User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Falun Gong

Suggestion

Hey SilkTork. Firstly, I think the offer to moderate a discussion about Dilip's concerns over the Falun Gong pages is both decent and courageous. Secondly, my suggestion is to include in that discussion Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs), who has edited the pages for a long time. I think he may have been discouraged at recent events (for example, the way Shell Kinney "warned" him (cont.) for no reason, and the chilling reception he was given at the Falun Gong talk page when he raised some questions about the page) but I also think he could play an important role in the discussion. This isn't just about one editor. It's a longstanding issue, and for a long time no one outside the dispute has paid any attention to it. Instead we've just been banned when the other side has raised a ruckus. I would not seek to participate since I am no longer an editor of the Falun Gong pages. Thanks for your time, and I hope it goes well. --Asdfg12345 14:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. However, I would like to limit participation to two people as that will be easier to handle. If Olaf_Stephanos wishes to consult with Dilip that would be a matter between the two of them, and as long as that consultation takes place away from the discussion page I set up, I have no problems with it - indeed, it may be of value. SilkTork *^YES! 15:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that ringfencing one disruptive FLG SPA is already quite enough; ringfencing those two names would inevitably result in one of the most massive witch-hunts this side of McCarthyism. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerns regarding the moderated discussion

I really think that Jayen should discuss the issue with other editors and reach a consensus before helping Dilip restore the article. Dilip's editing problems has been highlighted in the recent AE case, where he attempted to completely revert a FLG article into a 2009 version with little discussion. There has been a lengthy debate on the subject [1] which found that the information provided an undue weight and being a FLG sponsored report with no independent assessment. This is a clear issue with coattracking, and I really don't think that Dilip needs an admin to hold his hands while the concerns regarding his editing problems by other editors gets brushed aside.--PCPP (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your concern with me. I have looked into the background that you indicated, and will bear the concerns previously raised in mind. It appears to me that the intention is to create an article on the Kilgour-Matas report itself, rather than revive Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. My observation is that the report verifiably exists, and has attracted enough attention in reliable sources to pass our notability criteria. The report itself has been criticised, and so an article on the report would need to meet our NPOV policy and include a balanced discussion on responses to its findings. Such an article would then be neither pro nor anti FG. However, before such an article is created I would like to see the material on the report that is contained in Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China tidied up, and a decent rationale given as to why the material in that article is not sufficient. Bearing your concerns in mind, and being aware that creating an article on the Kilgour-Matas report would attract attention and potential criticism, if a decision to go ahead with creating such an article seems viable, then an immediate AfD would be appropriate, and I would create one as a matter of course, reserving the right to !vote independently in such a discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 12:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of the Reports article is Falun Gong point-pushing at its best. This issue has been discussed numerous times before, with a consensus of MERGE from a wide range of editors; the only dissenting voices were Falun Gong SPAs who have now been banned. Originally the article was named "Reports of Organ Harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China", which by consensus was merged with "Organ Harvesting in the PRC". Although consensus can change, it should only change given that we examine all the previous discussion. Unless we find that prior discussion has serious lack of merit, we should make every effort to maintain existing consensus. Best wishes. Colipon+(Talk) 16:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for linking me to the "Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China" archives. I feel it appropriate to include those archives in the archives of the Organ harvesting in the People's_Republic of China article so that discussions on the merge are available in one location. I feel my views on the situation are covered above. I take on board that there have been previous concerns; and with that in mind would, if such an article were to be created, take the article immediately to AfD to get current consensus on the new article. SilkTork *^YES! 17:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to voice my concern about how the events have unfolded. Dilip Rajeev has just been on the verge of a lengthy topic ban. I'm surprised the administrators have jumped on his ostensibly civil request so quickly and without much understanding of the entire Falun Gong situation. If anything, administrator's attention should be on the Falun Gong article itself rather than the K-M reports, which is just one subarticle, of another subarticle, of another article. There is serious undue weight being given to these reports as is, and I feel that the time and energy that the administrators are donating are not used in the right places. It is great that admins are getting involved, but the first step is naturally to do a check on the Falun Gong article, then do a full edit on the organ harvesting article, and after that decide if it is still necessary to spin out an independent article on the Kilgour-Matas reports. It is not a matter of notability as much as it is a matter of WP:UNDUE. It is just surprising to me that somehow the most disruptive Falun Gong single-purpose account has not only been released from a topic ban but now is also dictating where we should go next - that the administrators are now filling his requests rather than that of the community. I am very discouraged from these developments. Colipon+(Talk) 18:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm lost here. The "Reports of Organ Harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China" is the exact same thing as the page Dilip is proposing to recreate - but under a different name. I.e. the Kilgour-Matas reports used to exist as a standalone article until the community decided that it was being given serious undue weight - which is when it was cleaned up and merged. It would be counterproductive to recreate the page and then re-list it for AfD because the discussion has concluded decisively that a standalone article should not exist not because of notability but because of WP:UNDUE. I don't understand the rationale of an AfD at this point. Colipon+(Talk) 18:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of your concerns. However, that Kilgour and Matas have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for their work on the report makes it notable enough to be worth the effort. Bear in mind that the creation of the article will be under my responsibility, that I will invite input from various people before moving it into mainspace, and that I will call an immediate AfD. I am remaining neutral at this stage, but also quite open minded. The only risk here is that some editors will spend some time creating an article which the community then rejects. The activity will take place out of direct sight of the community and the public, so nobody need be bothered by it until it is moved into mainspace. At that point the community will decide on what they actually see before them, not on what they imagine they might see. Does that make sense? SilkTork *^YES! 19:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that makes perfect sense, and I am not in any way trying to downplay your ability to write a good neutral article. I only question the rationale behind getting involved in such a narrow topical area when there are much, much bigger issues at hand with the Falun Gong family of articles. Correct me if I'm wrong but had dilip rajeev, an obvious Falun Gong editor with a conflict of interest, not suggested the recreation of the K-M reports, none of this would be happening. The community's concern right now is a good balance between Chinese gov't views and Falun Gong views in the major Falun Gong articles (History, Perseuction, Li Hongzhi), and it would be just lovely if an administrator could step up to the game and look at these more important parts. But we are left with administrators duly responding to requests by SPAs naively believing that it will do this encyclopedia a service when they haven't even looked into the depth of the disputes. Colipon+(Talk) 19:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Nobel Peace Prize argument is rather frivolous. Thousands of people get Nobel Peace Prize nominations each year. Ask the community if you want but a Nobel Prize nomination in and of itself doesn't even necessarily justify standalone articles for the person nominated, let alone a single report. There are thousands of Nobel Prize nominees who don't even have articles on Wikipedia. Colipon+(Talk) 19:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have committed myself to this moderated discussion so I will see it through. I have a few other requests I am also dealing with. However, there is a limit to how much time I am able to give to Wikipedia as a whole, and to dispute resolution in particular. I have previously responded to a request to get involved in a Falun Gong related article - Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident - so I have some awareness of the issues, but I do not wish to be the only admin who gets involved in this matter. I will consider looking at one of the articles you mention at some later point. Certainly not now. And I will not commit myself at this stage. There are other matters I am particularly interested in which I have been neglecting somewhat, so I might wish to have a period of simply editing mainspace articles. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thousands of people are eligible to nominate someone for the prize. Nominations themselves are slightly less - though there are rather a lot this year: 237 nominations. Oddly enough one of the nominations is for The Internet! SilkTork *^YES! 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a fair degree of interest in this nomination. SilkTork *^YES! 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am still extremely unconvinced, perhaps because of my overly negative experiences with dilip and my knowledge that he has never edited in good faith. To each his own I guess. Best wishes. Colipon+(Talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

per Qualified Nominators – The Nobel Peace Prize

The right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by:

1. Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
2. Members of international courts;
3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
4. Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and
7. Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

Thus, because the nominations are so extremely open and non-discriminatory, reliance upon the nomination to support creation or recreating of an article would be ill advised, IMHO. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I must add my very very great concern to where this is going. Reading from the moderated discussion, I can already see the re-emergence of Dilip rajeev's tendency to lawyer and the desire to find recriminations which I find totally unacceptable. I am also dismayed that you guys appear to be continuing to indulge him by not insisting on his adherence to 0RR and his voluntarily restraining himself from ALL FLG articles, and I think we should go back to AE under those circumstances. Anyhoos, I am not able to participate in the discussion as normal, I will elaborate on my concerns in greater length on my return. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ohconfucius. Thanks for letting me know your concerns. I've just checked and Dilip rajeev has not made any inappropriate edits. I feel quite pleased with the progress of the discussion so far. There has been agreement on the range and focus of the discussion, and Dilip has also agreed to edit in an appropriate manner. We are now about to enter a more contentious and interesting area, and that is the tidying up of material on the Kilgour-Matas report in Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. I am hoping that Dilip will be able to be involved in editing that in a calm and consensual manner, and that observers will have no reason for alarm. SilkTork *^YES! 09:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• The issue at hand is not whether he did or didn't do since th AE case was brought, but in relation to what you suggested, and his rather nonchalant yet lawyering response: "I would turn down the suggestion of 0RR and of no-edits, but would firmly assure you that my edits will strictly adhere to the highest standards required of an editor by the Wikipedia Project. I cannot impose on myself restrictions for alleged activities which I firmly belive I am not guilty of." In other words, you suggested, and it was agreed, that Dilip rajeev played by the rules you proposed, and he said 'I won't agree because I didn't do anything wrong'. I feel that AE's the place for that sort of relaxation you are prepared to accept, not here. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 22:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have misread the situation Ohconfucius. Please review the development of the discussion again. I think you will find that I have not altered my stance, and that Dilip rajeev's comments are in response to a suggestion by Jayen that Dilip takes part in a topic ban. I am recommending to Dilip that he edits within appropriate parameters, and that if he does not the matter will be returned to Arbitration Enforcement. SilkTork *^YES! 22:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, it was Tim Song who proposed 0RR; Jayen also suggested it. It seems in Dilip rajeev turned it down, and that you, in your infinite wisdom, are prepared to go along with it. Fine, Dilip is not stupid enough to commit suicide with you two watching over him, so I think I will withdraw from this (and stay away from all Falun Gong articles) to keep my blood pressure at bay. I would just say that notwithstanding the conversation here and elsewhere about his concerns and ours, Dilip rajeev is being rather disingenuous in saying "I believe I have not done more than 3 reverts all together on the central Falun Gong articles" when he knows full well that his aggression - not just 3RR - has been focussed on peripheral Falun Gong articles. He has not yet acknowledged or explained his propensity for deep reverting. If you were to go down the road of looking at past behaviour (which I am not, to be clear), you will find this just as good a place to start as any. In any event, going forwards, I will very likely take a zero tolerance approach towards any Dilip rajeev edit which I feel violate WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, irrespective of compliance with WP:RS. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Resurrecting the separate article about the report in question would just make an instant POV fork in Wikipedia's coverage of Falun Gong's relationship to the Chinese government. The report is an important source to the article about the history of Falun Gong. But it merits a separate article only in the form of a redirect pointing there. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your concerns. As I have indicated above, there is a slow and careful process in place which I hope will allay some of your concerns. The only risk here is that three editors will spend some of their personal time creating an article in userspace which then gets deleted when the community examines it in an AfD. The risk is entirely ours. However, I would be quite happy for you to review the process I have outlined at Talk:Falun_Gong/Moderated_discussion and let me know if you see any problems with it. SilkTork *^YES! 09:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Blackman

Why did you redirect to the Esher and Walton Parliamentary Constituency? This proposal was made in the discussion of a recent politically nuanced proposal for deletion. The conclusion was that the article be kept in its own right. Political activity and candidacy in the forthcoming election is of secondary importance to Blackman's legal and in particular human rights-related activities. Opbeith (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It appeared to me that under our guidelines the person is not notable, and political candidates are redirected to the nearest appropriate page. The sources used in the article are largely not appropriate for notability purposes; we do not use Wikipedia as a source, and we do not use primary sources as a guide to notability. Some of the sources I checked were not used appropriately - for example, the statement "Lionel Blackman is a leading UK human rights lawyer", was cited to this source which only says: "Lionel Blackman is a solicitor-advocate and senior partner of a practice specialising in criminal litigation." And that source was a press release and so of dubious value when assessing notability. The most legitimate claim I could see was "In 1999 he was the first solicitor to lead and win a case in the House of Lord", which is appropriately sourced: [2]. However, the nearest criteria on such matters is: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" - WP:ANYBIO. And the footnote to explain that is: "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." I didn't see that. Essentially what I saw was an article on a solictor, and though this person had done some good work in his field, it wasn't clear enough where he was meeting our inclusion criteria. Does that help? SilkTork *^YES! 11:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, but I've given up bothering. Opbeith (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that, had I come across it first, I might have nominated this article for exactly the same reasons you did. It took me about 90 minutes of research and thought to come to the conclusion I reached, and frankly my sentiment is that generally notability should be much, much more clearly present. Some of the cites are, as you note, more or less misquoted in either word or effect, and it wasn't until I weighed the sum total of my findings that I found myself disagreeing with you. BTW, I tracked down the full cite; Mr. Blackman was not the first solicitor to lead a case in the House of Lords, he was the second -- it is, I think, misplaced emphasis in the article to give him credit for being the first solicitor to win one. As you know, there are all kinds of mis-emphasis and Mr. Blackman's supporters appear to be making use of most of the legitimate ones, so my suspicions were aroused as well as yours. I only hope that you continue to feel that it is the right thing to do to bring these cases to AfD; I think the experience is a valuable one for all concerned, and while some people may mistakenly feel that this is a battle to be "won", I believe the contribution to a full and useful definition of notability is what we're doing in cases like these. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am aware that sometimes there is an appearance of a battle being fought in AfD discussions, though I feel it is usually more an appearance than a reality. I feel that sometimes people write quickly and perhaps give the wrong impression. I have frequently noted that during an AfD discussion better sources are found by those motivated enough to do so, and that an article that appeared to be a lost cause can improve almost beyond recognition.

I suppose when people spend more time arguing a point than actually working on the article they feel should be kept, that might give the appearance of fighting a battle just to win, but really it's just human nature. We are all volunteers, and there are different things that attract us. Some people like talking about articles, others like working on them, and it's good that we have both sorts of people! Yes, in an ideal world those willing to spend time and effort on finding sources in an AfD and putting forward well argued rationales for keeping an article, would actually put those sources in the article itself, or spend a little time on improving the article, and it can be a little frustrating when they don't - but, hey, we are thankful for every moment of people's time, and for every word they contribute to the project. I have a good number of times initiated an AfD on an article that looked to me to fall short of our requirements, and ended up improving it along lines suggested by people in an AfD discussion. Yes, it would be nice if those who were interested in keeping an article did the work themselves, but I have never been one to demand anything of another unpaid volunteer (other than to stop being disruptive!)

If there are good sources that provide support for this man's notability, and if the article gets tidied up and improved, then that's a positive result for Wikipedia and for the person concerned. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping

Research about Tree shaping

Hi, Just wondering how your research is going. Blackash have a chat 10:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done it. I will get onto it now. Thanks for the reminder. SilkTork *^YES! 15:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping

The current lead uses pooktre twice, apparently once as a proper noun and once as a generic term. Sorry, that's beyond what I can pretend is acceptable and I've noted it on the talk page. --Griseum (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Thanks for the tea, and a request...

Could I ask a favour? Could you look at [3] and the logs of this article with the following question in mind?: if you were to conduct an individual GA reassessment of this article, would it fail stability criterion 5? Many thanks if you can help; no worries if you can't. Geometry guy 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The topic is one which is likely to attract vandal attention, so I would expect it reasonably to have some history of vandalism and to be semi-protected (but it's not). As it is also a potential POV topic, I would expect some strong debate on the talkpage about different POV and would hope to see it moving toward NPOV. That is happening, and it can be an uncomfortable and bumpy ride, but it's a positive sign. Unfortunately there is some impatience, and the debate has carried over into the article. That isn't good, as it makes the article unstable. A reader is unsure which version is acceptable. The article is currently unstable and would not meet GA stability criteria. I would delist it until a neutral and stable working version can be agreed, at which point it can be submitted for another GA review. Going through a GA review process generally tightens and improves an article, so that is a good thing - regardless of if the article gets listed at the end or not.

I haven't read the whole thing, but a glance at the lead left me uncomfortable. Delisting and going through another GA review would be a genuine benefit. Leaving the article listed as it is would not be helpful to anyone. SilkTork *^YES! 00:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. I will comment further on my talk page. I hope we will find a way forward shortly. Geometry guy 11:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

CC GAR

No I'm fine with that. Do whatever you think is necessary to give this article a fair and appropriate review. Thank you.UBER ^(talk) 17:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. My goal has always been to have a Good Article or better written about the Catholic Church, unfortunately, it has not been even close to that for over a year. I am a semi-regu;ar GA contributor/reviewer and could not see how this one met the criteria, et alone maintain it. Do what you need to do.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I've set up the new GAR on top of your old one. SilkTork *^YES! 10:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

A very fair, productive, balanced and neutral approach, and a good summary! [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 10:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Catholic Church GAR

I think you've come up with a diplomatic solution - I'll keep the new GAR and the article watchlisted, and chip in when we start to look at the article in earnest around 20 March. Feel free to nudge me if I don't seem to be paying attention! EyeSerene^talk 09:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork *^YES! 10:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is anything happening with this? I notice an RfC has opened... EyeSerene^talk 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Today is the day we are due to look into the situation. I was aware that an RfC was being opened, though as the agreement was to leave the article alone until now, felt it would be inappropriate to get involved. I've not yet looked at the article nor the RfC, though will do that during the day, and then get back to you with my views. SilkTork *^YES! 08:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK :) For some reason I had it in my mind our deadline was the 20th, not the 30th (despite just now noticing I have the correct date in my first post above...) My apologies if I've seemed to be nagging! EyeSerene^talk 09:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Totally my bad! I had 30th on my To do list, so that is what I was working toward. When responding earlier I noticed "around 20 March" and thought that it was my comment and I had put the wrong date in, so I "corrected it", but it was your comment, and it's correct. I checked on the GAR and I do say 20 March. Ho hum. Better get to it! SilkTork *^YES! 09:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. No harm done :) EyeSerene^talk 10:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've looked over the article, the recent history, the RfC, and some of the discussion on the talkpage. My feeling is that we cannot do a GAR at the moment because a) significant changes are still taking place and b) a RfC is in place the outcome of which will have a significant impact on the article. However, the article has not been subject to disruptive edits (and I include the recent POV tagging - I feel that can be counted as a question of difference of opinion, and as long as there isn't a tagging war, then that matter is minor and is over), and there is a general feeling that the article is moving in the right direction, so there is no reason to close the GAR at the moment. I feel we could put a statement on the GAR to the effect that we are holding off a bit longer to allow development to continue, and for the RfC to be resolved. SilkTork *^YES! 10:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts too. Although the ongoing stability concern is real it doesn't seem to be an issue at the moment, but I agree that while the RfC is underway we can't make a realistic assessment. I'm also waiting to see what comes of the suggestion to go to Arbcom, but I suppose that will depend on the progress of the RfC. EyeSerene^talk 14:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church GAR

In the light of the ongoing(ish) RfC, this thread at ANI, and talk of Arbcom, do you think it's time we take a decision on the GA reassessment? EyeSerene^talk 08:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty is that the GA criteria do not take into account discussions or activity "off-stage". I feel that the main options open to us are:

• • Close the GAR and delist because the article is unstable.
  • Apply the criteria on the current version.
  • Wait.

As the article appears to be more stable now than when we took over the GAR, I feel that delisting would provoke a reaction and wouldn't help the situation.

I'd be uncomfortable trying to apply criteria to an article undergoing significant changes.

Waiting prolongs the uncertainty regarding the article's status as a Good Article, however, is the least problematic and calmest option.

Whatever the decision, I still feel we need to make some statement on the situation before proceeding with an action. I would still recommend something along the lines I suggested earlier: "we are holding off a bit longer to allow development to continue, and for the RfC to be resolved", though am quite happy to look at other options and other wordings. SilkTork *^YES! 15:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied at my talkpage becuase another editor has commented there too :) EyeSerene^talk 15:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I like tea

Do you think we could keep the rfc and {{cent}}, at least for 7 more days, and {{proposed}} for 7 more days?174.3.113.245 (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Participation had effectively ceased on the proposal 12 days before I closed it. So there were no more people interested in !voting on the issue. And in order to gain consensus for promote to a guideline there would need to be at least 70% of the total vote in favour. With 12 !votes against, that would require another 20 support !votes and no more oppose !votes. Given that in the three weeks the proposal was open only 21 people in total participated in the discussion I think you can start to see that there would really be no point in re-opening the discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 14:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)