However, somebody who adds, removes or alters content without consensus and after being informed of the restrictions in place, will be sanctioned. Notify me, and I will deal with it. I will revert the edit and sanction the editor. Anyone can inform an editor of the restrictions in place, but only an independent admin or myself can carry out reverts and sanctions. Summary: If someone new to the article makes an inappropriate edit, inform them of this discussion, and discuss the edit here. If someone who is already aware of the restrictions in place makes an inappropriate edit, inform me, and I will deal with it. I hope that is clear. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)</blokquote> and since checking that directive in the hatted section, I've self-reverted, as P&W was aware of the discretionary sanctions. Sorry about forgetting the details of the earlier discussion.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I've asked for clarification on the discussion page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) See discussion there. Per details there I think that what P&W did was reasonable. It had a 4:1consensus before the non-participating drive-by's came by. If it doesn't stick. fine, but it was badly needed attempt at a move forward, and we need a more forward. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC) 4:1? No. It's not plausable that I was the only editor with objections. And calling for a !vote, ignoring expressed concerns, declaring a false consensus - all within a few hours - and then actioning that edit, that's hardly what I would call reasonable. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC) The edit was clearly taken with a reasonable belief that consensus existed, but clearly also allowed for further tweaking of that edit on the moderated discussion page - so not really something to seek punishment for, IMO. Collect (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I have assumed good faith in the discussion, as shown by the following engagement. The following set of statements would seem to indicate, however, that a push was being made toward a claim of consensus based solely on the outcome of a vote, which Silk Tork specifically stated was not the case in advance. The following comments show as much if not of a focus on lobbying for votes rather than discussing content. This currently has a 3-1 "vote." If both of you state your support, that would be 5-1 and we would have consensus. Please. Do it now. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Ubikwit, please withdraw and strike through your objection to V12f. You have admitted, in two separate steps, that there have been two different sets of improvements to the first version of V12d that you saw (due to the glitch with the "{{ex|" notation). First, the paragraph about the 14th, 16th and 17th Amdts and the Repeal Amendment magically returned from limbo. Second, no less than five blockquotes from academics will be included in the footnotes. This is the only version that has any chance of making it into mainspace before the deadline. The clock is tciking. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Version 15 is far superior, IMO. Cheers.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Malke, the tweaked version would send the readability level below 30. The original V12f has a readability of 37 which gets Collect on board. That is the only way we will have consensus before the deadline. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC) P&W, however, ignored the post of a link (as posted earlier in this thread) to the comment by Silk Tork articulating that specific procedural directive regarding the assessment of consensus only hours before pushing through the non-consensus edit, which was basically a warning that he was contemplating a move that would violate policy. It was easy to see that coming, and even though I warned him that it would not be in accord with the established procedure, the edit was actioned in disregard of the procedural directive. And then P&W calls for me to be topic banned here.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC) With all due respect, Ubikwit, one can reasonably conclude that "utter disregard" for SilkTork's procedural directives was best demonstrated when one editor continued to push variations of Version 13 after consensus was found on the 12 Series of proposals. †TE†Talk 14:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Ubikwit - have a cup of tea. The game of trying to get a parent to spank the other sibling does not impress many older editors on Wikipedia. No one here should be "topic banned" AFAICT. I also suggested on that talk page that "new !voters" apprise themselves of the "prior invention of the wheel" before entering suddenly onto the list of editors - we can always rediscuss what we discussed for several months, but, I fear, that is not a productive path to take. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC) @Collect, the point of my discussion is not necessarily about seeking a topic ban, but o point out aspects of editing conduct that have resulting in an enormous amount of time being spent counterproductively. Moreover, however, P&W's actioning of that edit in neglect of the implicit warning was disruptive, and did result in my filing this protest here. @TE, I have already addressed this perception with respect to the fact that severa editors effectively suspended the process by specifically requesting Xenophrenic to draw up a suggested text, and while waiting, Collect raised the readability factor. Meanwhile, Silk Tork had not intervened to guide the flow of the discussion, so there was no rule in effect that we stop working on text. I wasn't pushing anything, just further developing text and posting the results for assessment.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Given these new, but rather conflicting revelations that several editors "effectively suspended" SilkTork's policy directives by requesting a proposal from Xenophrenic prior to SilkTork's policy directives, and that Collect raised the readability factor of Version 13, by explicitly supporting Version 12, also citing specific examples of readability concerns in regards to Version 12 -- I'll have to rethink my aforementioned comment. †TE†Talk 15:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC) That's welcome. I should clarify that the shorthand I used above refers in fact to the following response by Silk Tork to a query by North, which in and of itself represents a deviation from the stated procedural flow inasmuch as Silk Tork attempted to flexibly accommodate any potential step that might advance the process Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Version_14.3F_a_smaller_proposal. After that North was one of the editors impoloring Xenophrenic to produce another version of suggested text. There has consistently been a daily deluge of material with which one must keep abreast of on this moderated page.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC) You are aware that North, Malke and TE all solicited another proposal from Xenophrenic well before SilkTork's policy directives? It seems as if this reality still eludes you. Per your link: I'm having trouble recognizing the deviation of SilkTork from his policy directives. I'm seeing numerous reiterations by SilkTork in attempts to prevent possible misunderstandings. Also, it should be noted there was strong support for Version 12 at that time. Just to set the record straight. †TE†Talk 18:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Well, I've just checked that and you are correct that the requests to Xenophrenic preceded Silk Tork's postings by about 24 hours. But there are at least two other factors at play. The first is that Silk Tork did not step in to assess the outcome of the "version vote", while North's suggestion of a "Version 14? a smaller proposal" follows my calling for a vote on version 13, which had been posted two days earlier on the 26th. Then Collect introduced the "Readability index" Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Readability_Index. Meanwhile, you can see the following post I made on the 30th here on Silk Tork's talk page above under the "ready to go" section It may be a lost cause already at this late hour, but as Xenophrenic has not come through with the promised suggested text, and seeing that the deadline is going to be in hte rear-view mirror in less than a day, perhaps the problematic wording in the thus far favored version should be taken up? Is there time to salvage anything out of the prolonged Agenda section discussion? --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC) So while I am now being accused of "pushing version 13", it is still a fact that P&W and others were trying to actually force the actioning of an edit for pacing a non-consensus version of the Agenda section text on the article even in the face of queries and warnings made in relation to the procedural directives to which I have referred.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for acknowledging the errors in your preferred version of reality. I commend you. Unfortunately, we're still having trouble making your timelime more representative of the facts: SilkTork defined his policy directives, well before you continued to push a Version of 13. Your call for votes on Version 13 was an abject failure (support-wise). SilkTork recognized this in asking about and suggesting a variant of Version 12 be a starting point. This was after North's "Version 14," mind you. Xenophrenic's new proposal, as requested by Malke, North and ThinkEnemies had no bearing on your interpretation of SilkTork's policy directives, as you've called them, and subsequently your selective interpretation thereof, as you cite them. †TE†Talk 04:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC) FWIW, Ubikwit was the first to raise the "readability" issue back on 25 June - or well before my quantitive analysis of the actual versions proposed on 28 June. Just to be clear here. Collect (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Ubiktwit, why are you so focused on getting editors in trouble? Why do you use such accusatory and hostile language all the time? And why do you take such offense when your edits are reverted or nobody likes your version of something? Maybe you should go back and read the reams of text you've posted, the way you comment to others. And Version 13? You can't even tell us what the blockquotes mean other than to offer this reply: [37]. You make several false claims here. You claim that editors going to Xenophrenics page to ask him for his version, which obviously we're all waiting for, "effectively suspended the process." It did no such thing. On the contrary, we were trying to move things forward and it did. Xenophrenic came through with his version. Isn't it really that you resented us ignoring your 'Version 13?' And you claim you're here trying to get P&W topic banned because you've decided that "an enormous amount of time has been spent counterproductively?" Where in the rules does it say you get to dimiss the efforts of others? You know what the blockquotes really mean? They mean WP:NOTHERE. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Once you clarified your question about "the" blockquote, I responded as follows, and would have assumed that you had already seen this response before citing the link above I think that the quote is fairly straight forward and self-explanatory. That is to say, it is not "unreadable". With respect to our shared endeavor here as editors of Wikipedia, explicating it with respect to the decentralized structure of the TPm is illustrative. That is to say, this quote from Schmidt can be effectively used to convey to the reader that there are many viewpoints in the TPm, some of which are at odds with each other, but at the same time, there is a common recourse to the Constitution. Conversely, with respect to the material newly introduced by Xenophrenic, another side of the movement with respect to the existence of a multiplicity of agendas, some disparate, can be illustrated in a concrete manner with respect to social issues. Both the quote from Schmidt and the sources and text by Xenophrenic are therefore mutually reinforcing with respect to enhancing readers' intelligibility with respect to the decentralized amalgamation of disorganized chaos otherwise known as the Tea Party movement. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Curiously enough, it was you that first asked Xenophrenic for a new version User_talk:Xenophrenic#Tea_Party_movement_discussion. I won't speculate on the objective of the requests to Xenophrenic, and don't see where there is anything else in the above comment that invites response.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC) If you really meant "I won't speculate on the objective of the requests" you wouldn't have said that which certainly hints at something not very nice. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC) No need to be cryptic here, just come straight out with the transgression of which you are accusing me.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Regarding that specific comment, I meant exactly what I wrote, no more, no less. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Xenophrenic was asked for his version because his contribution has value, and no matter the squabbles, editors at the moderated discussion respect him. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC) My motivation was a realistic hope that they could come up with something which most folks could support. And I supported the version that they came up with. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Yes because obviously version 13 was a non-starter. And I commented that I liked Xen's ideas about the Glenn Beck mention but overall thought his version too long. And of course the blockquote was not needed especially as Ubiktwit was unable to paraphrase it. That reminds me, we still owe Xen a barnstar. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Yes. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I repeat: Regrettably, at this time I must respectfully request that you block Ubikwit and issue a topic ban for Ubikwit. I see no other alternative. The magical appearance of ArtifexMayhem from Hogwarts at precisely the right moment to cast an "oppose vote" and then disappear again, on the train back to Hogwarts, is just too convenient to be a coincidence. The reappearance of Snowded after an absence of weeks, at precisely the right moment to cast an "oppose vote," is also just too convenient to be a coincidence. I suspect that they were canvassed, and I further suspect that if ArtifexMayhem wasn't canvassed, he's a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Evidently Ubikwit's sole purpose for participating is to fill up the Moderated Discussion Page (MDP) with enormous green blocks of text that are complete non-starters, obstruct anything that Malke, North or I have had a hand in creating and is actually viable, and try to get anyone who disagrees with him blocked and topic banned. It's time for a WP:BOOMERANG. He forgot about the rule regarding no reverts, and he reverted me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I have not been canvassed P&W, I simply decided that it was time to step in again. I've told you that I have not been absent I have just not being participating. One of the reasons for that is your behaviour. Try and assume good faith and stop listing suspicions. I you think someone is a meat puppet then report them, don't speculate ----Snowded TALK 20:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, thanks for reminding me. SilkTork, this edit by Snowded was a derogatory remark about another editor, made on the Moderated Discussion page (MDP). As you know, I was blocked for 24 hours and had a Wikipedia-wide topic ban for a week simply for stating that you were directing content. I have every right to expect even-handed enforcement of this rule. Please post a warning on Snowded's User Talk page about making such remarks about fellow editors on the MDP and, if he does it again after the warning, I would regrettably request that you block and topic ban him, just as you blocked and topic banned me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC) You see my saying "...the difficulty of dealing with your manner of participation" as a derogatory remark? That was a response to your baseless accusation that my comments arose from being canvassed. I think my problem is well illustrated by your above comment. If re-engagement means immediate campaigns to have a block imposed based on an explanatory answer then the atmosphere is really toxic. I'm happy to just vote for or against things if that is the case and not make any comments----Snowded TALK 05:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) If it helps, I don't personally believe anyone persuaded you to reappear on the moderated talkpage of Tea Party movement. I'm ready to accept the fact you made your presence known by voting on proposals without any justification attached. It must've been hard to hold your tongue for so long, especially after you gained the will to finally interact. †TE†Talk 05:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

James A. Hall

Jim's bio serves several purposes. James A. Hall, as jazz guitarist, who goes by "Jim Hall," commonly gets confused with the more famous jazz guitarist Jim Hall (musician), ad naseum. Developing a bio to clarify common confusion between between notable person and a superstar is worthy. Wikipedia serves an important role in distinguishing Ray Brown, the bassist, from Ray Brown the jazz trumpeter (with Stan Kenton), from Ray Brown, the blues guy, from Ray Brown the trumpter with Earth, Wind and Fire. Granted, all are notable. But, Hall, as an influential music educator — at the university level — makes a strong candidate. As a jazz percussionist, Jim is notable. In Tom Lord's Jazz Discography, there are 5 Jim Halls, 1 Jimmy Hall, and and 6 John Halls. Feel free to delete this when done (I copied this on Hall's page and at the deletion log site. For what it's worth, I do not have strong feelings either way. But you should know that I created the page because I myself was confused and thought that publishing knowledge that I gained might be useful to musicologist and others, particularly as years slip away. — Eurodog (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand your rationale. The question here is if this James Hall is notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. I noted his name when I did a search for Jim Hall the notable jazz guitarist, and saw James Hall's description on the disambiguation page (jazz guitarist), which prompted me to look at it to see if it was the jazz guitarist I was looking for. So having an entry for someone can actually create confusion and wasted time. If he is notable enough to justify that small disruption, fine; but if he is not, then let's clear him away and simplify the search. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)