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.
A couple of years ago, I was granted the IP block exemption right to allow me to continue to edit, as another user on the network had been blocked and I had been caught in the autoblock. However, circumstances have now changed, so could you CheckUser me to see if I still require the flag and if not, remove it as per Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Thank you very much. --GilderienChat|List of good deeds19:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved from archive
A couple of years ago, I was granted the IP block exemption right to allow me to continue to edit, as another user on the network had been blocked and I had been caught in the autoblock. However, circumstances have now changed, so could you CheckUser me to see if I still require the flag and if not, remove it as per Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Thank you very much. --GilderienChat|List of good deeds19:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
May user talk:dannyboy1209 be unblocked to prevent the owner from socking please? That way, socking will not be required anymore. Please listen. 92.0.102.253 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Ps. It also provides a place for adoptions and unblock requests
In my opinion, a better way of dealing with socking would be to revert and block each sockpuppet as it appears.
Talk page access (or sockpuppeting, or editing from an IP) is not required to appeal the block - instructions on how to appeal the block are at the top of Dannyboy1209's talk page. Talk page access is also not required for adoptions, because Dannyboy1209 does not have an adopter therefore there is no adoption process.
Dannyboy1209 should try following WP:OFFER. If he stops editing Wikipedia now, that would mean he could request an unblock on 2nd August 2013, although there is no guarantee the request would be granted. (A number of editors appear to think at least one year would be necessary, not six months.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I think Demiurge has it right here. Dannyboy, if you want to come back, you must leave completely for 6 months, then email BASC. WormTT(talk) 11:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Adoption questions
Dear Worm, I have answered the last two questions that you gave at me. But can you please explain me the first two unanswered questions that you had given me in a bit more detail and simple language, as I need to understand the nature of the questions itself. And also, can you move me to your current adoptees list as well as I will be continuing my adoption and will definitely finish it soon when the time comes. Regards. ~TheGeneralUser(talk)14:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Eek. I'm pretty rubbish at the whole adoption thing at the moment, so busy elsewhere, but I'll see what I can do. WormTT(talk) 11:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I prefer a hidden table which goes down the page, rather than a scrolly one that goes across. But I'm not writing the article ;) WormTT(talk) 11:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Any advice on cleaning it up then so it looks more attractive to the eye? It looks bulky now...I have toyed with the idea of using an image, but it would be too painful to update regularly. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)09:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, if ever you want an actual example of Original Research to show your adoptees, then this table at the bottom is the best example ever. And common sense too in this instance =P
I reverted once, blissfully unaware of the hoo-haa between numerous other editors, seeing as I have barely looked at the RFA since my initial comment a few days ago. I am not edit-warring and your threats of a block are an extreme over-reaction. GiantSnowman15:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
My threats of a block were to all parties and given that there has been a lot of edit warring, notes on all parties pages and an ANI thread, they were necessary. You may have got yourself into the mess at the end - I have no doubt you will now either heed the warning as it is or look into the history, but the point is that this has to stop. WormTT(talk) 15:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It has not re-started, and I don't like the blind assumption that it will. Note - it certainly won't from me. Your blanket, one-size-fits-all approach to warnings does not work in these kind of situations. GiantSnowman15:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've found that warnings of this sort can be very effective - feel free to look through my block log and see how small it is. You may not feel it was the right approach, but I stand by it. WormTT(talk) 15:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've always avoided it, I find the alternate reality books generally a little more difficult to get my head around (though Fatherland was enjoyable). Still, I'll do my best to get myself a copy, thanks for the recommend! WormTT(talk) 15:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
One of the better of the genre, perhaps as it is so close to reality? The Alteration by Amis is also worth a read, though much harder to get hold of (luckily I picked up a copy in a random 2nd-hand book store after years of searching!). GiantSnowman15:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.
Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here
Hi Dave. Just checking in to see how you're doing and also to offer my belated congratulations on your WP:ACE2012 run. It was an especially difficult election. You did very well, being in the top 3 and I was glad to see you had changed your mind from earlier in the year. The community has a lot of respect for you. This is because you are calm, thoughtful, and have a history of wise decisions. These are all qualities that make a good Arbitrator. I have noticed that you have been somewhat reserved in commenting on ArbCom matters and I figured you have been quietly contemplating and giving each matter its due consideration. But it also occurred to me that it could be something else and that you may have felt pushed in to running, and I hope that's not the case. I know I wasn't the only one to suggest you run. Being an Arbitrator is a dirty and thankless job. You get the most difficult problems and the most upset people and you have to come up with a solution that is both good for the project and good for the community. And the only feedback you get is from people who are upset at the committee's decisions. So I just wanted to provide some positive feedback and say that I'm thankful for the support you've given to the community. I also wanted to check in to see how you are doing and hope that you are well. Kind regards. 64.40.54.47 (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi again IP, and thanks for your kind words. I was expecting fewer kind words this year, so these do come as a welcome surprise. I don't regret running for ArbCom - and am planning to be in it for the long haul. However, being reserved is my modus operandi, I prefer to maximise the information I have available before commenting. So don't worry too much! It's just how I work. WormTT(talk) 15:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Dave. You've always been measured and very thoughtful with your decisions and I figured that's what it was. Just glad to have confirmation of that. ArbCom has something of a history of chewing up Arbitrators and I don't want that to happen to you. You're one of the good ones and the community can count them on one hand, so each is worth their weight in gold. They're not only beneficial to the project, they're also beneficial to the people that make up the community, and you top that list. So we really can't afford to miss you. You're an important part that holds the project together. Best regards. 64.40.54.47 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
One hand feeds the other...
I feel honoured that my work is clearly being replicated/copied here as it saves me having to hunt down the sources later =D.
I was right when i suspected earlier that my work was helping the Resident Evil wiki, and that's my proof. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)15:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
That's one of the things about releasing your work... the world gets to use it. Be proud, it's good enough for the die hard fans, that's worth a lot! WormTT(talk) 15:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Their site appears to have been worked on a lot recently, and with that i have lots more to do and lots more sources available to me. Cross your fingers for me thursday Dave. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)16:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Training the Trainers
Hi Worm That Turned, we're looking to finalise numbers and I just wanted to confirm that you're still interested in attending the event on 23-24th February? Thanks, Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. As 18 people have registered their interest and there's only space for 12 we're in the process of chasing up who can come and who will need accommodation (arranged by Wikimedia UK). Would you need accommodation? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Worm That Turned. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thank you for the proofread fix but Pod tried exactly the same thing and for him made the image itself disappear! I know he's a little stupid, but he's not that stupid. I guess it only works when arbs do it? Hardly fair! And Worm, could you please take a look at Giano's query on my page? When I click on the two redlinked images, I merely get directed to the Upload Wizard, it's ridiculous. I mean, I am after all an admin (I did it myself, not Pod), so I thought I'd be able to see what has happened to them, but no. :-( Bishonen | talk15:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
The article's in question relate to the subject matter, in my opinion, and also, would this article be subject to the suppression order handled by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court? —MelbourneStar☆talk02:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Worm got sent to bed hours ago :)
The article is based in the USA, which does not recognise Melbourne Magistrates' Court.
Individual editors within the jurisdiction of Melbourne Magistrates' Court would have to consider the risks for themselves. However, WP:NLT still applies to these various IP addresses. I've removed a section from the talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, was thinking about the whole jurisdiction issue, but I wasn't too sure. I will abstain from editing the article in regards to the See Also section, since my location is in fact Melbourne. Thanks for that, —MelbourneStar☆talk04:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
As an example, Soham murders has a much more limited See Also section, which seems sensible to me.
Just as a brief comment, under Australian law jurisdiction is based on the location where the information was published, which under previous cases was determined, for the web, to be where the page was viewed. So technically someone adding material in violation fo Australian law could still be open to court action even if they live outside of the country and even though the server resides in the US, although for practical reasons this is very unlikely.
Personally, I didn't see it as a legal threat, as the real problem isn't the risk of anyone being sued, but the risk of the court deciding that the accused can not get a fair trial as a result of publications in violation of the suppression order. I can think of at least one high profile case in Australia where that looked likely to happen, although in the end they went for a trial without a jury instead. That's how I interpreted the IP's comments, anyway. - Bilby (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, even if someone blocks them in the meantime, they can still explain their comments to avoid any need for interpretation, then all is fine. :) For now, I only left a warning.
As for jurisdiction, indeed most courts like to consider their own jurisdiction not to have (m)any geographical limits. The authorities in other countries then tell them to think again when they try and enforce their orders. The original courts often get round this problem by not trying to enforce their orders. And thus we are back to square one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Interesting. I knew all the first examples you gave, as I frequently seem to be typing "Meta:Parserfunctions" or something like that in, or maybe to see a commons file. It works for language codes too; from other wikis, "w:" or "en:" will link here. But the external link for "wiki:" is something I've not seen before. Wonder how that got into the system. Rcsprinter(talk) @ 21:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I didn't. I knew you could interwiki link, but I didn't know you could just type the prefix and get to the home page. very useful, I expect I'll be doing it in future! WormTT(talk) 08:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Addendum, c2.com was the first wiki (see WikiWikiWeb), so I expect there were historic reasons for this link. It would have been useful to explain ideas of a wiki before we had them there ourselves. WormTT(talk) 08:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course I'm wouldn't forget! I was just a touch busy last night, I decided sleep deprivation at work was a poor idea... WormTT(talk) 08:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I put this notice at Dl2000 talkpage after he edited an article which was just rewriting of order of dates, which as you know is not welcomed in Wikipedia. Can you please check if I wrote everything nice? I think I did it the way it should be...--Mishae (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, there's two parts to this - and I'll take them both seperately. Your comments to Dl2000 were much better than I've seen from you in the past, so I'm really impressed with the way you're coming along with that - however, in this specific case, you went down the wrong route. When you edited the article to add references, you may have missed that there was already a date in the article, in the format ddmmyyy - and because of that date, there was a hidden category: Category:Use dmy dates. Dl2000 was just making sure that all the dates in that article were consistent by the rule of the first main contributor. But on the upside, you're coming along really well on how you contact people, not getting angry and working hard. WormTT(talk) 10:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
O.K. So it was my fault again, sad. Yes, I saw that hidden category, but at first I thought it is there for another reason. In my opinion though mmddyy looks more appropriate English wise... For example, if I put 24 February 2013 there is not th, therefore the correct way would have been February 24, 2013, and yes, with a ,. That way it spells in correct English and th is not required.
Another question, who was the first contributor in this case? I saw a couple but can't figure out which one established that rule? Plus, it said that the first contributor decides after the post-stub is written. When I saw the article, it was a stub, not post, not pre, just stub. Now, as of yesterday I have expanded on it, and in one day the article was moved from Stub to Start to C class... Check the article talkpage: Talk:Arouss Al Ayn--Mishae (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It's an odd one, an auto-generated article.. so it's hard to say that a certain contributor would have a preference. I would find it hard pressed to argue with you on the matter, especially since you've done good work on it. The th issue is one of those things, it's not about readability, but rather computer formating so that it can be interpreted by machines easier. WormTT(talk) 15:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Come to think of it, maybe in a near future the machines (our servers) will be able to read the information with ot without the ,? Its not that odd though, there are 100s of auto-generated stubs, which I sometimes try to expand upon.--Mishae (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
DI2000
So I decided to check his contributions and it turned out that he had done that repitedly before: Buzzcocks, Tommy Robinson (English Defence League), and Soundwave (Australian music festival), all of which were after he edited mine. Yes, both of them have use dmy template, but isn't it considered to be destructive to go after every user and just switch the date around? In fact, don't you think it would consider to be harrasing? Not to mention he didn't respond to my notice, and therefore probably ignored it. Should I warn him again?--Mishae (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Update: I just received back from him, so I put another reply. I hope I didn't exagerate?
I do have a question though: Maybe I should put that template for a discussion? You see, its pointless for a bot-generated article to carry it! Sure, bot articles are partly created by humans, but bots don't have preferences.:)--Mishae (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not generally used on bot generated articles. It and another regional template are used on an article I wrote, HMS Phoenix (N96). It makes sure bots can correct errors and humans know which language/dates to use. RyanVesey04:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "bot's don't have preferences", but bot authors do. The initial creation of the article used a dd mmm yyyy format in the first edit. If the bot author had preferred mmm dd, yyyy, they would have used it. Mind you, I may be prejudiced here - I really don't like the illogical "middle-endian" structure for dates. PamD08:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Pam's got a really good point here. Just because the bot itself is mindless, the person who wrote it is not. It follows instructions and one of those is a preference for a certain date structure, which should be respected. WormTT(talk) 08:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Mmm, what if the bot author is no longer active? Well, I don't say that somebody is mindless, all that I am saying is that machine is a machine, and human is human. Keep in mind that Wikipedia was created by humans, not machines, and very smart ones (by looking at the 20,000,000 articles in world languages!) The thing is, is that sometimes editors, as DI2000 said, do edit the articles and ignore the DMY thing, per ignore all rules. So, shouldn't he do the same? Another thing to mention is that it is confusing because some articles do have it and some don't. Plus, its quite a strange preference, unlike the language one. Because it sounds like when I do an edit its pointless or its destructive, and I end up feeling that I am about to get blocked. Here though, doing those edits aren't pointless??? Confused a bit, Ryan Vesey did explained to me though, unless you have something to add?--Mishae (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Life story work
On 26 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Life story work, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that life story work can be beneficial to adults with dementia? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:
Metric
Control group
Teahouse group
Contrast
Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit)
5.02 weeks
8.57 weeks
1.7x retention
Average number of articles edited
58.7 articles
116.9 edits
2.0x articles edited
Average talk page edits
36.5 edits
85.6 edits
2.4x talk page edits
Average article space edits
129.6 edits
360.4 edits
2.8x article edits
Average total edits (all namespaces)
182.1 edits
532.4 edits
2.9x total edits
Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper
Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.
Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To add or remove yourself for receiving future newsletters, please update the list here
Disambiguation training material
Hi Dave, I've uploaded (via Doug) the disambiguation training material that we developed on the TtT course. If you want it, it's here: [1]. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The Teahouse Turns One!
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year!
To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge.
Thanks for the piece on microgrants - I hope it will inspire others. My in-laws lived just by the Doom Bar fro over twenty years and my kids kept digging at it to make sandcastles! I love the beer too! Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You never showed me what you had written for the newsletter about the Doom Bar.. Well done, you did a really good job (even I found it interesting!) :P Staceydolxx (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I was just looking over my RfA from last summer, and I decided to follow a link posted by Demiurge1000 to your adoption lessons for the sake of getting a better understanding of copyright policy. I went ahead, reviewed Lesson 3, and decided to test myself to see the correct answers (i.e. the ones by the adoptee in conjunction with whatever corrections you've applied, if any). My understanding is that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and content submitted to Wikipedia is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.
My two questions are as follows:
Let's say there's an image from some other site than can be useful here. It is explicitly licensed as CC BY, which means it excludes "ShareAlike" and can be redistributed, modified, and even used commercially so long as the original copyright holder receives attribution. Additionally, there is no requirement in the case of CC BY to redistribute under the same licensing as the original publication. Are there any issues with using this particular Creative Commons license on Wikipedia, Commons, or any other Wikimedia project? Unless there's some sort of exception I'm unaware of, it would be released under CC BY-SA once it's uploaded here, a slightly stricter tag that requires the distribution or commercial usage of that content to also have the same licensing (i.e. also CC BY-SA).
You take a picture of someone using your own camera (i.e. in person, face-to-face). Are there any legal restrictions from uploading their image online and publishing it under the CC BY-SA? Does the subject have any claims to the image? Also, if it is uploaded to Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project, would you need to have express permission from the subject for its usage? Of so, does it need some sort of reference to verify that their consent has been given?
Hi Kurtis. I'm glad to hear my lessons are coming in useful, I never seem to have time to really use them any more for their intended purpose. The questions I ask are generally to make sure people are thinking about the topic in general, so there's not necessarily a "right" or "wrong" answer. For example the free question, yes, it's definitely free in the sense that you don't have to pay, and it's also attempting to go a version "free" usage. It's not quite free, as it has the share alike license, so people can't use the information on it for quite any purpose. What's more, we've got an awful lot of non-free content, so it's only free up to a point. Interesting debate, especially if I've got a beer in front of me. Anyway, as to your questions
You're right, there's no problem (that I know of) with using CC-BY here. We can also use CC-Zero and public domain licensed material, effectively anything that has been released on a less strict license that the one we require. Anything that's been released on a more strict license, we cannot.
Ah, personality rights. The subject doesn't get the copyright, but that doesn't mean that they have no rights. It's a fun topic, which varies from country to country. I'd use a rule of thumb that if the photo is taken on public property, it's probably alright, but I honestly don't have a good answer for you on this, as I'm not a copyright expert on or off wikipedia, I try to teach people enough to get by and answer basic questions. The commons essay states that consent is not needed to include the image, but it's always a good idea to get it if you can. I know I wouldn't be happy if my picture was used to display, say, wrinkle! WormTT(talk) 15:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Just one thing, though — what restrictions does ShareAlike present with it? The only onerous thing I can perceive is the fact that all copies of a work published as CC BY-SA is the fact that it requires attribution and any redistribution must also be under that license. In what situations would this license be an inconvenience for someone intending to use the material? Kurtis(talk)01:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The most common scenario is someone who wishes to make a derivative and sell it under a more restrictive license, which would not be allowed. This prevents taking material from the commons and taking it away. CC-BY (or zero) imposes no such restriction so you could, for instance, take a set of icons and include it in your program / on your web site and then try to forbid people from doing so in turn. — Coren(talk)04:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I apologize first of all for transcluding it, but you are right with the "edgy" thing with his RFA. Some of the old guard would cringe on this delay and wouldn't look good on the nominee at all. He needs to make a decision fast, as the further it gets delayed, the more likely issues will be bought up knowing from experience from previous people RFAs. Also on a side note, there is a list of editors I'm looking to nominate for RFA myself, and I want to discuss them with you though email or private IRC chat. I agree RFA needs to be more active, and while the "admin score" thing is extremely flawed from an experienced user perspective, I'm seeing some "diamonds in the rough" candidates as well that should be nominated. Secretaccount19:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dave,
How are you! I am not very familiar with this sort of communication, so please forgive me.
I am writing regarding concerns for an addition in Wikipedia regarding 'Juvederm', a product for medical use. There was a recent edit on the 26th of September 2012 - it stated that -
'Due to the hydrophilic nature of Juvederm it is generally not recommended for use under the eyes directly sub-orbital. Many patients have reported "bags" under the eyes which is in effect non-pitting edema due to water retention. Excessive amounts of Juvederm may also cause undesirable results. Hyaluronidase may be injected to reduce the amount of injected Juvederm to a desirable level.'
Please note that there has been no scientific medical evidence for this. As a practitioner who uses the product, and one who also works with Allergan who manufactures the product, I have felt it necessary to make the proper corrections, while citing scientific evidence to support the correction.
The problem goes even deeper - this entry was made a few days before a patient quoted Wikipedia as a source for bringing a lawsuit against a respected physician. We believe that this entry was deliberate and meant to be misleading. Can you please inform me as to the procedure for requesting the IP address using 'checkuser'? I am not sure whether I should provide the username in this public forum, or whether it should be done via private email. I look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmeticspecialist (talk • contribs)
Hi Cosmeticspecialist. Checkusers do not give out information in cases like this. You're welcome to contact the Wikimedia Foundation, their policy on releasing information is here, however I don't believe you're likely to have much luck on the matter. The unsourced statements were added more than six months ago, and so any information given by the IP address would have changed long ago. I should also mention that Wikipedia is a wiki, which means that anyone visiting the site can edit or add to pages. At the top of each page is an "Edit" link, clicking this allows the page to be edited. In this way, we are creating a collaborative encyclopaedia, written by visitors to the site. Because anyone can edit, Wikipedia is open to undesirable edits but most of these are corrected by other editors within a very short time. Unfortunately, sometimes things such as this slip through. WormTT(talk) 11:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The username is readily apparent from the article history, so there's no problem mentioning it (but no great purpose in doing so).
There is no procedure for requesting the IP address of the username, because Worm That Turned is not permitted to provide you with that information (and nor is any other volunteer Wikipedia editor).
If your concern is to deal with problematic editing of the article, you may wish to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article; or to ask for help at, for example, the talk page of the Medicine Wikiproject, which tends to be frequented by other practitioners. A discussion may reach a consensus that edits to the article have been sufficiently problematic that it needs to be protected in some way. Or indeed (rather harder to establish) that the editor themselves is sufficiently problematic that they should be blocked from editing.
I'm neither a lawyer nor a doctor, thus can't provide advice in either area; but one piece of advice I would give is to avoid practising medicine in any jurisdiction where one can be the subject of a successful lawsuit based solely on medical evidence taken from Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
While it was tempered with an iff, do you sincerely believe that actions taken by Doncram are worth an indefinite ban rather than an indefinite block? This is an issue that Arbs have tended not to consider, and some don't appear to understand, but I hope that they will start now. RyanVesey07:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the benefit of "blocks" in arbitration. Because it is based on an ArbCom decision, it shouldn't be overturned without either Arbcom's say so or community discussion. He's therefore defacto banned. It's pretty clear to me where this lies from WP:BANBLOCKDIFF, so it's definitely a ban that I woudl be looking at. WormTT(talk) 12:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
RFAR Comment
I would like to make a personal comment to you about your reply but I also do not want to run afoul of fraternization with an Arb during a case where I've commented. Do you have any concerns with me leaving a comment on your talk page?--v/r - TP14:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Trying to remain unbiased in my appraisal of your words, I think you did a good job finding a balance with your comments. I think one of the positive traits of NYB is his ability to see through the politics of Arbcom, and Wikipedia in general, and focus on the facts. His comments generally come out balanced, not for balance sake, in that he addresses each concern with honesty and straight forwardness. I think your reply showed a tinge of NYB-esque and I think you have what it takes to be that voice of reason when he finally gets tired and retires. Keep up the good work. Of course, I could be biased in my opinion because you threw me a bone but I hope I'm not.--v/r - TP14:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I've got to say, I've always respected NYB and thought when I joined the committee that I'd end up agreeing with him more often than not... perhaps ending up in his shadow. Having said that, besides this particular instance where my views line up with his almost exactly - it hasn't worked out like that. That's by the by, I appreciate the comments, thank you. I certainly don't know if I'd like to carry on beyond him though, I don't know how he's managed as many years as he has! WormTT(talk) 14:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Open letter to 5 randomly selected Wikipedia big shots
If you check user me, and it is very common for curious Wikipedians to do so even though it is wrong, you will see that I used to be a frequent editor several years ago. Some of my edits were from this computer.
Wikipedia is a very hostile environment. After being attacked, the natural reaction is to leave, vandalize, or read but stop editing. I have done the latter. I hope that you will consider the following ideas.
1. It should be deemed a personal attack and a reason to ban an editor if they, lacking the ability to discuss things in a civil and convincing manner, then start to accuse another person of being a sock. This type of behavior is highly effective, showing how juvenile Wikipedia is.
Wikipedia would be far more effective if editors were not allowed to continue to edit if they cannot calmly and rationally discuss issues in the talk pages. This is a far better way to improve an article than to falsely accuse someone of being a sock.
2. Everyone should disclose conflicts of interests. There are plenty. Wikipedia is quick to block someone if their name is a corporate name but allows POV pushers all the time. The most common POV pusher is in biographies of politicians. Some will always push for inclusion of favorable material and exclusion of unfavorable material. They will use excuses such as "undue weight" or "trivia" or will call the other person a sock.
It should be automatically assumed that one is a POV pusher if all their edits are one sided or if they always support a partisan viewpoint in the talk pages. Wikipedia should be neutral.
One way to do it would be for people to disclose possible conflicts on their user page and update them as they edit articles. For example, one could disclose that they are American. Later, if they write about politics, they could disclose that they are a registered party member or a government employee. If they don't want to disclose this, they can stick with botany and animal articles. In academia, people do make disclosures when they give lectures.
3. The last point is not as critical. Wikipedia should try its utmost not to be hypocritical. There have been several cases of unfavorable information about Wikipedia removed from articles and favorable information included. Examples include reporting when entities' own articles have been edited by the entity and then reported in the news. This helps Wikipedia and is included several times. Yet when Wikipedia has egg on its face, like false deaths, even if reported in a news article, is always removed from the article by other editors acting as censors.
Finally, I disclose that I have started an account because I have not edited for so long and do not have my password or even my exact name. It's been years since I edited. VDAWP (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi VDAWP. Thanks for your note - I see you sent to 6 people... so I'll consider myself the "non-bigshot" if that's alright! I do agree that Wikipedia can be a hostile environment, though I've done as much as I can to change that, focussing on areas that I felt were more hostile. I'm glad to see that you haven't mentioned them, so perhaps I've succeeded. As to your points, I'll just play devils advocate for a moment.
If an editor makes an accusation of sockpuppetry without credible evidence, that is already a personal attack. With credible evidence, it should be investigated without prejudice. Sockpuppetry can be a problem on Wikipedia, in that it can be used to subvert the decision making process and therefore investigation is necessary. Accuastions should be kept to SPI though, and not thrown around to discredit individuals.
Conflict of interests is a difficult one. We have many types of CoI on wikipedia, ranging from those who are financially compensated for their actions to nationalist views to fans. Suggesting every possible conflict of interest is declared is impossible. What's more, the way that wikipedia works means that people will write about subjects they are interested in. I do not believe your suggestion is feasible. Take for example, the "registered party member" in the USA. As I understand it, affiliating with a party is necessary to vote in many states. It doesn't necessarily mean that there is a Conflict of Interest.
Perceived hypocrisy is something that is always going to happen on a project like Wikipedia, because there is no editorial board, different people will make different decisions in different situations. I cannot see a solution to this issue in general.
I hope that helps a little bit. If you wish to discuss these ideas further, you are welcome to reply - my talk page staplers and I are likely to be able to discuss matters with you. However, I'd also recommend you discuss these ideas at a higher profile forum, perhaps the village pump, where the community discusses ideas or Jimbo's talk page where debates about the fundamentals of wikipedia regularly take place. WormTT(talk) 10:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't expect you to be paying that much attention! Well, we've got a few options. I'm likely to be as slow as I have been for this course for all the others, and for that I really do apologise. So here's what we can do
Call it a day and you'd be welcome to find another adopter
Carry on as we are, which might take a few weeks over each course
I can post all the courses and tests (except the final one), and you can take them at your leisure, I'll mark them as and when I get time.
OK. I reckon we could go the 'posting all tests option' Be best i spose, don't really fancy switching adopters now, lol. Plus, i can always get Jenova20 to help me out with somethings, and once i finish a test up i'll just post here and let you know about it! – Blue☆Stars8314:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to! And i'll be a very strict and helpful foster parent. Eventually i may even have you writing proper messages with all the letters on your keyboard =P ツ Jenova20(email)14:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I blame karma but i got a cold around the time i posted that message and had Stevie looking after me for 3 days. I'm back though ツ Jenova20(email)10:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw that
re: this
Actually I do have some thoughts on that myself. I have some work to do today, but could throw something together this evening if you're interested. I know you're busy, so I won't pester - just an offer. — Ched : ? 13:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I welcome suggestions from everyone and anyone. Improvements gotta be a good thing, right? Obviously, I'd prefer things I can actually do, but please do let me know what you're thinking! WormTT(talk) 13:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Real quick where I'm going with this: As individualsI have a TON of respect for most all of you. As a collective group? To be blunt, there's times you look like a bunch of disorganized, dysfunctional chickens running around with your heads chopped off. No sense of management, no organization or coordination. Sometimes it seems like you're (the group) huffing and puffing blowing out lit matches - all the while a house fire rages all around you. You need a secretary to keep an organized agenda for the day so the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. I'll throw up something tonight or this afternoon - ty for being so accessible to us Worm, it's much more appreciated than you think. — Ched : ? 13:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I do know what you mean, I had the same issues when I was looking at the committee. I do agree some more co-ordination would be a good thing, and there have been some attempts towards this since I started. We could probably do with a little more organisation, it's not my strongest point, but I would be interested if you had ideas on how to improve it. The other thing to remember is that half (or say, a quarter) the committee is replaced each year, and experience and common goals are lost at that time, so it takes a little while for the new committee to find it's feet. Acting in a reactionary manner is something we're automatically do as administrators, so it's not surprising that that transfers over to ArbCom. I have considered the idea of a "co-ordinator" position, which is funded by the foundation and a full time longer term role, but I'm not quite sure if it could work. Finally, I'm glad I'm coming across as accessible, it's so important that the committee and the community don't work completely in silos, and if I can bridge that gap, then I'm doing the job I wanted to do when I was elected WormTT(talk) 13:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
(wandering passerby) I think some of this is relatively normal when you have a project that has outgrown its original organization model. Consensus collaboration works when it's a smallish number of people, but as span increases it becomes unwieldy and difficult to manage (or respond to issues). You also have a fair concentration of people who are vested (or OWN) in the current rules, policies, and structure, and many of them come off as being unwilling to listen to ideas or proposals (or possibly recognize that the project has outgrown those earlier policies and needs to adapt to its current reality). Some of the drama surrounding the role and function of Admins clearly stems from this issue, as does the lack of clearly written policies, essays confused with policy, and some of the neverending fights over what appears to many to be meaningless trivia (the infamous lame edit wars and wiki-specific formatting issues that ignore real world formatting conventions in favor of a "wiki-reality" standard). But that laxity has also allowed a stealthy bureaucracy to creep in and take hold. It's that lack of clarity combined with what can be easily perceived as a shadow structure that some may find off-putting. Simple solution? There likely isn't any, but revision and consolidation of policies is certainly a start. Apologies for the ramble.... Intothatdarkness15:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
As you say, it's relatively normal, but at the same time it's all new and different. Wikis are a different way of working, and in an ideal world, there is no bureaucracy and everything will just work. But suddenly we found that you needed a layer for administration, and then a layer for arbitration and rules just kept coming and coming. Oddly, people are so used to bureaucracy that they actually seem to think it's the only way to make progress or a proper organisation. We could revisit all our policies, it certainly won't make things worse, but the man-hours required would be enormous. Who would want to do that without being paid? Are the people who would want to do that the right people to do it? And please do ramble, I enjoy reading them! WormTT(talk) 15:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the work involved, but having slack in policies allows for the creation of bureaucracy (or OWNocracy) that can have unintended and negative consequences. I think it's hard to reasonably contend that there isn't a bureaucracy working here now...it may not be a transparent one, but it's certainly here. And a wide array of thinly-connected policies (and essays that seem to have become de facto policy) makes it easier for folks with agendas (or those that simply mean well but may not grasp the entire picture) to shape those policies to their own ends. And over time they get vested with those policies, making it even harder to consider changing them to meet current conditions. I tend to think that's one reason that suggesting a person work to change policy is simply a polite way of telling them to shove off...there's a fair amount of confidence that given the structure here any policy change is doomed to fail (or at least get terminally sidetracked) as those who are vested (or OWN) come out to push for and against the change. I've wandered about the edges of the civility debate most of my time here, and have seen that phenomenon in action there, along with some of the less attractive tactics used by those on both sides of the discussion. But it also comes out in smaller disputes within content creation. The civil POV pusher is at least as big an issue as someone who curses people out, but there seems to be much less willingness to take on the superficially civil POV person. I guess in the end some of it comes down to the perennial question: is Wiki a collection of football rosters and K-Pop trivia or is it wanting to be a serious academic resource (or some combination of both)? And is wiki actually capable of deciding what it wants to be? It just seems to me that the whole project is at a turning point of sorts...where it's simply become too big and diverse to continue on under the old rules but doesn't seem to want to let go of that past. Intothatdarkness15:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
In between jobs I threw up a real quick 3 page rough draft at: User:Ched/Arb. I'll try to clarify and clean-up tonight. Input and questions welcome of course. Hey there Into - how goes it? (and TY Worm) — Ched : ? 16:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems pointless, though. Those who want change are all too easily driven off by those who have OWNership and are comfortable with how things are. Intothatdarkness14:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state [2]. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions? Giano 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I find it also concerning that these actions could be seen to target people who have been vocal about their displeasure with certain aspects of Wikipedia's governance and/or operation. I'm not familiar with George (and in fact had never really heard of him until this, but Malleus is a known critic of Wikipedia's governance), but the recent flurry of ArbCom activity involving this sort of thing is concerning...if for no other reason than some might assume that the timing isn't a coincidence. Intothatdarkness14:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, I've seen no discussions regarding targetting people vocal about their displeasure, nor have I see any evidence that this is the case. If it's not coincidence, no one bothered to tell me. WormTT(talk) 00:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Note that I didn't accuse anyone of targeting critics, but simply said that it could appear that way given the flurry of blocks and such activity. Intothatdarkness13:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I cannot tell you who raised the concerns, but editors regularly raise concerns with the committee and the request did not seem out of the ordinary. The reactionary attitude from that point was something I was unhappy with, but my displeasure didn't stop there. The trials you refer to were not trials at all, but rather closer to a sockpuppet investigation, which I am given to understand can happen off-wiki, followed by discussions on how best to handle the situation once we found ourselves in it. The committee disagreed on the fundamental outcome of the investigation. Diffs for the "serious crimes" differ depending on whether there is one person or two behind the accounts. How each Arb voted, you can see on the only motion that got sufficient support to pass. I will say that I voted against the other motion NW mentioned, here, and for one that dismissed this the matter all together. WormTT(talk) 00:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
They are subject to policy, Malleus. There is absolutely nothing in either this project's checkuser policy or the WMF checkuser policy that requires sockpuppet investigations to take place publicly. In fact, I suspect that only a minority of blocks for sockpuppetry are made based on SPIs (although I've never done the math). Hundreds of cross-wiki vandal/spammer checks and blocks are done every month. Sweeps are made of ranges where specific longterm vandals are known to create armies of sockpuppets to identify sleeper accounts before they become disruptive and abusive. Checkusers watch specific pages that are known to be targeted by longterm sockpuppeters and vandals. The English Wikipedia is the WMF project most regularly attacked by vandals, spammers, and disruptive SPAs who just won't go away; it may not be noticeable in the areas of the project where you work, but it's a major problem in some other areas. Risker (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
But surely the reasons for checkuser ought not to be secret, whatever the conclusions may be. So ArbCom claims to have received an email a few hours/minutes after George Ponderevo opposed an RfA candidate nominated by two ArbCom members, in an obvious attempt to try and invalidate George's vote. Was there really any such email? What did it say? When I asked Coren about a similar situation with his friend Rlevse he admitted to me that all he did was ask him if it was true, and when he said it wasn't Coren promptly forgot about it. There are many questions here, but precious few answers. Who sent the email, what did it say, was there even an email at all? MalleusFatuorum06:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the email pointed out a discussion on one of the village pumps that both accounts had serially commented on.[3] The RFA vote wasn't mentioned, but was identified in the review of editing activity. I have no knowledge of a discussion between Coren and Rlevse. Risker (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
You may have no knowledge of a discussion between Coren and Rlevse, but I do, and I'd quite happily forward it on if thought it might make any difference. But why not post the contents of the email ArbCom claims to have received and let everyone judge whether or not it justified a checkuser? With the timestamps intact preferably. The village pump discussion you link to is no proof of anything, except that sensible people sometimes agree. Was it a vote? Did it in some way distort policy? Was it in some way disruptive? At the very least I'd like to know why Coren took a much more lenient view of Rleve's alleged sockpuppeting with PumpkinSky, also reported by email, than he did of mine. Could it possibly be because I'm not one of his friends? MalleusFatuorum07:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe it's the differing standards which were clearly applied by Coren which cause so much dissent. I cannot understand why the email's content cannot be disclosed; I am beginning to wonder what exactly it alleged about Malleus. Obviously, because of the secrecy and Arbcom reaction, it's alleging serious crime. If he's some sort of pervert or criminal we have a right to know who we are mixing with. If he's not, then the Arbcom has a duty to strenuously clear his name; that can only be really acheived by publishing the email. Giano 09:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Coren appears to be saying that the only reason someone would behave like I do is to get re-elected. He believes this behaviour is damaging to the committee. I believe it is essential to improve the committee, and has nothing to do with me wanting to be re-elected. WormTT(talk) 00:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Coren should have shielded his contempt for the community and for the election of ArbCom, if he thinks that it is a problem wanting to have support in the community and doing the job of ArbCom.
WTT has previously taken unpopular or unwise (i.e., contrary to my wisdom) positions when he has thought he was doing right.
Let us hope that Coren shall reconsider his statement, and offer an apology to you and the community, more for his own good name and conscience than for any damage his complaint caused you---Coren's complaint probably raised your standing even higher.
(You should have opposed the final statement, but I understand that it is difficult to be right for weeks or months when you are surrounded by foolishness.)
Hello WormTT, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers! ArcticKangaroo15:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You're #1
Hi Dave, Hope you are well. Parents have favorite children, but they don't admit it for obvious reasons. I have lived by that philosophy here at Wikipedia... until now. You are my favorite. You are the number one Wikipedian. You care deeply about the project and I am very thankful you are here supporting Wikipedia. You're doing a good job and I appreciate you efforts. I just thought you could use some support during these trying times. If I can make your wiki-life even the slightest bit more enjoyable, then I am more than happy to do so. Kind regards. 64.40.54.27 (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking the same. Thank you IP, your comments mean a lot but I can't agree with being #1. Our primary goal here is to build an encyclopedia and although I've helped out there are thousands of editors who've done far far more than me. I do care, I can see areas for improvement and I believe I can make a difference, but #1? No, I can't accept that honour. WormTT(talk) 10:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
The Arbitrator's Barnstar
I seem to be in the minority, but I still have faith in the ArbCom, and that is in no small part due to you being on it. Thank you for what you have submitted yourself to, and I hope, for the sake of you and for the sake of the encyclopedia as a whole, that things calm down and everyone can get back to building content. Thank you for your work. A grateful GoPhightins!19:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I have faith in ArbCom, but I do have hope. If there's one thing I take from recent events, it's that there's still a hardcore elitist attitude at ArbCom, with a number of members appearing to think they're better than the rest of us and are unaccountable - Worm's approach of serving rather than ruling the community, and of opposing dictatorship, makes a refreshing change. The last ArbCom elections got rid of some of the worst, but there's a lot more that needs to be done if that chasm is to be closed. (And as an aside, Coren has sadly proven himself to be as out-of-touch as I suggested during the elections). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all. I may not agree with the decisions of the committee all the time, but I'd worry if I did. However, it's a long road to a committee I could be happy with, and hopefully when recent events have died down we'll be able to make a bit more progress. WormTT(talk) 10:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
sure
No problem. Yep, I did notice that it's (wiki discussion) been rather .. ummm .. active(?) lately. I had also dropped the link on Risker's page btw. Anyway - I'll leave it alone, and my door is always open. — Ched : ? 11:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. One thing though, just to get it clear in my mind, do you believe this new page should be on-wiki? Our agenda often includes information that cannot be disclosed on wiki, be it for reasons of privacy or just that having an item on the agenda would create controversy... especially if we decide to do nothing. I'm sure you can imagine a situation like that. WormTT(talk) 11:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I think there should be something on wiki; although obviously for the reasons you mention there are things that need to be said off stage (so to speak). I can only speak for myself - but I sometimes feel like the Arbitration Committee has completely lost touch with the community. Sometimes it seems like you (the collective) disappear for days and weeks on end - and then come out of left field with some stone tablets pronouncing some almighty new "rule of law" from some ivory tower that the common masses aren't even allowed to look upon. As an editor I wonder "who do these people think they are"? As an admin. I wonder "why the hell aren't you guys helping us"? We don't want to know when you put the dog out, or scratch your butt - but it would be nice to have a place to look and know what you're up to. If Arb1, Arb2, and Arb3 are busy reading through evidence on a case for a few days - then we know you're doing what we ask of you. I see a benefit in the "does the right hand know what the left hand is doing" as well. You folks in this current administration are still getting to know one another, I get that. I understand that any new group takes time to find its footing. It's just that recently it seems that instead of watching a once a year "All Star" game, we're watching some sandlot group who aren't even sure of the fundamentals yet.
Normally I'm content to have my say and let you folks know if I have a strong opinion; and then I'm happy to let you deal with it. I know it's easy for a voice to get lost in all the white-noise, but people like to at least be acknowledged and know that they are listened to. I do have a few examples too - but I'll do that later maybe. I've got some r/l things to do for a bit, but I will follow up if there's an interest. Thank you for listening Dave. Have a great day, Best always — Ched : ? 11:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I do like the idea of something on Wiki, even if it's only one person updating it. You'd need an active arb to regularly do it though, as they're the only ones who know what's going on. The current agenda on the Arbwiki is not regularly updated, we're still getting used to having one I think. I do worry about what would happen if it wasn't updated for a couple of weeks, we'd have a bigger problem than we do now. I'll need to look into the mailing list solutions to see if there's a way of outputting "epics" - areas of discussion, which we could say we're dealing with. That way we could also give an indication of how much work is going into a specific area too looking something like "Case A: 20 emails, Case B: 40 emails, Unblock requests: 40 active - 100 emails, other privacy matters: 70 emails". That would let the community know what we're dealing with and the split of our resources too. However, I've not got my teeth into the new mailing systems so I don't know if it's possible and doing it manually to that level would be difficult.
As for the idea of saying what Arbs are doing, it doesn't really work like that, at least not for me. I don't put down everything to read through evidence, I follow it as it gets added. I'll then spend an hour or so refreshing myself and come to a decision. Having said that, it might be helpful to have an extension of the members list, but with useful additional information. For example it could state other areas an arb is working (AUSC/BASC/CUOS appointments), so that there's a centralised place for this information. WormTT(talk) 12:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing we have some similar thoughts on this. Speaking of "agenda" - mine is headed south in a hurry today, but I will put "agenda" on my "agenda" - It may not be tonight, but I will follow through on this rather than just dropping it. In one sentence: I think that a habitual breakdown in communications causes far more drama and problems than needed. ttys — Ched : ? 15:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Alan. I'm sorry for the delay here. Real life overtook Wikipedia for a couple of days, but I've been keeping these questions in my mind. Hopefully now I'll have some answers for you.
If there is a chasm, what is its cause?
Does the community (whatever that is) not understand what the committee is supposed to do?
Does the committee not understand what it is supposed to do?
Does the committee not understand policy?
Has the community not articulated policy?
Is what the committee decides only "right," if it is popular with whomever shows up to protest?
6 questions, but far more answers than that. I believe the chasm has a number of factors and I don't know them all. What I do know is that we do not live in a society where we blindly trust those who make decisions, and that wikis were created to build openness and allow free access to all. That's not the model of ArbCom, where discussions are private and never released. When a decision is reached, it's crafted well and placed on a noticeboard to allow discussion after the fact, but the longer Arbcom runs then the more decisions it will make and the more people it will annoy.
So what we need to do is work out a way to minimise the annoyed people. The decisions still have to be made and Arbcom shouldn't be shying away from making them, but I've found that people can accept decisions if they understand the reasons for those decisions and are given time to prepare themselves. In other words, communication is key. It allows people to collect their thoughts and draw their own conclusions - they shouldn't be shocked by any decisions. That's where the chasm lies, the committee doesn't appear to respect the community enough which leads to the community not trusting the committee.
The worst part is that the majority of what the committee does, it does well. I wouldn't have believed how well myself until I got a chance to look behind the curtain. Discussion is robust, privacy is respected and decisions are made. Arbcom has to deal with so much, primarily because no one else will and these things need to be handled. The community often doesn't see what the committee does, things like acting as a place where you can state if your family member has started editing or child protection requests or unban requests, but they're handled. No mess, no fuss. It's where the committee doesn't get it right and the community can't understand why that we get problems.
The committee does what it needs to do, which does mean that it's remit has extended beyond the hypothetical "sorting intractable disputes" which people think of when they think of "arbitration". Is that what it is supposed to do? Yes, I think so, these are tasks that need to be done. Does the community understand that? As a whole, yes, I believe it does. There are vocal people who'd want it torn down, but in general I think that the community is happy that it does what needs to be done.
Policy is more difficult, I don't believe policy is black and white on all situations and Arbcom deals with the "edge-cases". If it was clear, Arbcom wouldn't be needed. It doesn't help that one of the founding rules is to ignore the others if it improves the encyclopedia. So yes, I think that the committee understands policy and is willing to think around policy to determine the spirit of the policy and how that would apply. The community shouldn't be getting bogged down in sorting every minute detail of every possible scenario, I think that it has articulated policy correctly.
Finally, the fact that there is a decision from the committee is often enough for the community to move forwards. Whether that decision is right or wrong is not as important as the fact that a decision has been made. Every decision that arbcom makes is destined to be the "wrong" one for someone, so there will generally be protestations, it's just a fact of life. I hope that's covered everything, but feel free to discuss further! WormTT(talk) 12:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
For your extended efforts, and breaking yon Gluteus maximus (your backside, behind, butt, rear-end - OK "Busting Ass") to maintain the drama levels of Wikipedia, Ched would like to award you (da Worm) the Broken Tuchus Barnstar.
real quick post tonight ... thought you might get a kick out of this - and yea, You earn it on a daily basis. We both came into the project as far as "registered user names" about the same time - and .... Desiderata. TTYS Dave. :) — Ched : ? 22:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi... I have been watching ArbCom for years, and go through periods of editing / commenting. I wanted to tell you that I have noticed some of your recent posts / actions and that I have been impressed. I was glad to see when you noticed the prior actions of Kevin in the BLP deletions and saw that maybe that ArbCom had encouraged an unhelpful degree of BOLD-action (though I also felt the "emergency" desysop was a bad decision). You have been offering clearer and more forthright comments than are typical from Arbitrators (excluding NYB) and I think that is a positive development. I've seen you requesting comments on ArbCom, which is also encouraging to see. ArbCom have certainly made a huge mess recently but I wanted to say that you have earned at least one editor's respect for trying to handle the situations well. Regards, EdChem (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you EdChem, I do appreciate the comments. There's a chasm growing out there, and I'm just one chap. Hopefully I'm one chap, in the right place, saying the right things and I can make a difference. If you've got any advice or thoughts for improvement, I'd love to hear them. WormTT(talk) 00:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, here are a few thoughts on current messes (I'll sign each so you can respond to each point if you wish):
On the Malleus mess, it is clear that Committee has been deeply divided. It is also clear that the CU technical evidence is substantial. What is not clear is what evidence justified the use of CU in the first place and what abusive editing MF and GP have done. AGK posted some links at WT:ACN, which I appreciated but found unpersuasive. Would you be willing / able to post evidence in the form of diffs and on-wiki activities that would support the original use of the CU tool? Some editors appear to be of the view that CU showed a connection so its use must have been justified, but my understanding is that policy doesn't work that way. I know one of your colleagues has mentioned GP posting whilst MF was blocked... is this correct, and is there any evidence that the accounts were misused to influence consensus, double !voted, etc? Giano is not the only editor worried about these issues, so I ask if you might be able to post to provide information to reduce tension and try to avoid further drama. Revealling to original complainant is something I recognise that you cannot do, but providing the non-privacy-precluded portions of the evidence that supported the investigation being initiated seems to me to be a reasonable request. Evidence that ArbCom began the checks on a reasonable and policy-supported basis would reduce tensions, I believe. EdChem (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I should say that the technical evidence against Malleus is beyond substantial, it was pretty close to unquestionable. It's for that reason that many members of the committee dismissed alternate possibilities and we got ourselves into this mess. There are strong behavioural reasons that I believed that they were not the same person, but they were not persuasive to everyone.
But that's not what you're asking. You are asking whether a CU was justified at the time. The checkuser was based on the fact that the policy had been violated (both accounts had edited the project space) and allegations were credible - it was also stated that the intention was to exonerate Malleus, as few of us believed Malleus was the sort to use sockpuppets. This was sufficient to call the actions justifiable. I personally felt that the justification was not sufficient, as did a number of my collegues, but the checkuser had been made before I was even aware of the thread. One arbitrator cross posted his opinion that a checkuser was not justified at the same time the result was given. This is an example of the reactionary nature of the committee, wanting to right wrongs quickly. It is something that we've discussed at length since and I have already seen improvement in the committee when a similar case came up recently.
Retroactively, it was clear that if they were the same person, they had violated many inappropriate uses of alternate accounts and I think that a checkuser would have been justified after a little more investigation. Topics and style of editing was similar. George carried on editing whilst Malleus was blocked 1, George edited project space (Village pump and RfA 2), the pair appeared to tag-team edit war (which is dubious, but both did edit the same article) 3 and even arguably "Good Hand, Bad Hand" editing. There are a number of instances where mention was made by George of Malleus or vice versa which appeared to a certain reading to be evading scrutiny. When looked at these would have justified an investigation, and since SPI would not have touched it due to the subject, Arbcom was the right place to do it.
Of course, if these were different people, the vast majority of these technical violations fell down. The accounts did not particularly attempt to influence consensus, so under a "spirit" reading of policy rather than a "letter" reading, there was less of a problem. We start having to worry about shared accounts and meatpuppetry, but they're different problems. WormTT(talk) 14:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your response. I have been pondering the situation, and thinking... I wonder if there was a discussion of whether or not to run a CU coming to a consensus, or if one of the committee acted unilaterally to run the CU before or during any debate. I am also wondering whether the controversy over the running of the CU suggests a problem with the standards that the CU group have adopted. To me, on reading WP:CHECK, I get the impression that evidence of misconduct is suppose to be integral to the evidence needed for a CU to be run - but the evidence on this point in the MF case is somewhere between weak and absent. Maybe the community view should be canvassed, to see whether the standards that are applied match those that are generally viewed as reasonable? EdChem (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Oversight-only blocks: ArbCom passed a motion unanimously, but it was hardly uncontroversial as it appears to impose policy by fiat. Leaving aside whether ArbCom had the power to do what it did (and the on-going discussion at WT:BLOCK shows continuing frustration), I want to suggest a way forward that might provide a win-win solution. I propose that a member of ArbCom begin an RfC at WT:BLOCK, stating that ArbCom has passed a motion but that implementation would be best by an RfC-supported consensus wording for the policy. The RfC could discuss whether adminstrators "should not" reverse or should only reverse in special circumstances or "must not" act on oversight blocks. There could be a sensible discussion (which was missing at ArbCom, in my opinion) of when the oversighted materials are known to the unblocking administrator, or when the oversighter has set forth a position on when an unblock is possible (where administrators might reasonably disagree as to whether the criteria had been met). Once these sorts of issues have been discussed, a wording can be proposed and !voted on. I think that some deliberate invitation of community views and looking for consensus might reduce some of the animosity about unilateral policy determination. I said win-win because the consensus view will be along the lines the Committee seeks, given that your view will be / is shared by former arbitrators, functionaries, many administrators and "ordinary" editors. The problem was not that ArbCom's position on oversight blocks was unreasonable, it was that its method for achieving policy change was provocative and generated resistance. ArbCom need not state that its action was wrong or unsupported by policy but taking some time to achieve wording consensus by community methods is worth it to smooth over community-committee relations. EdChem (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I do like this idea, and so I'm going to talk to the rest of the committee about doing it. I don't believe that the committee did create policy by fiat, but then I would say that! I suggested an RfC myself on the motions page, but didn't really consider actually creating one. So, on this point at least, I'll have to get back to you. WormTT(talk) 14:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall ever before having an arbitrator respond like that to one of my suggestions, so thank you. I will be interested to hear whether this idea is taken up. EdChem (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It would probably be better to have an RFC on all special blocks (ie Checkuser, Oversght, OTRS, Office, ArbCom) as there's a fair amount of shared ground (material which cannot in practical terms be publicly reviewed) and they're not all covered in policy. It would also mean that the particular bit of the blocking policy could become less duplicatory. Roger Daviestalk12:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipediocracy
Hi WTT.
Captain Occam is a site-banned editor who has been involved in repeated arbcom campaigns against me on wikipedia. When topic-banned he edited through his girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin, who inherited his topic ban. He then brought in at least two other off-wiki friends to help him bypass his topic ban. Eventually he stopped adding content and just engaged in arbcom proceedings firstly against me and then against others (MastCell, Orangemarlin). When Orangemarlin was recovering from major surgery and not editing wikipedia, Captain Occam pressed for him to be site-banned (following the Abortion case). Subsequently Risker blocked both of them. Because of issues connected with proxy-editing, Captain Occam and his girlfriend were site-banned in May 2012. Subsequently the two editors who had edited on their behalf attempted to continue arbcom proceedings against me. One of them is now indefinitely banned and the other, outside arbcom pages, had effectively stopped editing wikipedia.
Captain Occam is now using wikipediocracy as a base for continuing his campaign against me. That is all he seems to do there. In every thread he enters, his posts seem geared to some form of attack on me. Captain Occam has not been truthful in his submissions on wikipedia, so when he repeats himself off-wikipedia, the statements are even more questionable. Please do not allow you yourself to be trolled by him. If you want information about him, ask Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies, Carcharoth or Risker. I am sorry this has happened, but that is one of the perils of wikipediocracy. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mathsci. Thanks for the note. I don't consider his action's trolling at the moment - he's expressing his point of view and I specifically suggested in that thread that I was happy to hear people's points of view. I'm glad to see your response, which if true (I haven't investigated), seems reasonable. Either way, there's no point in drudging the past further on this matter, I'm trying to improve things going forward. WormTT(talk) 10:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Worm. Your comment there seems to have resulted in the page being fully protected, which is not called for by any policy. There actually are many needs to post to the talk page. We have bots and editorial processes where Cla68 would receive routine notices about article or image business. Even if Cla68 is blocked, his friends watch that page and could be fixing things. Could you have a look, and try to rectify this? I had proposed a notice limiting discussion to content matters, and directing any discussion of the block to a suitable venue, with a warning that misplaced comments could be removed. JehochmanTalk13:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Worm That Turned,
Do you believe that every Wikipedian (I do not mean vandals, pedophiles or criminals) should have the right to defend/explain his actions during the Arbitration Committee and/or the Wikipedia community discussions regarding himself, if that defense/explanations involves no outing, no secret information and no harm to the project ? If your answer to my question is "no", could you please provide some examples of the exceptions as you see them. Thanks. 71.198.215.196 (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not keen on "rights" on wikipedia, it's a website, that's all. No one has a "right" to anything. Otherwise, things should depend on the situation but you've used a very interesting phrase at the end "no harm to the project". I think you'll find that the term can be used very broadly, as distractions from writing the encyclopedia could easily be seen as harm to the project, as could BLP violations, POV pushing, inciting hatred and many other situations. So, if there's a not a plausible harm to the project then people should be allowed a chance to have their say. It's often easier to email arbcom though for that and I think arbcom is open to most emails where people want to explain themselves. WormTT(talk) 16:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for responding my question. Wikipedia is a website, but it is a website that has potentials to ruin a person's reputation, a person's health, and even a person's life itself. For example this one has destroyed a person's reputation, and who cares that now Richard Symonds says it is no longer the case, when the defamation is spread all overthe NET. I understand that there are some users that deserve to be blocked, the problem is not the blocking itself, the problem is the way it is done here. Have you seen any other website, where a few anonymous members of the community are allowed to participate in ban discussions character assassinations of named persons, who often are not even allowed to defend themselves? Have you seen any other site, which has such list, in which many editors with thousands of edits are listed as vandals? Have you seen any other website, in which an unwarranted block by an anonymous admin could lead to something like this? Have you seen any other website, where an anonymous admin deletes a bunch of good, encyclopedic articles only because they were written by a banned user? It makes one to wonder, if they care more about the encyclopedia or they care more about witch hunting. I could have provided many more examples, but I think I've proved my point. I'd like to email you please, if you do not mind. Thanks. 71.198.215.196 (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
According to your and other Arbitrators' suggestions, I tried again mediation, even though I really believe that the problem goes far beyond a mere content dispute. Obviously, as I expected, this and this occurred. Take a look at this too. For them, this is all a joke. They are aware that the community has no interest on settling this matter and are playing around while they harass me (see the link on my first message to you). --Lecen (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The joke here are all of the accusations of fascism and nazism made by Lecen. Am I supposed to take them seriously?
Lecen's behavior has been noted as both childish ([5]) and exhibiting WP:OWN issues ([6]) by independent editors. The whole problem is efficiently summarized in WP:DIVA.
Furthermore, as I wrote in the Mediation talk page ([7]), the WP:BRD process has not even taken place for this user to take the matter to mediation (much less ArbComm).
I may not have the 12 FA stars that Lecen constantly brags about, but I am a user with an integrity certified by a handful of barnstars. However, if you agree with Lecen's perspective of things, then perhaps my two GA's (Pisco Sour and Peru national football team), should also be thoroughly hounded for their pro-Nazi bias.
My recent addition on the TALK page was deleted. There was no discussion - just deleted. I have a copy for proof. Their violation of wikipedia rules jeopardises everything you and all Honest wikipedia editors DO.
What can we do to stop their bad behaviour? Perhaps this may be their last chance.
Thank you for your work. Your honesty is your saviour.
Aaron Sanders
(edits as Sovereign SoEvReigns and GBCIR and SoPhi'A)
82.127.43.154 (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Sovereign SoEvReigns
Hi Aaron. You talk a lot about honesty and debate, but looking at your edit on the talk page - it starts from a very [aggressive position and doesn't improve. There (and here), you appear to have forsaken one of Wikipedia's key principles, that we assume good faith. As an example of this, despite your accusations, it was neither Dougweller nor Ronz who removed your comment. I suggest you try discussion on that talk page again, but assuming that people want to help. You mention NATO accepting them as fact, perhaps including a reference to where NATO state that? WormTT(talk) 09:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I suggest you have glance of this edit history page. Till yesterday the article was nearly wholly in Tamil on en:wp. I move it to the user's sandbox with a note on his talk page to this effect.
This user then used Twinkle to move the page again to the article section.
Since the article had the subject's crucial contact details such as the phone number, another used tagged it for speedy deletion. A hitherto unknown IP removed the speedy-tag. But I guess that once speedy tagging is done, a decision to delete or keep the article should be by the admin rather than an arbitrary decision. Hence I restored the speedy tag with a note that it's upto admins to decide on the article.
I guess an admin removed the speedy and the article is accepted as a stub.
BUT WHAT SURPRISES ME IS THAT MANY EDITS ARE HIDDEN IN THE HISTORY OF THE ARTICLE INCLUDING MINE, THE ARTICLE-CREATOR'S AND OTHER USERS'. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON FOR SUCH A MOVE AND HENCE REQUEST YOU TO UNHIDE THE HIDDEN EDITS WHICH ARE 30-40 EDITS. AN URGENT ACTION IS REQUESTED. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC).
The deleted revisions are the ones that have the personal contact details in. This is a valid deletion under the policy Wikipedia:Revision deletion. I don't understand why you feel such a strong need for the contents of those revisions to be publicly viewable? Anyway, I think the place you'd ask about it is the talk page of the administrator who (I think) deleted the revisions, which would be User talk:Boing! said Zebedee. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The article contained what looked like personal contact details - addresses and phone numbers (but the text was in Tamil, so it was hard to be sure). I rev-deleted those versions to be safe (at the same time as I removed the Speedy Deletion nomination) - we don't publish contact phone numbers in Wikipedia articles, and they should not be retained in the history. I then requested Oversight, and an oversighter suppressed those versions. As an aside, there seems to have been a few people recently trying to turn the U.Thaniyarasu article into what looks like promotion - repeating the same information in different formats and adding needless photos to the article. For a stub that short, we really only need one photo to show what he looks like. If any further material (supported by reliable sources) should be added which needs to be illustrated, further photos might be appropriate then, but Wikipedia articles should not be used as promotional photo galleries -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Btw, my only concern was the untraceability of the edits in the history - and to this was the first time on en:wp. I was never concerned with the pictures.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC).
Wikipediocracy
Considering the reasons for Cla68's recent block, could you take a look at this post on Jimbo's talk page, as well as the fact that he restored it after someone removed it? The post links to various articles on Wikipediocracy that reveal the personal details of Wikipedia editors. Just wondering if you find this to be a blockable event, and if not, what the difference is between this event and Cla68's event. I would have blocked him already, but there is probably a reasonable argument that I'm too involved. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| squeal _17:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Scotty, I sent ArbCom a link to the most recent blog post some days ago and they are well aware of the others (despite their lack of action). I think that (Redacted) says far more about himself on his userpage than I put in my blog post - have you looked at it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I haven't looked at it. But, I just took a look at it and I didn't see any part of it that says that he is addicted to kiddie porn, and his hobby is distributing porn DVD's to minors. ‑Scottywong| squeal _17:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean the "personal, private information" which (Redacted) discussed on various public forums and I quoted in my blog piece (which was published off-wiki)? That information? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I mean the "personal, private information" which (Redacted)may or may not have discussed on various off-wiki forums, which you quoted in your blog piece, and then linked to on Wikipedia. In other words, the exact same thing that Cla68 was indefinitely blocked for. Your blog connects some dots to make accusations that may or may not be true about this user. If they're not true, your blog post is defamatory, and linking to it on-wiki is highly problematic. ‑Scottywong| spout _18:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
And the exact same thing that MZMcBride was blocked for. And then unblocked. And then blocked again. And then unblocked again. I guess I will probably be blocked then. By the way, why is Cla68 still blocked? I thought everyone agreed that block was over the top? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, Cla68 has not been unblocked because everyone hasn't agreed that the block was over the top. My opinion is that you should be blocked unless and until you agree to refrain from posting links to the article about (Redacted) as well as any similar articles that reveal private information about editors that hasn't already been divulged on-wiki. If that's something you can agree to, then I'd be willing to drop this request that you be blocked. ‑Scottywong| confess _19:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, we have an editor who cannot be named, who links his user page to his Facebook page, where he states "Information about me that is highly controversial (relates to child pornography): http://www.webcitation.org/[redacted]". In said link he tells a story about being arrested for "having made illegal pornography available to minors", and talks about setting up an FTP server for "...nude photos of prepubescent boys (aroused or not), photos showing such young boys engaged sexually with each other, or pictures of adult men having sex with these young boys...". Am I missing something? He's not ecactly hiding it, theres a link right there on his user page. Kevin (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Having reviewed everything, I'm worried that this wasn't an immediate block situation from ArbCom, but I am confident that they will come to the decision to block him. Should that not occur, for example, if they determined that WP:CHILDPROTECT only applied to onwiki identification, it would necessitate a community based discussion on the issue with everything out in the open. That is clearly a bad situation, so ArbCom won't go there. RyanVesey02:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Dave. I want to show the giant table on C3 Picasso as a {{Brick chart}} to simplify it. But if i'm going to do that then i could remove half of it by removing either the fuel economy or CO2 figures. Neither sways me one way or the other so i'm here for your opinion on what to delete if anything. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)09:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Not really sure to be honest. I don't know how a brick chart would fit for something like that - it's more likely to be used for say - the make up of a government. WormTT(talk) 09:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Well if i used just CO2 figures i can use 5 colours for the 5 types of engine and just stack each model on top. Opinions? ツ Jenova20(email)10:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said, it's not really right. The idea of a brick chart is to show the breakdown of a whole, like a pie chart. It doesn't really fit with comparing different values, like a bar chart. WormTT(talk) 10:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh...Do you have a recommendation then? I'm tempted to delete the fuel economy figures either way but if i'm going to do that i figured i could also make the table simpler. What about a bar chart? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)10:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Some sort of graph/chart might be a good idea... the question is how best to represent the data. Possibly a {{bar box}}, but making the table simpler at the same time would be a good idea. It's really not my area of expertise though... Perhaps asking a question at Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts would be a good idea? WormTT(talk) 10:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks like we're sorted then Dave. I can strip out the fuel economy and represent the CO2 as a range on a bar chart or scatter graph of some kind. The only thing left to do is choose a suitable one. Thank you very much, you've been very useful ツ Jenova20(email)11:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I think of Gantt charts as project charts, to allow the best organisation of time. If you can use it to display the data, I'll be impressed! Good luck WormTT(talk) 11:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking about what someone at the help desk said and i've stripped out the mpg figures too. They're difficult to cite, easily confusing and disputable in some instances, and there's the fact that i can simplify the article by removing them. Now the table just says which engines are available to each model. My question now is do i need to cite them as available at all? Or should i just do it if anything is later disputed? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)15:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, this user posted on Jimbo's talk page; can you take a look at their user page and see if some oversighting needs to be done due to their age -- specifically the external links to family websights. Once reviewed, I guess remove this thread from your talk page, too, for privacy's sake. Rgrds. --64.85.214.134 (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I personally can't find anything problematic, but there seem to be dozens of youtube videos. If you believe it's those that contain problematic material, then please include details of which one(s) in your private email to oversight. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it, I just wanted to be sure. I apologize for posting on your talk page, but the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight#By direct personal contact state "Requests do not have to be submitted via any given route" which implies a talk page post is acceptable. My bad; now I know. Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.)--64.85.214.111 (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for pointing this out; the contents of the page are either unclear or problematic. I'll look into getting that fixed. Sorry if I sounded a bit abrupt above - I hadn't noticed the wording of that part of the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Mea culpa
Sorry for getting your adoption pages CSD tagged - it was sort of entirely my fault; I'd transcluded the test to a new user subpage rather than substituting it, so he couldn't add his answers there. Yunshui雲水13:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
O.K. So this time I am in a conflict with user Rkitko, who realised that I was editing taxoboxes again and combining them with my good faith edits, and Ryan told me I am allowed to do it. Now user Rkitko is angry at me and gives the last warning, which means I either wont edit another article and be bored to tears, or I will edit it my way, he will revert my good faith edits, and I will get blocked! Question, is it modest for a user to ask an admin to block him and if so, should I remove, "this user is block free" template from my user page? Also, can you view my discussion here?--Mishae (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I've commented on your talk page, Mishae. Essentially, your good changes are welcome, but I think you should stop your thing about stringing all the parameters in infoboxes onto one line. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
So, what you are saying is that maybe I shouldn't edit an article at all?! However wait, I do expand them as well...--Mishae (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I could, but I doubt I'd have much to add. I'd re-iterate Boing's comments, if you remove spaces from another taxobox, I will block you. WormTT(talk) 21:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Project for RfA nominators
Hi -- I notice you've been active in nominating at RfA over the past year, and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject for Nominators, which aims to support editors interested in nominating there. We'd be glad of your expertise in getting this new project off the ground. Apologies for the talk-page spamming if you've already seen this message a dozen times. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Attribution for use of an image
Hi Dave/staplers! How would i give attribution for using vehicle images from Wikimedia Commons which have been modified to remove the badge?
Do i just add that the images are sourced from the Wikimedia Commons on the Terms and Conditions of the site with a brief wording? Or does this have to be done some other way? I asked a similar question at the help desk before but didn't get a useful reply. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)09:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you have an example of what you're trying to do? If you use an image from commons on WP it automatically includes the attribution to Wikipedia's standards. WormTT(talk) 09:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Well I'm just not sure if i need to link each image back to where it is from or if i can just state in the terms and conditions that they are sourced from Wikimedia? I didn't state before but i'm talking about using images on a different site, a commercial one. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)09:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
In which case, the amount of attribution needed depends on the file this page has more info. I would have thought that a hyperlink back to the source should (in general) be sufficient though. WormTT(talk) 09:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Worm That Turned/Archive 24, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
An imposing bound volume of the Geological Magazine for 1982 is on my desk! Can you drop me an email with an address you'd like a photocopy sent to? Andrew Gray (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't able to get out this weekend so was planning to go to the library today. Is this the same document you requested from me? RyanVesey14:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
It is Ryan, yes. Andrew's sending me a photocopy, so you needed worry. Thank you very much for offering though. WormTT(talk) 14:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This is... a little farcical. I finally got time to go and make a photocopy, and our copier's dead! Pending my trekking across the building to find another, here's what looks like the relevant section (p. 570)
3. Carbonate percentages
Total carbonate values prove generally highest at the estuaries of the north Devon and Cornish coasts. Concentrations at the Taw, Camel and Hayle estuaries attained 40%, 62% and 67% respectively. (...)
However, note that this is the peak concentration across the whole estuary - per a table on p. 571, the 62% peak for the Camel is actually measured 4.3km upstream. At the mouth of the estuary, it's 53% carbonate. (This carbonate is itself 61% Aragonite, 28% low-Mg calcite, 11% high-Mg calcite) Andrew Gray (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew, that allows me to do what I need to. There's now no rush at all on getting it over to me, just whenever all the ducks end up in a row. WormTT(talk) 14:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Great - I will get you a copy in some form, I just didn't want to be rushing around looking for a copier the day before a conference :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
