User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Worm That Turned. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 37

Thanks Chris troutman, but I actually handed in my admin but a little while ago! Worm^TT(talk) 10:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. You were listed on the birthday project and I didn't check to confirm you still carried the bit. Well, on behalf of the Wikipedia community we'll round it up and call it six years. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hard to believe it was that long ago! Worm^TT(talk) 07:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Telling you that 5 years is not long ago ;) - I started telling people that they were Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago (well before my time), and that came with a poem chosen for the person! - A discussion I had with an arbitrator is linked in the Great Dismal Swamp, but you didn't miss much if you missed it ;) - Off for vacation tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Yunshui Worm^TT(talk) 10:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a couple of bits I know of that belong to you that can be restored on request... Always nice to see your name on my Watchlist. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Dweller. I'm not planning to be gone for good, but I'm unlikely to be active for a significant period, due to external factors. Sooner or later, I'll make a great return, with trumpet fanfares and bunting. In the mean time, I really don't need any extra user-rights - I don't like the idea of having rights that I am not going to use. Worm^TT(talk) 11:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Bunting. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a proper party without bunting. Worm^TT(talk) 11:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Party poppers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

But not party poopers  ;) — fortunavelut luna 11:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me know if you'd like your bits back. Cheers, Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Very kind of you, Dweller. I'll hold off for now, but appreciate knowing that I can have them Worm^TT(talk) 16:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"Fanfare and Bunting" - is that like Frolic and Bunting? --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Worm^TT(talk) 07:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice one. And, a minor point, but I'm pleased that you picked up the toolkit again before the result; though there will still be debate down the ages as to if you were or were not the first non-admin voted onto the Committee! :-) SilkTork (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Dave, but just but to wish you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• What a surprise ;) - I voted for you. - OTD Beethoven's family celebrated his birthday, - I decorated my talk with one of the cuter DYKs for the occasion, enjoy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations for being elected, and good listening when cases come, - always better when they don't have to come ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks Gerda. :) Worm^TT(talk) 10:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Very pleased to see this. See you shortly on the mailing list. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• What, again!?! Congratulations and welcome back. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks both. Looking forward to working with you both, since you took over from me when I left! Worm^TT(talk) 13:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Well done WTT! 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^{grotto presents} 14:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you very much Patient Zero. Worm^TT(talk) 19:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thought you weren't going to do that bit again? :) Congrats in any case, you were a good one when I worked with you and I'm sure the same will be true now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware that I might well regret it! But thanks in any case. Worm^TT(talk) 19:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Foregone conclusion. Glad to see you back where you belong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

  Where I belong? Could harsher words be spoken? Worm^TT(talk) 19:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Meaning that it's the place on Wikipedia where your qualities will be best appreciated. (despite every thing you told me about it in London 🙃 ) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Let me add my congratulations, and hopes that you don't regret it! Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

  I might well! But thanks anyway! Worm^TT(talk) 19:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations. Mkdw ^talk 19:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Worm^TT(talk) 19:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Congrats, and here's hoping it's a good term. Looking forward to working with you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations :) –Davey2010^Talk 03:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see an old editor taking back the responsibilities again. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 10:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah... Didn't notice this bit.. Worm^TT(talk) 12:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although all admins are welcome to delete constructively on Wikipedia, at least one of your recent deletions, such as the one you performed on the Main Page, did not appear to be constructive and has been undeleted. Please use Jimbo Wales' user page for any test deletions or blankings you would like to make, and read about our main page deletion guideline to learn more about deleting things on this encyclopedia. Thank you. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure Usernamekiran? I'd love to hhear more. Worm^TT(talk) 12:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure. But as I am not a sys-op I cant dig much into the deletion-undeletion history. My approved proposal regarding this can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 143. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Although my account is "old" I never really read deeper than some articles my search engine showed me. I've been spending the day reeding about the rules of Wikipedia, what is AfC and AfD for example and the Arbitration Committee and the arbitration process. I had no idea all the things that was going on in the backstage. Tomorrow I'll read the CVUA. Wherever I click now I see your name :P

Now I hope this was the good way of editing a Talk page Extarys (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I am aware you were heavily involved in the Adopt-a-User project in times gone by. So I wanted to invite you to offer any thoughts on its current role and value. Last week I naively dropped by there as I thought I'd add on from my involvement at the Teahouse and consider getting more deeply involved in direct editor support work. Boy, what I mess I found it in! Long story short: I've cleaned it up and have now almost got AAU back working again. But the question is, does it still have a role? Should it be closed down? Or would it be a worthwhile proposal to shift its focus and to give targeted support to promising new editors who are individually identified and encouraged to go there by other editors who encounter them.

I sense that some editors would be happy to give me carte blanche to try to improve things any way I wanted, but I'd hate to barge in without anyone else having an input. I started a (rather long) discussion on the problems here.

I recognise there are nowadays other effective fora exist (WP:TH; WP:HD etc) for new editors get answers to individual questions. But I am starting to feel there's still potentially a lot to be gained by WP:AAU becoming almost a self-service 'dating agency' for editors with shared interests. So, should an editor encounter a newcomer (via a Help desk, or just simply by seeing them keen, but floundering a bit somewhere) they could point them in the direction of WP:AAU where experienced editors have previously posted a summary of their interests and willingness to assist. Some of those Adopters might be Help Desk or WP:TH volunteers already. It would then be up to the newcomers this time to take the next step and to make the approach for support. It would then be for the experienced editor to assess whether they can help, and agree to be a single point of contact for continuity. So, probably far less of the past structured intros to policies like WP:COI; WP:RS; WP:N etc, etc, but much more of two editors with shared interests but an imbalance of skills working together to create good content, long-lasting new editors, and perhaps new articles, too. Maybe that's too much to dream of, and maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I'm quite excited by that idea. I recognise that WikiProjects could also offer support, but maybe WP:AAU could become a place where WikiProjects sends its good, helpful editors, and where others who need support can go and find them. Maybe a pipe dream. I'd love to know your thoughts. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes, thanks for thinking of me. It's been a long time since I worked in adoption and when I did, the structure was what was needed. So, I believe it was me who pulled it away from what you are suggesting, the single point of contact approach, and towards the lesson approach. As far as I know, AAU has been pretty dead for a significant period, and if you want to revive it and are willing to put in the work, then you will have pretty much carte blanche to take it forward in the way you see fit. You certainly have my blessing to do so.

At any rate, I'll re-watchlist AAU and try to help out where I can - unfortunately, I have other commitments, but at least in principle, you have my full support. Worm^TT(talk) 11:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dave - that's really appreciated. Good to know I have your support. It's a bit scary to be offered carte blanche when we normally work so much by consensus. Perhaps it'll be a consensus of one! Do please let me know if you think there are other key players who I ought to have a word with. I've previously pinged SoWhy, Blue Rasberry, Swarm, NeilN and I JethroBT. I've also lodged a bot request to try and get all the inactive templates stripped away regularly. And I took on my first adoptee, yesterday, too! I will, of course, put any proposal together and seek whatever consensus I can. Having been involved in helping to run an Editathon recently, I do feel we tend to send keen editors away with very little post-event support. I am becoming more convinced this could be one way of offering that. I also have a GLAM background, so this could tie in with a bit of thinking I and an admin friend of mine are planning to do with WMF to tie in better with the Heritage Lottery Fund. So, exciting times! Thanks again. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	This user is so expert at usage of codes to design pages. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	For excellently designed and artistic pages RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you be willing to speak to me at The Times for an article about what it's like to be one of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee? I read an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-wikipedias-bickering-editors-go-to-war-its-supreme-court-steps-in-1525708429) that mentioned you as being based in "a tiny British village", which I think was a reference to the market town where you live. I would like to interview you to ask what it's like, being effectively part of the final court of appeal for Wikipedia disputes, and some of the decisions you've had to tackle. I tried to ask you this earlier today by posting on your talk page but an assiduous editor has removed it. Are you able to contact me at jack.malvern@thetimes.co.uk?

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi WTT, would you post a short announcement to BN about the rights change you made for this user for our records? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That's reasonable, though I won't be able to say much. Worm^TT(talk) 14:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It might be more straightforward if you could maintain separation of roles, and for each issue act either as a beauracrat or as a member of arbcom (but not both simultaneously). What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

That's generally a good principle, but please let's not make an issue of it in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is an unusual situation, normally I would do so. Worm^TT(talk) 16:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned and Newyorkbrad:--Does the unusual situation allows him to return through other legit-sock-puppet(s) and issue variants of legal threats?~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

He is self blocked. If he requested it, I would unblock him. So, no, I have no problem with him using a declared alt account making an edit request on his user sub page. What's more, usage of OTRS does not related to blocked status as often it is down to simply replying to emails, with making any edits.
Finally, Winged Blades of Godric, if a user asks you to back off, and suggests a harassment report, perhaps consider that you could simply back off? There is no hint of a legal threat here. Move on and stop bothering a user who wants to be left alone. Worm^TT(talk) 22:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I need to request you that please delete four pages - User talk:Ram The Editor, User talk:Misser Boss, User talk:Yisrael Kristal and User talk:Widr farted as the reason G6. We don't need those pages any more. Thank you. 122.162.86.7 (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm afraid I won't be deleting those pages, and I doubt anyone else would either - they're not covered by G6, indeed, they're simply not eligible for deletion at all - as user talk pages. Worm^TT(talk) 13:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I hate to disagree here, even in part, but I think we can delete the last one, since there is no meaningful talkpage history there at all, plus the username. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't sound unreasonable to me NYB, feel free to do so ;) Worm^TT(talk) 22:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Replied at your talk page. 122.162.63.88 (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		This space intentionally left blank. Andrevan@ 20:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I am being ATTACKED - WP:STALKING and WP:HARASSMENT by this person - User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for many months, he apparrently hates me and the visual arts. Please get this guy off my back. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that a short time ago Modernist was warned by User:NeilN about using invective like this to characterize ongoing content disputes [1], a warning Modernist has repeatedly disregarded. This comes out of a longrunning content dispute regarding the use of nonfree images of visual art, where Modernist is among those who strongly reject NFCC policy (see, for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Under attack, and the related deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 18 (where many of the disputed uses that Modernist advocated for have already been removed). The underlying issue is whether certain articles on the visual arts are exempt from (or subject to much more relaxed application of) basic WP:NFCC, WP:V, and WP:RS policies. With his side not prevailing in the dispute, he is again personalizing the issues rather than substantively addressing serious policy concerns. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Wishing Worm That Turned a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Worm That Turned. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 04:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

Also precious 6 years (I didn't want to place it below arbitration). My first edit was a 2 August, and first awesome 3 August, DYK. Summer feelings - they titled a concert "... und auf uns sinkt des Glückes stummes Schweigen". Don't miss her Ligeti performance (unless you love Trump). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow bureaucrats, in regards to a current RfA that has met its time, I would like your assistance in judging the community consensus presented in the discussion at Jbhunley's RfA. Your input would be most welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Bureaucrat chat. Best regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know that you have become an arbitrator. Congratulations for that! What do you think about the current Arbcom though? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi OccultZone, didn't realise I never replied to this, sorry! Arbcom is what it is. I generally take a bit more of a back seat and look after slightly more private matters off wiki. It's a much more pleasant place to be now that BASC and AUSC are gone, as well as some of the other responsibilities the committee should never have had. I'm amazed how many cases we've got through in the past 6 months though, it's a lot busier than I would have expected based on past years. Worm^TT(talk) 12:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, not sure if Charles Matthews's WP:PING worked. In case not, this message is to let you know that I recently asked a question at the Teahouse about some IP addresses that I think might be connected to the "hydro dot net" editor. Essentially, creating a sufficiently comprehensive report about these IPs to be sure of a helpful response from the WP:SPI admins, is probably beyond me at the moment due to my time constraints and my lack of knowledge about suitable assistive tools. If you are able to compile such a report, based on the information I provided there, or to advise, I would be very grateful if you could reply at the Teahouse thread. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Zazpot, apologies that I haven't got to this sooner. I'm afraid that it's not really an area I work in - I hold checkuser tools so that I can access the logs primarily, it's rare that I dive into the area. It looks like you've done a good job of passing the information on to LTA, otherwise can I suggest the administrator's noticeboard - where someone will be able to help you out. Worm^TT(talk) 09:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologise, WTT. It would be useful to know how much collateral damage it would do to block SoftBank's /8. Sure, it's a huge IP range, but it's still possible that very few editors besides "hydro dot net" actively edit the English Wikipedia from it. As you are a checkuser, is that something you would be able to investigate, when you have some availability? If not, or if it is only something you could do as part of a formal WP:SPI response, not to worry. Zazpot (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You're talking about ~67 million IPs there - I certainly wouldn't be willing to take that sort of step even if 90% of the edits came from a vandal. There are a number of other checkusers who would be better to ask though, Bbb23 is by far and away our most active checkuser, definitely worth talking to him about this sort of thing. Worm^TT(talk) 08:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The largest IPv4 range block that can be made is /16. The system will reject anything larger. The most common range block is /24. Anything larger usually requires extra scrutiny, although ranges vary widely in activity. WTT's suggestion to make a request at ANI is a good one. As long as it's a soft block (no pun intended) you wish, any admin who is knowledgeable about range blocks can respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for popping over Bbb23. @Zazpot: I hope that helps give you a little direction Worm^TT(talk) 12:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 and WTT, that's useful to know. I'll link this discussion from the LTA page. Thank you both. Zazpot (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

	"Sunflower Award"
	Your work as an admin is not being graded, But it certainly is much appreciated, To know that you see with vision that's clear, A shining light of integrity we tend to hold dear. Thank you for all do! Atsme✍🏻📧 14:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I meant to say, thank you for this Atsme I do appreciate it, but probably don't deserve it! I'm one of the least active admins here :) At any rate, thank you very much. Worm^TT(talk) 12:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You’re welcome but I’ll add with some levity so you won’t feel so undeserving that, more often than not, my commendations come as preambles to equally deserved criticism ... so now that you’ve provided something I can use, here goes: as one of the few with the bit, try to be a bit more active. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I've got to say, if the only criticism you can find (and I do welcome constructive criticism!) is that I don't do enough, I'm not going complain! Worm^TT(talk) 15:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, WTT! Thanks foryour question. I think it's about the RyLaughlin section here (?), so before I answer I'd like to read the warning I received (or think I received) from SilkTork (or at least I think it was SilkTork), but I can't find it anywhere in my talk-page history. So I wondered: Did you happen to come across it, and if so, where? has it by any chance been hidden from view? Or am I just being more than usually dumb? Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That was the instance I'd seen, yes. I haven't seen the warning SilkTork made I'm afraid. I expect he did so by email? Worm^TT(talk) 18:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You mean we had email all those years ago? "More than usually dumb" is putting it mildly! Now off to dig in an email archive ... Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

WTT, sorry to interrupt but based on your initial response here, it was reasonable to assume that you had “seen and accepted” the diff. If the diff included “content which needed to be deleted” or whatever “personal private information” there was, the right thing to do would have been to remove the content entirely and immediately, and suppress the revision(s) on the spot and advise Justlettersandnumbers about the issues with that diff explicitly over e-mail. That was your responsibility. It’s doubtful that you have missed the problematic content in that COIN report, because that was the entire basis of your question. If a regular editor were still able to link to the diff in question with the problematic content intact thinking it was reviewed by you, especially after you apparently “spent a little while trying to make sure it was correctly suppressed”, then I can only assume that you have failed in this instance to protect the “importance of personal private information” in which you have asked for, while essentially criticising a regular editor for trusting you to have done your responsibility in the correct manner. This strikes me as inherently unfair and paradoxical. Alex Shih (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I had no reason to believe the information was not public as I approached it from a suppressed diff. I was also aware that JLAN had been contacted, I believe by email, so I assumed he would be aware, so was not concerned by this initial message. The moment I saw that the information was still public, I took every step I could to make it non-public, deleting every revision from the point it was added to the point it was removed to the archive. It turns out I missed a spot where the information was removed from the COIN archive and returned to the board, an additional 5 revisions and JLAN has kindly pointed that out to me. I do accept that JLAN was under the impression that I was happy with the information being visible, but he took that to extremes by posting direct links to the information on the RfA, despite believing it should be suppressed. I'm uncomfortable with an admin who does something like that - that said, I do also understand his explanation, and as I have said, I am reconsidering my vote at the RfA. Worm^TT(talk) 08:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

What is a sock drawer? I know what a sock is. 24.205.150.243 (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dave, John from WMUK here. Thanks for coming last night. I think you said you had some ideas about future Skillshare topics. Also if you want to meet any time and see if there's any way we can support each other's wiki work, do let me know. All the best.--Jwslubbock (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi John, I've dropped you an email. Good to meet you too! Worm^TT(talk) 15:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Good to meet at WMUK yesterday. I'm impressed by your work on the Doom Bar. My own effort of that sort – the Black Middens – has a ways to go to reach FA level. Now I check back on it, I see that someone has vandalised it with inaccurate coordinates. Shifting sands ... Andrew D. (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, it was good to meet you too. I'm surprised our paths haven't crossed in the past, but that does always seem to be the way of it, I don't really venture that far for Wikipedia stuff! Hopefully there will be a similar event in the future, I certainly enjoyed this one. Also, thank you very much for the comments on Doom Bar, it was a labour of love, and I did draft in a lot of people to read over it and copy edit it, so I can't really claim all the credit! Nearly put me off Featured Articles all together, but it does seem that Sabrina Sidney brought me back from the brink! I'm far more pleased with that one, given the length of time we worked on it - we actually felt we knew what we were doing! Worm^TT(talk) 13:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• I just looked at Sabrina Sidney – another good read. I notice that she came from the Foundling Hospital. By coincidence, note that they had an edithon last week – Ladies of Quality and Distinction. I still have some some work to do to follow up that event. No peace for the wicked... Andrew D. (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

–

for this and a quasi-edit-conflict. Was seeing the wrong time by a mile or so (took it to have happened, a day earlier) and thought that the corresponding notification might have been missed:(

At any case, does desyssoping globally locked accounts have any real benefit? Or, to take an example, can you read deleted contributions whilst remaining as a blocked admin? ∯WBG^converse 20:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I just created something because I saw all my links from the copy paste went nowhere. There's no need for the desysop, the lock takes care of it, but I the community might want to be aware when / if they are re-sysopedWorm^TT(talk) 20:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

kia ora I'm a newbie who has fallen down a rabbit hole that you had something to do with. (Through a message to me about a tea house--no wonder I thought of a rabbit hole.) But the impetus for this message is to thank you for the entry on the stargazy pie. I was reading a novel--I expect you know which one--that referred to it and looked it up. cheers Tarkiwi25 (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tarkiwi25 - I'm glad to have given you something interesting to read! Wikipedia is full of rabbit holes, amazing how long you can spend reading things. Worm^TT(talk) 09:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

On the questions talk page Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Drmies, last para. Kinda odd to redact my question about it but leave where I took it from up. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been digging and caught that one just a minute ago. If there are any others, please do point them out Worm^TT(talk) 16:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I know you're super busy but think I might have found something that needs looking at but I've no idea what to do with it. User:Wikidea seems to have made lots (and I mean a lot) of edits a long time ago which seems to be pure copy-and-paste jobs. Can you look into it if you get chance? You know how much I like to give you jobs! ;) ツStacey (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if intentional, but because you linked me I was just notified - can't see which page you mean, but happy to help if you don't think whatever it is works. Wikidea 19:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello WIkidea =) It's been a while since I've been on Wikipedia so wasn't intention but glad I've got your attention. I saw you've been fairly inactive too recently. I came across some of your old edits while looking at case law pages; and found that it was a suspected copy-right violation. I'll give you some examples here; I'm happy to help resolve these issues if possible but not sure how to without reviewing all your edits and checking them individually? (as they were some time ago, the rules have been strengthened a lot on Wikipedia and I'm sure at the time no-one would have had an issue with them).

• Earwig O'Neill v Phillips
• Earwig Armitage v Nurse - I acknowledge you've used quotations however they are extremely long
• Earwig Aslam v Uber (I owe an apology here - it's a copyright violation however, not sure you're responsible. If not you, sorry. I'll look at this one
• Earwig Adams v Tanner
• Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner - Use of quotes here is inappropriate.
• Earwig - Torquay Hotel Co Ltd v Cousins - Again massive overuse of quote; takes up whole article

ツStacey (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wikidea. Any thoughts on the links above? Glancing at Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner, where 90% of the article is 2 quotes (less than 700 words of the ~7000 word article is out of the quotes), which includes quotes inside the quotes... I struggle to see how that marries up with Wikipedia:Quotations, especially the overuse and plagiarism concerns. Worm^TT(talk) 09:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the Uber one is me - but otherwise, it's very common and well established (and necessary!) for law case pages to have quotes from the judgment. I don't know if a bot was picking this up as plagiarism, but it should be treated as okay. Most law students use the pages these days - and need to read the key extracts of judgments: although if they're really, really long (rather than key extracts) they should probably be cut down, because court judgments can be hundreds of pages! Wikidea 11:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Inviting you to participate since you expressed interest at WP:BN.

Cheers,

UninvitedCompany 17:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Please Take a look at these articles most of the artcles are just "GRADE SCHOOLS" and we all know that grade schools are not notable at all. The citation provided are not independent, and grades school are not notable these types of articles are created by such private school to attract students so they can increase their PROFITS, it's a very common practice in india. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11 And also check who creates such advertisements he should be banned from editing Wikipedia there are more than 1000s of such non-notable paid advertisements in English Wikipedia.

You are my last hope for Independent Wikipedia in India. parents are forced to pay high fees in these schools as we all trust wikipedia, and these schools take advantage of it.

i am just a user with no rights like you, so i can not delete them all requested for deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Public_School_Ghaziabad and it got deleted.

LIST OF SUCH SCHOOLS BY STATE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_in_India

Nuksanhai (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Worm That Turned, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, bradleyagin 21:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

So this will have to do.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

--Cameron11598(alt account) ^(Talk) 08:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

... Thanks Worm^TT(talk) 08:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ―Buster7 ☎ 20:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2019 and beyond.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi there, I can see from the deletion discussion on Kateryna Babkina and the page history that you put a lot of work into this. It looks to me like it has gone a bit random since then. Would you have any capacity to look at this? If not, I'll have a go, but as you have previously worked on it I thought you would start from a better position. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tacyarg, I'm afraid I don't remember the subject at all! Looking at it though, there are only a dozen edits since I rewrote it, and only one major one. What is recommend is restoring my last edit, then adding in any extra information from the intervening changes - in the correct place. Can't say I have time to myself, wrapped up in an Arbcom case, but it shouldn't take very long. If you do it yourself, I'll even drop you a barnstar! Worm^TT(talk) 09:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done - thank you for advice! Tacyarg (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for your input here. I decided to sleep on everything that happened because I wanted to make sure I wasn't making a rash decision. I was going to ask you to block the user earlier on. However HJ Mitchell beat me to it!-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad we are all in agreement. HJ is a bit more gung ho than I am, but I do believe it was the right decision. Worm^TT(talk) 23:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

my curiosity but what happened to NYB and Euralyus? ∯WBG^converse 19:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Their terms ended at the end of last year. I believe I notified them on the talk page Worm^TT(talk)

Apologies, stupid of me. I was sort of thinking that they ought to be in a better position to vote than the new folks (but that's meaningless, probably). ∯WBG^converse 19:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. While the newer folks have access to the archives, the arbs who were around at the time were of course more aware of the situation and therefore I felt it important to point them to the noticeboard. Worm^TT(talk) 19:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The name of user page is Abhay Shukla Journalist and This one (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abhay_Shukla.jpg) aswell. I dont want google to show this in search result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhay Shukla Journalist (talk • contribs) 08:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Abhay Shukla Journalist. I'm afraid I cannot help you directly, but I can point you in the right direction. Your user page is mirrored from meta:User:Abhay Shukla Journalist, so I cannot delete it. However, I have put in a request for it's deletion. As for the file - a derivative is being used, so I don't believe it can happen, you'll have to ask at commons - I'm not particularly familiar with the area. Worm^TT(talk) 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I can't ask this on the Noticeboard, but I thought I'd try the talkpage. Would the following be a somewhat accurate summary of the situation as it was when Alex resigned from the Arbitration Comittee:

An I presume majority of the Comittee thought that Alex had violated the Privacy Policy several times, once by running a Checkuser in violation of INVOLVED and at least one other incident in which comments of his had to be surpressed. Assuming these facts I have the following questions:

1) Was there anything preventing the Comittee from making that statement at the time Alex resigned?

2) If he hadn't resigned his seat, what would have been the next step?

3) If Alex had been a normal Checkuser and not a member of the comittee, would anything have changed?

Thanks 77.56.234.185 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'm happy to answer questions from my personal perspective. Without going into detail on what happened - the statement on the ACN is accurate.

1. There was nothing preventing us from making the statement at the time, beyond our own judgement.
2. The committee would have had to decide whether his actions were egregious enough to go through the procedures to remove CUOS and remove him from the committee.
3. There was a significant element of information being disclosed that he had received as a committee member - this element would not have existed. In addition, it is a very serious decision to overturn the will of hundreds of community members at an election. Similar behaviour from an individual not on the committee would be simpler to handle.

I hope that answers your questions. Worm^TT(talk) 09:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Dave,

I have a question for you as an experienced editor and CUer. I've run across a spammer who frequents a particular IP range (starting with 165.255) and I was wondering if it was possible to search for IP editors within ranges if I do not have CU access. I looked at the Special Page>Users and rights where you can search for an active editor's name but it doesn't work with IP addresses. Is there another resource I'm missing? I understand there are elements of CU activity you can't talk about but if there is some page where I can find IPs that have edited from that limited range, I'd like to make use of it, not to block accounts but just to locate any other vandalism that might have been done.

Thanks for any information you can offer! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: I'm afraid I don't have tonnes of time for Wikipedia at the moment, so can't go into too much depth, but perhaps you're looking for Special:Contributions, which accepts IPs and ranges? Worm^TT(talk) 13:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering if you would be willing to adopt me? My former adopter just retired. Let me know. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi DannyS712 - I'm afraid I haven't been able to focus my time properly on adoption for years, and have pretty much retired my ability to do so. That said, I'm always willing to help out, and if you're just looking for a "hands-off" individual, who's willing to answer questions, then my talk page is always open :) Worm^TT(talk) 08:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Special thanks to you ..sir Sushant bolt (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Your experience was mentioned by RexxS (talk · contribs) for external independent dispute resolution of this lengthy conversation about the inclusion of this infobox on this article. It seems that the arguments involved are reaching maturity and there does not seem to be much changing of opinions anymore. If you're willing to help or point in the right direction, that would be very much appreciated! — MarkH21 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarkH21 I can't make any guarantees until next week, I'm rather choc-a-bloc in the real world and so don't seem to have much time for anything on Wikipedia at the minute, let alone looking into and closing an infobox discussion. That said, I can see the light, and hopefully after Tuesday next my calendar becomes less hectic. If you can wait that long, I'd be happy to have a look at it. Worm^TT(talk) 08:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no worries! The discussion settled down about two weeks ago so there is no rush :) Thanks! — MarkH21 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help! I've opened an RfC per your suggestion. Hopefully that will lead us to resolve the issue in either direction. I appreciate you having taken the time to read over the whole thing (and the RfC if it needs to be formally closed)! — MarkH21 (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. You are only tangentially involved, but since I mentioned your recommendation for context I felt that it would be proper to inform you. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat. Best regards, Maxim_(talk) 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave, for offering to help at Fermat's Last Theorem. It is appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem. Been a while since I did something useful ;) Worm^TT(talk) 08:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to come back to you, Dave, but I'm getting close to the end of my tether with the antics of some of the commentators at the the RfC Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem #Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement. There has been continual personalisation, strawmen arguments, and tangential nonsense. I asked a week ago for the talk page to be explicitly placed under AC/DS per WP:ARBINFOBOX #Editors reminded's "decorum and civility" remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement #Infobox RfC on Fermat's Last Theorem, but it's been ignored. I feel as though the only recourse to get that RfC back on the rails is to start ANI proceedings against several editors that I feel are abusing the RfC, which will be messy. Before I start, would you look at the RfC and tell me whether you think the standard of debate in there is acceptable, please? --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've done my best to keep away from it, with a view to closing it later, especially as I don't really have time to monitor it properly. Unfortunately, I don't feel I should be adding enforcement, as a sitting arb, I try not to get involved with AE at all. Not that I ever really did it when I was not a sitting arb! I'm surprised it's been completely ignored though. Unfortunately, I'm not likely to be around to review things properly over the weekend - I don't generally use wikipedia at all during that time, but if things are still the same on Monday, I'll have a look. Worm^TT(talk) 19:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, Dave, I wasn't thinking about you possibly closing it. In which case, you should definitely keep away. I'm not feeling quite so bad, as another editor (from the opposite side of the arguments} has just backed me up in trying to keep the debate focused on the actual issue. Hopefully it will settle down now. --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Just a note that the RfC has reached maturity now, so feel free to close it to your judgment and at your convenience. Thanks again for your help. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Good evening, thanks a lot for replying my message. Can you please check the new page "Asatrian Karen" and tell me if all settings were done correctly? I tried to follow the steps mentioned, still I am not sure if everything went well and when it will be published or found when searched for - it is okay if it is the permission-process - but if the page has not been set correctly I'd like to repeat the process soon again (not if it is not necessary).

I appreciate your feedback and thank you for you time. Regards, (ASATRIAN Karen (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC))

(by talk reader) @ASATRIAN Karen: Thanks for letting me know; I've tagged it for deletion per WP:NOTWEBHOST.. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I am messaging you because, as a newbie to editing Wikipedia, I am unsure how to obviate this impasse with the user Lard Almighty on the page Reactions to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The first issue is that I am unsure if he has reverted me more than the 3 times per 24-hour limit or not. For instance, in a single listed action on the edit history page, he made 8 reverts of my edits at once [2], does this violate the 3 reverts per 24-hour limit? or does it only count as one instance of a revert? I should mention that having been editing now for as little as 6 days, I was initially unaware of the summary protocol for each edit made, but I have since done a summary on learning about it without fail. In that example, I own that I had not left a summary as I was unaware of the need and how to do so. (Does this entitle Lard Almighty to exceed the 3 times per 24-hour cap?)

My other issue is that every time I add the necessary comma in order to set off the introductory element in the sentence 'During interviews on network television programmes Gerry was forced to defend leaving the children alone'Lard Almighty precipitously reverts it without fail, each time giving yet another mistaken reason why 'During interviews on network television programmes' is not an introductory element. The first time I added the due comma, I laid out to him the comma rule in my Summary:

It appears that we are missing a comma after the introductory phrase "During interviews on network television programmes". An introductory phrase (e.g., Before the party) or clause (e.g., If you can join us) sets the stage for the sentence. Introductory clauses and long phrases must always be followed by a comma. The comma-after-introductory-clauses rule comes with one exception: When the introductory clause is short less than four words, the comma MAY be omitted. Not here.

Lard Almighty reverted this with the following explanation, verbatim:

It's not an intrductory pharse as such. The two segments of the sentence dpend on each other and therefore should not be separated.

I added the comma again this time explaining to him his misconception:

An independent clause or sentence is defined by a subject a verb and a predicate. "Gerry was forced to defend leaving the children alone" is a GRAMMATICALLY complete sentence on its own. Therefore, "During interviews on network television programmes" is an introductory element grammatically and so requires a comma.

Sure enough, Lard Almighty reverted this with another reason, saying:

No it doesn't. It would only require a comma if it introduced a list e.g. during TV interviews, newspaper interviews and online

Now obviously, he is citing a different comma rule altogether which pertains to lists and has nothing to do with introductory elements. I am at my wit's end, for it seems that no explanation under the sun will get through to Lard Almighty who holds sway over the page (I honestly suspect that one who cannot bother to spell the word depend right or introductory or phrase in their explanation is objecting rather out of being more bullheaded than learned). This one user appears to lord over the page by himself with obdurate and arbitrary sway. It is enough to discourage me from bothering with Wikipedia when it is this hard to apply the rules of the English language. I would explain to this Lard Almighty again but know it would be in vain as it was every other time. What should a well-meaning editor do in this situation? I would do one of those forms but am afraid of citing him without having technically qualified as having made a violation. As I have put in a lot of time trying to improve Wikipedia articles, I would very much appreciate your answer. Thank you in advance.

Warm regards,

Theroyalrambler (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The way you "obviate" the issue is to discuss it on the article's talk page, as I have asked you to do several times before. Your changes are by and large not improvements. In any event, the solution to your insisting on re-adding that comma was to rewrite the sentence so it is now a non-issue. Your other changes, as I say, do not improve the article, and I am not the only editor to tell you that your changes to articles are not improvements. Please consider engaging with editors with whom you have disagreements rather than continually trying to make changes that others do not perceive as helpful. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

May

Rapeseed

Here I come again, saying thank you for that little "(sorry!)" on the Fermat theorem talk. I have been rather successful in avoiding the dirty topic, DYK? But - had to come, no? - Background: this year, my (sad) focus is on improving articles of people who recently died (sometimes that means creating the article). List here. Yesterday three of them (but two later turned out to have died in April, - well, I improved anyway). Leaves Georg Katzer, now on the Main page. I added references, some facts, rearranged the chronology, added an infobox, nominated for ITN, then turned to the next, and the third. When I looked again at Katzer the infobox was reverted, and I went to the talk page, because I am on a voluntary 1RR. Please take it from there, and tell me if you'd recommend an RfC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No answer, - and arrived at no myself. I have a good discussion with Jerome Kohl, and am in the process of explaining about what I know about the infoboxes (insert proper description for what still happens around them), link on my user page, look for "teh history" (or start at the bottom. I am still at the beginning of 2013, doing it step by step. Last quote was "One despairs, one really does.", found in a 2012 discussion about a book, not by me, not quoting me (I agreed with the author in the discussion), - I don't despair. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I see that you are dealing with the situation regarding Jerzy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I was just catching up on recent events and wanted to check that you had seen this apparently related post to my talkpage from a couple of months ago. WJBscribe (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

WJBscribe I was aware of that, thanks, but given that things had developed, I think that any desysop to would be considered under a cloud. I thought it rather unfair to do without at least getting confirmation that he wanted to proceed in that manner. Worm^TT(talk) 16:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: You are invited to vote on Pineapple juice.Catfurball (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for all you do for Wikipedia. I am sure it cannot be easy to be an arbitrator let alone an arbitrator and a bureaucrat and (presumably) a functioning member of society. Thank you for devoting the time and the mental energy necessary to helping this community improve the world's knowledge. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I fullheartly second this. Thanks for all that you do Worm . —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Barkeep49 and TheSandDoctor. I do appreciate the sentiment. I'm sure there are a lot of people with a much lower opinion so it's lovely to hear a bit of nice feedback. Worm^TT(talk) 06:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please change the of the case to WMF and Fram. That will put the focus where it belongs. At present it is named for a tangential party, which looks like an attempt at misdirection. I have no idea if that was the intention, but appearances matter. Jehochman ^Talk 23:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, There are a number of issues. The WMF's ban of Fram is not in the jurisdiction of Arbcom and if that is where the focus is, it should be quick declined. The subsequent actions of admins and crats is arguably under our jurisdiction (I'd argue not) but at least there could be a case there - hence the name. The ongoing bigger issue about these sorts of blocks and where boundaries lie is really a community discussion to be had, again not for Arbcom alone. Worm^TT(talk) 06:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. It would be helpful for editor retention if you declined the case and told WMF: look at the mess you made. Please clean it up yourselves. ArbCom is here to resolve disputes between editors, and there’s no such dispute. I also think ArbCom should state clearly whether or not the Committee or a member requested the WMF investigation of Fram. It’s curious how AGK is the only Arbitrator who hasn’t commented and his name also appears in the diff WMF used to justify the ban to Fram. That’s some coincidence. Jehochman ^Talk 06:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, if the committee could agree on anything ever, they would tell the community, not the foundation. So, no, the committee did not as a whole. I do not know if individual committee members have, I have seen no evidence that they have. I believe we have been clear that this is the WMF mess, not Arbcom's. Indeed, it was the first thing I said after Fram was banned. I also think that the committee members comments on the case page reflect that. Worm^TT(talk) 08:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That addresses my concerns as much as I think you could. I learned that Jan hasn’t made a single content edit to en-wiki for over five years. He is in Munich and is a recent philosophy and logic graduate. The training seems relevant but his experience is hardly a match for ArbCom’s. You must impress upon him to turn over all cases requiring nuanced judgment of on-wiki activity to ArbCom. It’s not like ArbCom has ever been soft on misbehaving admins. Jehochman ^Talk 08:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, your work in this matter has been excellent. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I noticed your comment at the case that ...the dialogue I have had with them over the past year and half has led me to trust the WMF of 2019 far more than the last time I was on the committee. Is there any particular reason you've gained trust in them, or just a general feeling? Because I think most of us tend to trust them less any more. If there indeed are reasons to trust them here, it'd be helpful to know that, and they're certainly not themselves giving any cause to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It would be hard for any organisation to be less trustworthy than the WMF under Lila; the breakdown in trust under her made the current dispute look like a handful of toddlers squabbling. ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent, you do have a point there, though at least most of their cockups related to software, which at least is something within their general remit, in contrast to banning users (outside child protection, threats, and such). But the timbre of WTT's comment led me to think there's more to it than just "Well, they couldn't be any worse", and I was interested as to the reasoning behind that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I believe it's been mentioned elsewhere, but Arbcom has a monthly call with the WMF, where they are willing to discuss issues that affect the community from a WMF point of view. In addition, where we have made requests, they've done their best to accommodate (such as the transfer of the mailing lists, looking into training, new tools etc).I know I'm in a privileged group that gets a direct dialogue with WMF but the dialogue I've experienced over the past year and a half has left me with the believe that they are genuinely attempting to work with us, rather than completely ignoring us - which I felt before (on much more important issues). Worm^TT(talk) 21:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm certainly glad to hear that. (I very much shared that view of them at the time, and those calls often seemed rather a waste of time.) I hope they can similarly improve their interactions with the community as a whole; this current situation is not one based on trust at all, and the community and WMF being at odds is not a great situation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, absolutely agree. As always, the largest issue is with communication. I do think there are a number of things that can be done to fix underlying issues here, and I know that Arbcom are discussing some at the moment. Worm^TT(talk) 06:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Dave, there must be a reason why you are practically the only member of the current Arbcom whom I trust implicitly and I breathed a sigh of relief when despite everything you told me in London, you ran for it again and got in. But we'll not go into that now, suffice it to say that the current committee generally leaves me unimpressed, and there must be reasons why many of them keep jumping ship.

As to the WMF, I consider it to be as corrupt as any non-profits and NGOs I've worked with over the last 40 years - and here in SE Asia, golly it's a shambles. Tretikoff's performance of course was made worse by the contrast of her work with that of Gardner who IMO did a good job; Tretokoff did do some active management but as a desk pilot she flew the WMF into the depths of corruption and occasioned the walk-out of many of the top level staff whom we could halfway trust. Maher strikes me as a nice person and I met her briefly in Esino Lario where her job was confirmed. However, despite the job description, she does not do much actual 'directing', spending, in the WMF's own words 'most of her time in a metal tube in the sky'. She is probably an excellent roving ambassador for the movement, but with no one in charge on the ground, the various departments are semi-autonomous. Nevertheless they are quick to circle their waggons when one of them drops a clanger. Their communication has always been disasterously poor. Just look at the struggles I have had over the years with some of the projects that have seriously needed their attention. Like politicians everywhere - particularly the UK rift over Brexit - when they don't know what to do, they just blather on with long but vague and empty speeches. @Seraphimblade and Iridescent:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't look back on Sue Gardner with rose-tinted glasses either. She tends to get a free pass because she was better than her predecessor—although the same could be said of a plank of wood—and because she poured resources into fundraising, leading to a surge in donations which allowed the WMF to massively expand the payroll vote of employees, funded chapters, and grant recipients. However, it was under her that "circling the waggons" became SOP; in the early days the WMF was almost pathologically transparent, to the point where things were being discussed in public that really should have been dealt with internally. In contrast this was what the WMF's internal culture looked like when she was in charge, it was under Sue that a Community Liaison staff member was caught logging out to vandalize the userpage of someone with whom they were in dispute yet as far as we know wasn't even warned, and it was under Sue that the Hong Kong fiasco took place. Being better than a predecessor with multiple fraud convictions and a successor who caused half the staff to walk out is a relatively low bar. ‑ Iridescent 08:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

As much as CEO does point a company in a direction, there are also some other important roles that can significantly influence relations. For example, the legal team - under Mike Godwin, were unwilling to have anything to do with community problems, keeping the whole thing at arms length - even if there was significant legal ramifications. Subsequent legal teams have been more willing to engage and take some responsibility for the community and I think this decision is an extension of that. The way things have been handled are of course sub-optimal, but many of the alternatives suggested by the community are equally sub-optimal. I'm hopeful that something positive can come out of this whole debacle, but it's a shame that yet another upset like this has happened while I was on the committee (Super-protect being the last one) Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, also noting, I don't particularly know Jan, heading up the T&S dept at the moment. I have had one conversation with him now, and while first impressions are fine and it was under strained circumstances, it is absolutely possible that my goodwill towards the WMF, built up over the past year or so could drop. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dave. It seems a long time since Wikimania 2012 in London where we met (I left a message for FloNight recently as I met her at WorldCon later that summer and she is working on related issues around all this as well). At Wikimania 2012, you will remember a face-to-face meeting with various WMF people over various issues. If I recall correctly, Philippe and the legal guy at the time (was that Mike Godwin or the one after him?) were there, with several arbs (you, me, Roger and GW and AGK - have I missed any one?) and some joining the meeting by Skype or something. In your opinion, have things improved since then? Have there been physical meetings, or is it really only phone meetings? Is the conversation you refer to the phone meeting that current arb Katie referred to on the case request page, or was it an individual one?
Like you, this is bringing back memories for me of SuperProtect (I was one of the drafting arbs on the case that looked at that). On a tangential note, my life has taken me in a different direction, and I am unlikely to ever look to run for ArbCom again, but I was pleased to see you run again, and pleased (if somewhat taken aback given the hiatus) to see AGK return as well. If it would not breach confidence, can you give some insight into how relations are on the committee itself given the breadth and mix of experience - is it generally harmonious or are there strains that are not evident in public? Given what is transpiring, I think it is important that the community knows how functional ArbCom is, as there has been a lot of silence recently.
Finally, on an even more tangential note, you will recall that I have a hearing disability (I am profoundly deaf - this is something that I don't disclose often, but is generally out there). The mention of phone meetings and such-like got me thinking again on whether the WMF are responsive to providing the ability for those with disabilities to access such meetings. I am bringing this up, as I would want the WMF to be open to this, so as not to discourage those with disabilities from volunteering for positions such as ArbCom (I am aware that some editors have undeclared disabilities and some have declared them, and that the requirements of the WMF to assist employees is different to assisting volunteers, but I wondered what the current state of affairs is with respect to that and who would be best placed to answer my questions on this and other matters?).
I've said quite a lot here - like old days! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth, apologies about the delay in replying, I've been out enjoying the sun! I do remember the Wikimania where we met (2014, not 2012!) and I certainly remember that meeting, with a significant number of Arbs and ex-arbs (FloNight and Kirill definitely come to mind), and we were fighting for some very important changes in how things were handled between the community and the foundation and fighting is absolutely the right word. (The head lawyer was Geoff, though Luis was also there - Lila had just been appointed, though she wasn't at the meeting) Around same time, we were hit with SuperProtect and yes, it was all extremely difficult. We were successful, but yes, that period was one of the most draining I had in Arbcom, and was one of the reasons I left so jaded.
Yet, I'm a year and a half into another term on Arbcom. So, yes, things have absolutely improved since then. Arbcom is less stressful for a number of reasons, one of which is that the WMF is more engaged in discussion with Arbcom. As to the meetings, the conversation I referred to (where I've chatted to Jan) was one of the Arbcom / WMF group meetings, not a personal one. There are only remote meetings (at present) and they are not obligatory, I believe there are a non-zero number of Arbs who have not attended any. They are at differing times of day, to allow different timezones to participate. I'd like to think that disabilities would be considered should they arise - the calls are over Webex, so perhaps webcams may help, and would definitely be an option. There are also meeting minutes which are available to arbs. Of course, we would have to discuss the best solution at the time - but I would hope that no one felt discouraged for that reason. That said, those who I've spoken to are discouraged because they don't want to be the community's punching bag... a point which is salient in these discussions. Worm^TT(talk) 19:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

As to your question of how the committee is working together, I think it's pretty much as to be expected. There are strong personalities, who have different opinions on what has happened and what should happen next. Arbcom is like herding cats at the best of times, and this isn't the best of times - but we are working together - I certainly wouldn't describe it as dysfunctional. Worm^TT(talk) 19:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch on the year! Thanks for reminding me of the details of that meeting. I agree with most of what you say, but my view is that you (and ArbCom) are not really getting the level of anger in the community over this. I am glad that the WMF is more engaged in discussion with Arbcom, but this matter has the potential to undo all that good work and place a lot of what has been achieved in jeopardy. I think you all (including those who were aware of the impending ban - such as User:Opabinia regalis) need to take a long hard look at yourselves and decide (at the appropriate point when other options have been exhausted) whether this is a resigning matter. Are you, individually and as a group, prepared to stand up for your principles or not? See also what I said here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I'm aware of where my line is and what I would consider resigning over. I appreciate the anger in the community, and I want to find a solution that the community will actually accept. Some will not be happy unless WMF backtracks completely, I don't see that happening and I do not have my line drawn there. But there are some significant failings that need to be addressed, and I'm certainly not blaming others exclusively. I know Opabinia has taken more than their fair share of self-beration - I hope that stops. They may have been the only person on that call, but there was definitely more that could have been done in communicating and discussing something that was clearly was not going to go down well. Worm^TT(talk) 11:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt (and principled) response. Depending on how this plays out, it may turn out that one of the only ways to send a strong enough signal to the WMF is to replace ArbCom (and before the next elections). I hope it does not come to that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I've thought a lot about what I could have done differently - be more proactive about getting the message out instead of assuming people saw the notes, for sure. But as far as I can tell the WMF was going to do what it was going to do. I was as surprised as anyone at some of what we've seen since (like the now-infamous diff), and there's still a lot of questions unanswered. I'd be surprised now if most of the committee hadn't personally considered what the possible outcomes of this situation look like and which ones they'd find unworkable. For myself, I think resigning now would be less "statement of principle" and more "leaving other people with a bigger share of the mess to clean up". But we'll see. I don't think I or any of us mean to minimize anyone's anger and frustration - I frankly agree with some of those sentiments. Like WTT, I have boundaries in mind for what kind of circumstances would make me no longer willing to volunteer my time in this particular way. I think there are still practical steps to take for now, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Nice to see you again. Jehochman ^Talk 19:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. A lot to catch up on! Worm^TT(talk) 19:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Very glad to see that indeed. I don't think anyone could blame you for taking some time away from the mess; it must be absolute hell to be on ArbCom right now. So thanks for doing it, and do take a look at WT:AC/N. The Committee really did brilliantly at drafting that response, and I'm not the only one who would say so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't take the credit for that - I did read it and strongly agree with it, and I'm sure I influenced it with some of my comments before my break, but our hero is Joe Roe, who is eloquent and drafted the vast majority of the statement. Worm^TT(talk) 19:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, take some credit in any case. You had a very good suggestion at the Fram request for how to handle the case, and the arbs and clerks have, somehow, managed to keep that from turning into a sprawling, back-and-forth, off topic mess. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I too am glad to see you back. We've lost many a fine editor as of late, would hate to lose another. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dave, Your statement here says "However, this case request cannot those conditions and becomes largely symbolic." I presume there is a word missing there? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I wrote it on my phone and yep, missed a word. Thanks for catching it. Worm^TT(talk) 14:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dave. I won't be going to Stockholm most unfortunately, because I really can't afford $3,000 just for 5 days in the far north of Europe. I'll leave that trip to the Europeans and the 70-strong WMF junket. But next year Wikimania is right on my doorstep. I hope you will be able to come. I will be making absolutely sure that my friends who are able to come will have a great time. Regards, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, I doubt it Chris. I don't think it likely that I'll travel away from family for Wikipedia. Worm^TT(talk) 06:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand. If I am still alive, Bangkok next year will almost certainly be my last Wikimania. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, Then I will likely be there too. And don't be so morbid about yourself. You're not that old. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Dammit Kudpung, don't say such things about yourself man! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I have to second what is said above. Things like that are just downright depressing. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I think these whipper-snappers don't understand good old black humour. I do hope we'll meet up again Kudpung. Worm^TT(talk) 14:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

We're falling over ourselves about Kudpung's declaration about his imminent death, and you're just like "that's funny". British humor is truly something special. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Please forgive me for cornering you here.  :-) I requested the case because it will serve as a drama sinkhole. You're going to get this case. You're eventually going to accept it in some form. Having a request open where people can comment will provide you will useful information about what people think, and it will give people a place to express themselves constructively to help defuse their frustration with decisions having been taken without their input. I hope you understand why I did this: to improve Wikipedia, not to harass the Committee with duplicate requests.

Keep in mind the Hoffman debacle from years ago. I warn you not to start a case sua sponte. It is an important safety measure for ArbCom to only take cases when the community wants it to hear them. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the machinations of the community, the board and T&S. I have no doubt this case is going to come to Arbcom, in the near future. What's more, it's really not going to be sua sponte - it's very clear that the community wants the case, it's clear that the board wants us to take the case from their statement. There are definite filing parties. However, we don't need a case now. We didn't need that filing now. We need to work out the ground rules for a case, before agreeing to one. We need to know what information we will get, what we will be able to pass on to Fram, what we will be able to pass on to the community. We need to know if those who complained to T&S would be willing to pass their complaints to Arbcom. If not, then we need to deal with that. There's all sorts of questions to be asked - this isn't a normal case. Whatever your intentions, dumping another case request on the Arbcom page was never going to be helpful. Worm^TT(talk) 14:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Quick question, related to what Jehochman said above about there needing to be a place for the community to (within reason) ask questions. My question is one I tried to raise here. What I would want to be able to ask is whether vanished/renamed/clean start users (doesn't matter what the end result was) will have their evidence considered, whether they are still part of the whole process, and whether a distinction would be drawn between evidence submitted before and/or after they left. As far as I know, there are only two users who have been renamed/vanished. I get that you can't say too much or be specific, but I know what it was like on ArbCom. People would retire/vanish (etc.) and still keep emailing ArbCom even after taking that step. It is not an easy conundrum, but is it one that ArbCom (as a group) are either addressing or aware they may need to address? (I'm not even going to ask if T&S respond to complaints from people who have exercised a right-to-vanish). Carcharoth (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Carcharoth, Very interesting question. I've long been a proponent of vanishing - people should have a way to leave Wikipedia, and as long as you have an account, it is possible to be dragged back in. If you want to be able to leave all together, you should have the option to. That's something I'm even willing to extend to some banned users (depending on sockpuppetting). However, the Meatball "RightToVanish" was significantly watered down on en.wiki to WP:Courtesy vanishing - which was then made fairly irrelevant by unified logins and global renaming. Current policy is found at meta:Right to vanish. I hope it's clear that I absolutely support the vanishing of any individual that feels they wish to.

So, as to your follow up question - should vanished individuals evidence be allowed to remain part of the process. I would not recommend it - vanishing is supposed to be the extraordinary final step of cutting ties with Wikipedia. If an individual were to email the committee about the topic that lead them to vanishing, then they would not be cutting those ties - I would be personally encouraging any such individual to stop emailing and move on for their own wellbeing.

At the same time, if the evidence were removed upon vanishing, then that would encourage harassment so as to silence criticism. That's obviously not a positive outcome either. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia has federated login across all its sites. What happens when somebody wants to vanish here? Do they vanish everywhere? Maybe we shouldn’t have federated login. Jehochman ^Talk 11:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, yes, that's exactly what happens and has done since the single sign on was implemented Worm^TT(talk) 11:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems unfair for an accuser to vanish and then the accused is left in a position of having to talk about the vanished user in order to refute their evidence or impeach their credibility. That would be unseemly and potentially harmful. On the other hand, we can't just blindly accept accusations without giving the accused a chance to respond. Jehochman ^Talk 14:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since I kinda answered this on Oshwah's page and I've been one of the louder voices on the renamers list about it (I'm sure that's a shock to everyone). SUL exists and renaming is theoretically a global action, but we give significant deference to local projects. That in practice means that it is very rare to rename a user who is blocked on their home-wiki.

There has been a recent push (largely by me and a sysop/renamer from it.wiki, but it has a rough consensus among the renamers) to get people to leave potentially controversial cases to a renamer who is familiar with the project who would be aware if there were community issues going on that could lead to avoidance of scrutiny, which the global rename policy discourages. Ultimately in controversial cases where there's disagreement these calls are at the final discretion of stewards, who can reverse renames and also go ahead and rename users via their private OTRS queue.

In the more prominent case being referenced here, the standard I've always gone off of for declining a rename/vanishing is "blocked or sanctioned, about to be blocked or sanctioned, or about to be subject to a noticeboard discussion that could potentially lead to sanctions." I don't really think that applies here, as even if there were valid questions, I don't think anyone would have been suggesting any sort of sanction here. As I mentioned at Oshwah's talk, if people feel that an improper rename has occurred and the issue appears sensitive, emailing the stewards is the best course of action. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven’t heard of anybody thinking this was improper. No, not at all. The conundrum is whether a vanished user’s complaint could be acted on after they depart. The answer seems to be “it depends”. Jehochman ^Talk 03:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to say Thank You for your participation. Awilley & JFG helped get my alert up and running on my UTP. If you get a chance, check it out by trying to post a DS alert. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Drive by comment from me too - saw your name pop up in the SPI feed. Good to see you're still around here nowadays :-) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

[3] I can always hand in my tools if you like? I never did, nor, with a fine disregard for logic and equal treatment, did the Foundation desysop me. But we can remedy that, and then you can nominate me. IMO that'll be a better RFA than that Floquenbeam's. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, I meant nominating an admin to be a crat. Now, I have my eye on one, but I'm sure I could nominate you for 'cratship if you'd like! Worm^TT(talk) 09:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, I see what you were saying now. I thought you meant you wanted to see another fun RFA just like Floq's! No, don't nominate me for 'crat, please, that would be a bloodbath. Don't you know I reverted a WMF action? Bishonen | talk 09:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, Pfft. I'm sure it will be fine. No one ever questions my judgement, and everyone loves you. Worm^TT(talk) 09:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Pie in the sky! Bishonen | talk 10:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC).