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

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

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, [1] Furious Style,[2] and Ubikwit, [3] while Arzel[4] and Arthur Rubin[5] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See Joseph Widney now with a lead having a grade score of 13 and readability of 30. Then look at [6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [7] which appears to be a reliable source on Wikipedia readability problems is spot on. Collect (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[8]) 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 [9].

Another editor has now removed this comment[10]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [11] 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And in addition, you also again reverted my attempt to restore the comments in the order they were made. [12]. This simply creates chaos on the page. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, that's right. He did. Here's the diff. [13] 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.[14] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've asked for clarification on the discussion page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [15].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding that specific comment, I meant exactly what I wrote, no more, no less. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Cornwall at precisely the right moment to cast an "oppose vote" and then disappear again, on the train back to Cornwall, 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, and try to get me and anyone who resembles me 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]