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.
I'm not all sure that the article ought to calling Doom Bar "The Doom Bar", and in fact I'm pretty sure it shouldn't, but that's not why I'm here. When I click on the geographical coordinates and look at a Google map I see that (The) Doom Bar is to the east of Dennis Road in Padstow, just north of Glynn Road. That surely can't be right. MalleusFatuorum18:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
How odd. When I try it on Google maps, Bing maps and open street map, I get the correct location, the middle of the estuary, about a mile north of Padstow. On google maps, it does try to give me a marker to the nearest item of interest (a south west coast path), but the green arrow marker is correct. As for the definite article, it certainly shouldn't be a proper definite article (if that's the correct term), it shouldn't be "The" Doom Bar, but the Doom Bar sounds right to my ear and a number of the sources. It also differentiates from Doom Bar, the pint of ale, which you might drink on the Doom Bar. WormTT(talk) 18:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe just an artifact of the way I was zooming and panning then. I like this article, and I'm looking forward to being able to support its promotion once I've had a good look through. MalleusFatuorum19:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it was just promoted. Great work, Dave. There were a few minor hiccups, but nothing too serious and you'll know hat to expect for your next FAC (assuming you nominate another, of course). Speaking of which, do you have an article in mind? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I still have a few fixes to do on Doom Bar (your page numbering for one!) so that'll be my priority. After that, I think I'll have a go at a list of the wrecks on the Doom Bar, it's a lot less stressful just writing something than going the whole way for FA. I do have something else in the pipeline, but I'm not sure it could ever get to featured status as it's quite short... Having said that, I'm really not keen on trying to do another FA while I'm on Arbcom, it's far too stressful. Perhaps that's just my dumb luck for attempting when we had one of our worst months... WormTT(talk) 14:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
History
When you create an article in user space it is prefered that you move the article into mainspace rather than copy it. I just noticed the original edit summary at your first edit of Doom Bar. I am requesting a history merge. If you have done this type of thing often in the past, you may want to consider some history merges and you may also want to stop doing it if you currently still do it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Tony, it's the only article I've done that on and it was due to my lack of knowledge at the time. I also included the exact text from a beermat at the time, something that verges on a copyright violation. It's best that the userspace article stays deleted and the copy paste into the mainspace stays as it is. There's no one else who needs to be attributed but me and I have full attribution on first edit, so it shouldn't be an issue. WormTT(talk) 14:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The histories of the two articles overlap, creating the situation described at Wikipedia:HISTMERGE#A_troublesome_case, where a histmerge would either still leave some history out (if a selective histmerge is performed) or leave the page history a hopeless jumble from the mainspace article's creation to the deletion of the user draft. It's not that big a deal; if Worm would rather it stay deleted, let it stay deleted. Writ Keeper⚇♔14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec)No we don't, but it seems a bit perverse to actually add one in when there's a clear delineation between the copyvio page and the non-copyvio one. WormTT(talk) 14:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
There's a policy issue (or perhaps purely a policy preference) that puzzles me here, though. Why are people so eager to request history merges on material where the contributing editor wrote the text elsewhere (e.g. in userspace), no-one else contributed to it, and then the contributing editor attributed themselves when adding it to mainspace? History merges are to preserve attribution, I thought - is there some other reason that the fragments of history, all from the same editor that's adding them to mainspace anyway, are so important? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me just say here that I believe this four thing to be a complete and utter waste of time and resources, and if I ruled the world I'd ban it. MalleusFatuorum20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
You mean rewards for exceptional effort and work? Don't be a stick in the mud. Encouragement keeps everything working and people need to be shown their value and worth to get the best from them. Well done Dave! ツ Jenova20(email)08:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Since Hex himself failed to look at the context, I was only informing the user of his rights as he was confused (based on recent edit summaries), thinking he had the right to edit his talkpage, the right to express himself however he wanted, and others. The tone wasn't the best, but if you look at his failure to listen to nice messages before, and continued trolling of the admin who blocked him, it's clear it was in no way inappropriate (and I've had others tell me the same). Hex, please stop stalking me and/or warning me due to a thread on Wikipediocracy when you do not look at the backstory, etc. gwickwiretalkediting20:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm really not interested any more, I've tried to help gwickwire, but he's instead on a path to self destruction. I've got more important things to worry about. WormTT(talk) 07:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
My gnome edits are harmless & helpful. I don't commit vandalism, never used sock-puppets or meat-puppets, rarely get into edit-wars, rarely drag editors to ANI. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
There's more to you than gnome edits, if that was all you did we wouldn't be here. A list of the stuff you haven't done doesn't help much either, as blocks and bans cover a lot more than those situations. You've been asked to change your ways before, what's different this time? WormTT(talk) 14:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
If I were allowed to continue on the project, I would be able to prove my change of conduct. Facing the threat of (atleast) a 1-year Ban, will have that effect on a fellow. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jenova! Sorry I didn't reply to this, I thought I did - honestly! Looks like Stacey and I will be going to at least 3, possible 4 in the next couple of months, but they're not so far south as the one you're looking at. WormTT(talk) 07:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Walsall GLAM should be quiet =P. Only 6 people signed up. No worries about the reply, i assumed you would be busier with the new title. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, it seems to come and go in phases. In fact I was rather busy with some off wiki stuff instead :) WormTT(talk) 08:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Even before you were an arb, you had gained a place on the list of my most respected editors. Not only have you served Wikipedia well in two of our most contentious positions (adminship and arbship), but you have managed to do quite a bit of quality content work as well, as noted above. Furthermore, your prolific adopt–a–user program should not be overlooked and neither should your efforts with regards to RfA. For all you do, I am pleased to present you with the Golden Editor Award!AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 14:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course, I wouldn't use the word "involved", but I was on the fence about leaving you with the restriction last year. Certainly happy for it to be removed 10 months on. WormTT(talk) 07:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
He has a serious issue with WP:COI and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, judging by his behaviour at John Le Mesurier (where he tried to edit-war a trivial reference to himself into a featured article, and when that failed started attacking those who disagreed with his edits, accusing them of meatpuppetry and vandalism), and at Kay Hawtrey (his ex-wife). See the talk pages of the respective articles for the background. BencherliteTalk09:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I had a glance at it when it was first kicking off, but due to time constraints did very little about it. Of course he has a CoI, he's the subject. That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. He has the right to take legal action though I do not believe it would be successful, I'd rather it didn't come to that. Luckily, I'm generally good at seeing different people's point of view, so I'm happy to discuss the matter with him and see if we can get a resolution that doesn't involve lawyers. WormTT(talk) 09:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC) edit: clarified based on comments below WormTT(talk) 12:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
That talk page makes for a very interesting read. The contributors of that discussion have put in much effort but none of it appears to have been appreciated by the blocked user ツ Jenova20(email)10:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It can be difficult if you feel people are writing unfavourably about you in the press or on a website. Hopefully we can smooth things out. WormTT(talk) 10:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Understandable, but this appears quite the opposite. This was a person who came from nowhere, asking for publicity with no evidence he was involved in the topic (for quite a lot of the discussion). There was no malice towards him and he in fact belittled others at every opportunity until they had had enough and fought back. Quite simply the definition of a troll from where i'm sitting ツ Jenova20(email)11:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see troll, I see someone who doesn't understand. Trolls are intentional. What's more, I don't agree with no malice, I think it's been poorly handled all round... WormTT(talk) 11:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Well i've only read the discussions at Talk:John Le Mesurier and i'm just a casual observer. But my opinion from just that page is that he handled the thing terribly from start to finish in an insulting manner and expecting his every demand. He doesn't appear notable in Le Mesurier's history but wants to be included in his article to promote himself, even though John Le Mesurier was involved with many many other people who could then want to be in his article for the same reason. What could he possibly sue for? Slander? He started that with multiple people. Libel? There's no mention of him. So yeah, looking at it from here i'd label him as a troll. No editor here should have their hard unpaid work belittled and their time wasted by an attention seeker. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)12:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
He may not have handled things particularly well, but that's not surprising as he's a newcomer who's just trying to improve things from his point of view. I'm sure we can find a solution that everyone's happy with. WormTT(talk) 12:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
When you tell people to ignore my comment that they should ignore JohnClarknew's message, which is a request for contact details for litigation use, are you suggesting that we give him our contact details? All of those to whom he has written have been engaging with him on talk pages, so he knows - and we know - how to discuss matters with him on-wiki. There is no reason for us to take things off-wiki, or for us to agree to his request to take things off-wiki. OTRS is another matter, of course. Perhaps if OTRS can find a way of helping him understand that Wikipedia principles about sourcing your edit apply to everyone, and that accusing one of the primary authors of a featured article of being a "shill for Amazon" doesn't help in the slightest, that would help. BencherliteTalk11:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I said that "ignore this" was poor advice. This person is clearly aggrieved and as a person with a biography on wikipedia, we should not ignore him. I'm not saying you should submit yourself to his request, I'm saying that you shouldn't just ignore it. It's not going to away. WormTT(talk) 11:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It was a request for contact details for litigation purposes. That is what we ignore. As he is blocked for legal threats, there is nothing else for us to do, is there? We have talked and talked on the talk pages with him, others have engaged with him e.g. at Jimbo's talk page, yet to no avail, and our collective patience seems to be exhausted. And then you come along and say "He has the right to take legal action" as if he is actually right in thinking he has a legal case against me and other editors , which doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in your analysis of the situation. Of course, if you were simply saying that "he has the right to take legal action" in the complete abstract i.e. with no consideration of "for what" or "against who", then that's a different matter, but still hardly a useful comment to throw around just after blocking someone for issuing legal threats, because it makes it look to the outside world, to him and to us as if you think he has a meritorious case. BencherliteTalk12:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
That's a fair comment, I'll modify my statement. It was the abstract, he does keep that right, blocked or no. I personally don't see the legal case he has, but I'm also not satisfied that he's totally in the wrong as some people believe him to be. There is a possibility of a compromise here, certainly of mediation. OTRS would be a great place to help de-escalate and I'm willing to help out there. WormTT(talk) 12:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I've had a response to my email and I believe him to be saying that he is not intending to sue ("No, I am not interested in suing"). Just so you know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi again, thanks for leaving that information on my Talk page - there's a lot to go at! Just to double check, is this the right way to Talk on to someone/a group on here? User Talk:Robotsoap84—Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Glad to help. Yes, this is exactly right on how to start a new discussion. You did actually use three tildes (~~~) instead of 4, so only your signature, but not timestamp was displayed. Another thing I should tell you about is how conversations work on the encyclopedia, we indent using colons (:), just as I have done at the beginning of this comment. Each colon indents one more space, and generally you are considered to be replying to comment above that has one less colon (So ::: replies to ::) I hope that makes a bit of sense! WormTT(talk) 11:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Harry. I really enjoyed doing it and will certainly be volunteering to do more training in the future. WormTT(talk) 14:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A favor -Environmental law articles ready for preliminary review
Hi A Worm That Turned. I see that you're an online ambassador. I'm the Professor for Aaron Frank's environmental law class, and while you're not signed up for my course, I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at any or all of the articles my students are working on. One of the aspects of this sort of course is that students understand that they are putting their work out before the wikipedia community for review. In the past, there hasn't been that much activity on their pages as they were working on them. I was hoping that if you get a chance you can take a look.
The students now have draft articles in mainspace and are starting to review each other's articles, and they could also use a preliminary review by an experienced Wikipedian in this area. If you get a chance, ideally sometime before Thursday or so, please take a look at the following list of articles and leave feedback on the talk page:
Hi Aarf613. I'm not really much of an online ambassador any more, I don't think I've done anything useful in that project for a little while. However, it was something I really enjoyed doing a couple of years ago and I'd love to help out and take my mind off other things. So, certainly, I'll have a look through the articles over then next few days and offer a little bit of feedback for your students. Thank you very much for taking the time to ask me. WormTT(talk) 14:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I see User:Stuartyeates has provided some excellent preliminary feedback. I'll allow the students to respond to that and update their articles before making a sweep, as much of my criticism will match his. WormTT(talk) 11:39, 2 May 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.
Hello. This message is to inform you that this morning's Metro had as its main banner headline a huge text saying "WORM IN MY BRAIN ALMOST KILLED ME", which I'm sure was not a statement relating to a brain or arbcom with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
(Also, on a more serious note, some articles about the recent tragic speedboat deaths mentioned "the notorious Doom Bar" as being nearby. No practical connection was suggested, though, so almost certainly not to be included in the article. Fifty years from now, who knows.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I try to keep out of people's brains for the most part! I did look and I didn't find any connection to the Doom Bar in the articles I read. There's no rush on including it, even if it can be included. WormTT(talk) 09:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Arbcom positions
Hey Worm. A number of us are asking abrcom members a few questions regarding a prior case here [1]. The questions are basically 1) did you vote on this ban appeal 2) if so how 3) or are you against releasing this sort of details to the community. Many thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doc James. I have no problem with my personal opinions on the case being known, at the time, I made a comment that I would accept either Will BeBack's conditional unblock, or him remaining blocked. I stated then as I do now, that I can't take a strong opinion on the block itself because I haven't had the time to thoroughly review the case. My comment was more for completeness than anything else. As for the release of the details, I've no problem with releasing mine, but as this was not a formal vote I would be against releasing information unless the entire committee assented.
Having said that, if there were a fresh vote, I would likely vote decline. The committee as a whole gave an answer - "No". I believe that the actions taken since then have been very telling. The userspace RfC, which was not widely published and not written neutrally, did not give me the view that the community disagreed with the decision. The long noticeboard threads, with an underlying tone of "if you don't vote right here, you'll be out at the next election" have a similar problem. I'm all for reform of how we handle ban appeals, but I don't approve of changing how we do things just for one high profile user. Will BeBack was banned until he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue. He hasn't done that, and the tactics used by his supporters do not give me confidence that he would be able to. When he makes his next appeal, assuming it's after a reasonable time has past, I'm sure I'll feel differently, I'd probably support it. Right now, not so much. WormTT(talk) 07:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Reftoolbar questions
Hi, Worm That Turned. I see you helped out at User:Staceydolxx/vector.js. Are you also noticing the problem that with the Reftoolbar that the user reported to me? My toolbar is working perfectly so at the moment my suspicions are that it's a cache problem for User:Staceydolxx. If I could get a second confirmation that the new Reftoolbar code does indeed function correctly, that would help a lot. I use Firebug in Firefox to check Javascript stuff. I now only have the new code and it seems 100% okay to me. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jason. I'm having the exact same problem as Staceydolxx, it's not that the RefToolbar isn't working, it's that the "cite" dropdown tab doesn't show at all. It's not hidden (looking at source), it's just not there at all. Now, had it just been me, I would have assumed that it was to do with my big pile of scripts in my js file, but hers was almost completely vanilla. I've checked the preferences and the flushed the cache a few times, but none of them seem to help. The only remaining flavour we've both got is access to the new Visual editor, so I'll turn that off and see what happens. WormTT(talk) 06:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The code is now just as it was before my changes (minus a grammar fix I kept) so it should work as before. There's also a discussion about this at the village pump about this problem. One person said that changing and unchanging their preferences fixed the problem. My Reftoolbar 2.0b works fine in Firefox 20, Chrome, and Opera. If I find out what occured, I'll post it at VP. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Ohhhh. Right. Well, there's two green talk things that we could be talking about. The green "talk" in my signature turns bold and stops being a link when you are on the page. In the same way, your blue 20 turns into a black, bold 20 on your talk page. The other green thing is my "online/offline" status button at the top. That just changes colour depending on the time of day. It's not perfect, it changes when the cache is flushed for the page (on a save generally). WormTT(talk) 10:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You're right. It's purple. I forgot you redesigned your sig a while ago. So, it just goes bold and stops working on your page. WormTT(talk) 10:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Worm. I'm reviewing your DYK submission (it had the most interesting hook of them by far), and it's very close, but I'd like it if you could take a look at my comments on the nomination page. I found a few copyediting issues and fixed them, but I think y'all should do another read-through to both check my edits and for any other edits that might have been missed. Thanks! Writ Keeper⚇♔03:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Writ Keeper, but it's really User:Staceydolxx's hard work that got it here. I'll do another pass through, but copyediting is generally a weak point of mine - instead a get other people to do the hard work for me. I expect I'll be pushing for this to be a good article at some point in the future, so I'll see if anyone is willing to copyedit it before that. Of course, if any staplers fancy having a parse... I'd appreciate it! WormTT(talk) 07:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Have taken a pass too. Let me know if there's anything specific you'd like me (or Staceydolxx) to look at. WormTT(talk) 08:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Adventure: Text Mockup (feedback welcome!)
Hi TWA folks!
It's been a long time since we worked on The Wikipedia Adventure together, but this spring I proposed the game for an Individual Engagement Grant and it was accepted :)
I spent the last two months refining the script and getting ready to build the game using Guided tours. I am working with an amazing designer and getting expert curation tips from the Grant program leader.
I'd love to have your feedback on it, before I get started with the build. I would love it if you would leave any thoughts, tips, comments, recommendations, suggestions, ideas, or concerns, at WP:TWA/Feedback.
The Wikimedia UK AGM will be held in June, and nominations for the UK Wikimedian of the Year are currently open. If there is someone who you feel has made an important contribution to the UK Wikimedia movement in the last year please go ahead and nominate them here by 09:00 (BST) on Monday 20th May at the latest. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Warnings
I will follow your advice. I have been doing recent changes patrol for about eight months while continuing some content additions. I have only begun to post these warnings apart from reversions with the past couple of weeks. I noted that a couple of new editors were making quite a few reversions but not leaving warnings. I left suggestions that they do so on their talk pages but they had only followed through sporadically. I was concerned that vandals were getting away without warnings which might encourage them to leave more vandalisms. I certainly did not intend to leave a warning for any vandalism that was more than a day or perhaps two days old so that was a mistake. I left multiple messages in a few cases where there was repeated vandalism to several articles. I tried to avoid repetitious warnings in most cases, especially if a later warning was left for the same article. In any event, I see your point. I will not leave such messages unless the vandalism is within a short period of time or I have done the reversion. Donner60 (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)From a wiki-engineering point of view I usually don't bother with warning obvious IP trolling -- they know what they're doing and the more time we waste dealing with it the greater the troll reward. Likewise, I don't bother doing the WP:AIV thing unless there's like three or more vandalisms in a short time. NE Ent21:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Clearly some of these people (often kids, I suspect) know what they are doing and perhaps a single instance of minor vandalism does not merit the time or effort to warn. I am rather certain that I have never reported to WP:AIV unless the user had made a fifth vandalism within a short period of time (less than 24 hours, often much less than that) except perhaps in one or two instances of personal attacks. Donner60 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Donner60. The big truth that people keep quiet is that warnings don't matter that much. They're there for the user who gets them, not the admin. The idea is that if a user realises what they are doing is wrong they will stop of their own accord. With IPs, who are often just mucking around public computers, there's not really much point in warning them. Admins generally don't block them for long periods either (I usually go for 31 hours, just to throw them off!)
The best time to use a warning is when it will prevent as much damage as a block would and I find the templated warnings rarely, if ever, do that. Some might say my comment on your talk page was a warning, but not templated. In any case, I've noticed you do a lot of good work on the content additions and I don't have any issues with your recent change patrol, so please do keep those up! WormTT(talk) 07:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Even after some time on wikipedia, there is often more to learn from those that are more experienced. One can go off on a tangent with good intentions but not necessarily be very productive. Also here, you are giving practical advice not necessarily found in the guidelines and templates. I took you comments as advice, not as a warning. I did not think I was doing anything wrong and I thought you were saying I was wasting my time more than anything else. I made at least one clear mistake by posting a warning for an old edit, which had just been reverted. I also got a little carried away going back as much as two or three days on some. I was embarrassed by the notice I posted on the old edit, I must admit, but I should have been more careful. I am also glad I had only been doing the notices on back edits for a short period of time.
Back in October, I thought I would try recent changes patrol for awhile. I found it interesting and also a bit of a challenge. So I have stayed with it longer than I thought I might. I think I can make a better contribution in other areas and I am still more interested in content creation. I am planning to scale back the recent changes patrol soon and concentrate on content creation, DYK, and a few other things. At this time, I don't plan to give up recent changes patrol entirely. Unfortunately, even with quite a few people spending time on it and with Cluebot, there is often a need for it. Donner60 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
"hahahahaha you can't get married" - That one hurt =P. Does he not know about the progress of the current bill? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)15:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
"A passing grade is considered to be 75% or higher. Lower grades will result in a longer adoption period. If you completely blow the test off, I'll apply for adminship and immediately abuse my powers by blocking you indefinitely. Just dare me." You might want to update that statement. :p—cyberpowerChatLimited Access13:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, you may be interested to know that I am finally starting my adoption program (which is largely based on the work of whoever you got yours from}. AutomaticStrikeout ? 02:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you please add to your recent note on Clark's page requesting that he refrain from putting the personal details of others on his talk page, as he did with this post. A polite request for him to remove the post met with that message being deleted as "vandalism". I have subsequently removed the name and email address of the individual concerned, but suspect that Clark may well revert my post. If you could ask that this person's details are kept out I would be grateful. - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll add something regarding the email address, but I don't see an issue with the name of the person concerned. By the way, it might be a good idea for you to move on from this area too, at least whilst the user remains blocked. There's more important things to worry about on the encyclopedia than a blocked user complaining on their own page. WormTT(talk) 09:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the last sentiment entirely: I have only posted recently to warn of the posting of third party details onto the web. I last posted about ten days ago, and a month ago prior to that. I have no interest in discussing anything with him, and certainly not while there is still an unfounded legal threat in the air. In relation to the name, I left the organisation name in place, which should suffice, rather than singling out one of their staff members by name. - SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
No issues with your solution, but if he re-adds the name, I'm not going to complain about that either. WormTT(talk) 10:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
How does a blocked editor demand content changes in order that he lifts a spurious legal threat. Could you explain how that is an "excellent solution"? Wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels. Cart way before the horse. That's just saying "I get my way or I don't play nice" - and sets a bloody awful precedent too: I now know what steps I or any other editor would have to take to force any disagreed content into an article. He cannot be allowed to determine content when he is banned. He MUST lift the threat FIRST: then he can discuss it properly like any other editor, not try and hold us to ransom with a baseless threat to sue.
As to the content itself, Le Mesurier appeared in 82 stage productions;161 TV programmes or series (the tally of individual shows is higher);43 radio programmes or series (the tally of individual shows is higher); and124 films. Why are we highlighting this one tiny production over all the others, and then using a fanzine to support it? Way to much weight being given to it in an article that we had to work hard to de-bloat with too much superfluous fluff to get it through FA. You're right to point to the fact he appeared in television programmes since 1938, which makes this one tiny programme even more insignificant. From the point of view of the article, it's about as far from an "excellent solution" as I think it possibly could be. I really do strongly suggest a re-think. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It's an excellent solution because
He does not include his name in the article, which upset a lot of people
He is happy with the solution
Legal threats are rescinded
The article is improved with accurate information (assuming it is).
This is absolutely an ideal outcome based on compromise and I would recommend it. The content would not be forced into the article, I would put in on the talk page, just as I would with any OTRS solution, and debate it's inclusion. I've done it before and I will do it again. To be clear, he's not banned, he's blocked. One is a technical means to stop someone editing the site, the other is a philosophical suggestion that his content should not be included on the site. Big difference that you would do well to get your head around.
I understand you disagree with the content and that's fine - it should be discussed on the talk page of the article, where consensus can be gained. You may be right that it shouldn't go in, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the discussion. WormTT(talk) 08:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
After, after, after he has withdrawn the threat. No way should it be before, under any circumstances whatsoever. He really does need to do that before anything else happens. I do have my head around the difference - wrong word chosen, but at the end of the day, he has thrown around spurious and baseless threats: that needs to be resolved before any other step is taken. It's fine to have a content discussion, but if he wishes to propose it, then he can do so himself by withdrawing the threat and acting like any other editor. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The threat was implied not overt and has been withdrawn definitively by email. I could have used my discretion to unblock him at that point. It's one of the reasons I've let him carry on editing his talk page, it's certainly a reason I'd be willing to proxy an approriate sentence to a talk page for discussion. WormTT(talk) 08:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
"withdrawn definitively by email" is very good news indeed, although considering he has implied the threat is still in place in his posting this morning, one can be forgiven for wondering what the situation actually is: there is certainly no clarity from him on his will-I, won't-I position. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand why you feel that way, and that's the reason he's still blocked. I felt that the public declaration was necessary, and told him so. He's aware that people are working towards an amicable solution whilst he's blocked and using it to his advantage - but I'm doing my best to ensure that that the chilling effect is kept to a minimum. This is why I would personally be recommending a sentence I was happy with myself, and allow normal debate over the matter. If it was not agreed, I would go back to the editor and discuss it with him. I've done this with BLPs before, generally through OTRS, it normally works out when there's someone who's willing to listen to both sides. WormTT(talk) 09:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I had a glance, but I'm afraid they're just beyond my abilities. I'm sure someone will come along and review them sooner or later. WormTT(talk) 12:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Worm That Turned! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?
If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?
First off, go here and add {{Tick}} (Y) next to your name if you're still part of the project.
Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.
You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)
Dear Worm,
I would like you to adopt me so I can become a proficient editor. I did see on Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters that you are currently not available. I don’t mind waiting until you are, because I think you are worth waiting for, a good fit. I looked through the profiles of adopters the adoption page and don’t feel others are as good a fit. I am an autodidact, but still have a lot of questions. Best regards,--Wuerzele (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Wuerzele. I'm afraid I really don't have time for formal adoption these days, I find myself very busy on other areas of the encyclopedia. Luckily if you're good at self teaching, you could always look through my lesson book. You're always welcome to ask questions at this page, whether or not you are an adoptee, so feel free to ask away. I'll do my best to reply, but I've also got some very helpful editors who watch this page and may give an answer. Another option is to ask questions at the teahouse, a great project I used to be involved in, where you can get really helpful answers very quickly. WormTT(talk) 07:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC) thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Stalk me
Dave can you take a look at my recent talk page additions and advise me. It's descending into schoolyard antics and i'm trying to avoid responding. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)16:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. You're right, it has devolved a bit, but the discussion on the talk page of the article seems to be productive. If you're looking for a little feedback for the future, I think you've handle the whole thing very well. The only thing I would have suggeted is not using a templated warning - they only ever antagonise, as you can see. Also, I count two reverts from Nathan, making a group of edits together should only count as a single revert. Similarly, I count two reverts from Flyer. The trick is to encourage better discussion, rather than force it with threats of blocks. If you're looking for advice for how to handle it from now on, step away from the user talk page fights, and focus on the article talk page, if there's anything you can do there. The main disputants are actually talking, and that's half the battle. Give them a little time to come out with a result before mediating. WormTT(talk) 07:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I can step away, i already did. But by my count he's at 3 reverts and i templated only because he continued reverting after i told him to stop. 123. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)08:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The first one appears to be a bold edit, rather than a revert, but it's arguable either way. As I said above, I think you handled the situation well. Templating is best for really new users, I almost never use them. But other than that, I think you should be proud of how you handled yourself and not rising to the situation. WormTT(talk) 09:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Okedokie. Thanks for the reply Dave. On another note I just noticed one of my photos has been used on Wikivoyage (Birmingham specifically). Is that the advertising arm of Wikipedia article writing or something? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)09:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikivoyage is a travel guide. It's not an advertising arm, no, but it's got a very different mission from Wikipedia. Travel guides by definition advertise places... but I don't believe there is any money changing hands (in the open anyway) for this purpose. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
One of the great things about adoption is that both the adoptee and adopter learn a lot through the process. I would have suggested going a bit more in depth (per my equivalent lesson), but it's really got to be up to you. WormTT(talk) 07:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will try and go into a little more depth for future lessons.
Oi you! Yes you.. I can see you watching this page!
Hello,
As you are watching Worm's page I thought I would ask you if you would be able to assist in anyway with this article Police protection provisions. I have put some things on the talk page that I need help with =) Thank you very muchly!
I looked into it, and as of two hours ago, they disabled the ability of DISPLAYTITLE to do the things you wanted it to (specifically, using display:none CSS styles to hide parts of the title). More details here; the practical upsot is that they don't want DISPLAYTITLE to be used to create displayed titles that don't copy-paste as the correct page name. Writ Keeper⚇♔20:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I have discovered the Wikipedia "Adoption" program, found the list of people who are willing to adopt, read each person's summary and noticed that you are mentioned a time or two as a person that has "lessons" or "lesson plans" that they are using or they refer to in their personal description paragraph.
I saw on the adoption listing page that you are currently accepting or looking for "adoptees" and hope that you will consider "adopting" me, WTT.
I have a graduate degree and typcially have a good working knowledge of software, authoring software "user's requirements" sheets for IT Programmers, testing software programs, and I also have a wide and varied level of interests that I do have more than a passing, basic knowledge about - knowledge which I have attempted on a number of occassions to share with Wikipedia - sharing with the community in the form of edits and authoring a few pages that I ended up having trouble with because I struggle with the Wikipedia Community Posting, Approval, permissions, formatting, etc processes.
I LOVE Wikipedia and, WTT, I have used it for years as my first go-to source of information for any questions that I have about anything, literally anything.
I do believe that one of my pages was eventually approved - but, since I am do struggle with the basic knowledge of how things work in Wikipedia World, I can't confirm if it was fully approved and allowed to be published. Authored another page about a Cinemascope Film - had it in my "sandbox" (while I was researching rules re: image usage) and the image that I had for it was deleted - which shocked me because I thought that it was in my sandbox, that it was not posted for comments or review or whichever stage happens when authoring something and then making it visible to othersfor critique. I thought that I was the only person who was able to see it still, at that time.
WTT, I give these as a couple of examples of my attempts at contributing to the community, the knowledge database, of Wikipedia, and how my efforts were simply not sufficient because of my lack of understanding even though I have thoroughly read the rules and "how to" instructions for formatting, supplying images that are legal, and even how to work on an item correctly, in a place that is my own space and not posted out for the other Wikipedia Contributors and Editors to review completed and intentionally submitted work posted for official review and then publishing.
I did notice on another section on your homepage that you are not currently seeking/accepting adoptees - but, I do hope that you will consider taking me on as a adoptee - a person that, at a minimum, you can guide through your lesson plans WTT.
I figure that you may be very busy with your personal like and Wikipedia Work - and, with this in mind, I was intending to find an additional adoptor, one who has some similar interests (film, WWII/European fronts, popular culture of 19th-20th Century, Left Bank Authors and Popular Culture, Cinemascope and other specialty forms of moving picture filming processes, and several other niche cultural groups and movements, including political and "religious" or idealogical social movements, including the leaders and participants occuring during the past several centuries. Along with studying academically and now personally, since this post graduate degree period of my life, the above mentioned items I should add that during grad school, the emphasis of my last 2 degrees include degree in geography/digital cartography and Master's degree that included a strong emphasis on cultural history and using statistal analysis to measure social movements (demography) - and even with this educational base, I do need help with the basics of authoring/publishing/contributing to Wikipedia and I will be searching for a person who has at least a couple of common interests and hopefully academic background to fine tune the authoring, research and citation aspects of anything published/contributed in the future, once I understand the "nuts and bolts" of the Wikipedia process that appear to be the expert in, WTT.
I do want you to know that I don't exactly understand how you will reply to my request - but, it appears that I am supposed to come back to this page, is this correct? If I don't respond to any message that you leave for me, it will be because of this, WTT. I am marking off the "Watch this page" check mark box so that I should be notified if there is any action on this page, right? Rules don't allow me to leave private, personal information - such as email addy - so I will just keep checking this page and any edit flags that appear for me on my account.
Thank you for your consideration in adopting me, WTT. lmc33
Lmc33 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Lmc33 (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Worm That Turned, we moved your Teahouse host profile
Hello Worm That Turned! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just Check in and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no contact with Swifty - he's ignored me since I called him on evading scrutiny and indefinitely blocked him. WormTT(talk) 08:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I could contact him, but i'm (A:) not sure i want to be involved, and (B:) not on the best terms with him since he last retired (for the 10th time). Don't you usually just block the IP? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)08:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The IP is blocked, but he's on a moving IP. Don't worry Jenova - I have the same ability as you to contact him, I know the email - but there's no way you'd actually be able to persuade him to leave the encyclopedia, it's not worth your time anymore. WormTT(talk) 08:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Do we want to convince him to leave? He's a good editor. And it's certainly possible he could still come around with a few behavioural changes. He clearly can't stay away. ツ Jenova20(email)08:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
That was my argument for helping him before. He's a good writer, but not a good wikipedian due to those "behavioural" issues that you mention. Since he can't keep them in check, the amount of work by other editors that is needed does not outweigh the good work he does, and without the handlers he will end up scaring off other good editors. Unfortunately, it's one of those rare cases that he needs to change before he comes back. WormTT(talk) 08:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly a barnstar...
... but perhaps that wouldn't be out of line either. I just wanted to say that I do truly admire your efforts to work with some of the younger(?) editors here. It can be a daunting and difficult task to be sure. Indeed there are some amazing young folks editing which astound me with their intelligence, abilities, and maturity. There are some however which I have great difficulty relating to or with. The constant "All you adults (and/or admins) are just being mean" tirades become tiresome to me, and I often feel myself becoming tired and frustrated in the efforts. Realizing my own shortcomings in this area makes it easy for me to appreciate those who excel in this task, and I wanted to voice my appreciation for your efforts. That is all. Best to you and yours. — Ched : ? 12:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Can't say I agree with you regarding Kudpung's comments at WT:RFA, but good block; thanks for stepping up. Yunshui雲水12:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Discussion on 2 haze articles
Hi Worm That Turned, you are invited to participate in this discussion. Please note that participation is optional and the discussion closes at 12:15am sharp tonight (GMT+8). Cheers. --ArcticKangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Freddo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Supply|isbn=9781409459576}}</ref> but by 2011, the price was 20p, where it remains|group="note"}}} There have been many campaigns for the return of the Taz Bar which had a different caramel from
Please enjoy this delicious albeit inflation-beset chocolate frog snack (1930's logo pictured). Freddos help to promote WikiLove, and can also reduce stress levels. Why not give a Freddo to a fellow editor or sworn enemy today! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Demiurge.. Dave has just had a big rant at me about Freddos.. and apparently its all your fault..I hope you feel bad... ツStacey (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I am delighted that hard working editor Chiswich Chap has become Editor of the Week and obtained kudos for improving the article Sea. You have apparently been using this as an example to enthuse others on what a difference to Wikipedia a single editor can make. However, I feel a bit miffed. The idea of improving Sea was mine and I worked with Chiswick Chap on the article as can be seen from this history. It was our joint entry to the Core Competition and we started work on April 19th for this purpose. His contribution may be more noticeable than mine in the history as he tends to save his changes frequently while I do this less often. If you look at the history you will see that large chunks of expansion are mine. We jointly plan to go for GA soon and FAC later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Cwmhiraeth! I'm sorry that it was quite so galling that Chiswick Chap had been singled out for the glory despite the effort you put in. If it helps, at the training event, I didn't single Chiswick Chap out, I just made a note of the work that was done to show how far from complete Wikipedia was and how core articles are still being improved. The idea was to inspire, and the people there were impressed. My comment here applies to all changes made between these two points [2] and [3], which included a lot of your work. I did talk about how you can see the history of a page, and this is what it looked like this, and the contributor count looked like this.
The reaction of the classroom was spectacular and I felt it was important to share this. In retrospect, I should have shared my comments on the talk page of the article, and looked a bit more in depth into who had done the work. As it was, I had looked into Chiswick Chap's contributions elsewhere and decided that as he was relatively unknown, he deserved an editor of the week award. That was not meant as a slight on your work, but because I focussed on the most visible recent area in the nomination (Sea), I can understand why it might have appeared that way. Chiswick Chap himself took pains to make it clear that it was a collaboration, and I did note your name at the time as someone I should read up on - we haven't bumped into each other before.
As is the way of life, I soon became distracted with other things, and forgot all about the nomination (which takes a ruddy long time to get through the wringer). When talking about the article off wiki, which I still do from time to time - I find it to be one of the best article improvements in a short period, I talk about editors as a "plural". I hope you can accept my apologies for making you feel a bit belittled, and that we can both celebrate Chiswick Chap's exceptional contributions (beyond that article). I'm sure one day you yourself will be nominated - as I said, you're on my to-do list WormTT(talk) 08:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. I wasn't annoyed really and can laugh at my own reaction. Working on such an underdeveloped article was thoroughly enjoyable and a great improvement on trying to find references for other peoples' unattributed statements. I have just started working on Anatomy which is copiously scattered with "improvement" tags. It won't be that way for long! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, you inspired me and User:Staceydolxx to have a go at the Drink article, which is in a sorry state and doesn't even include water! However the enormity of the work just keeps shocking us, I've no idea how you keep doing it, you have my utmost respect! WormTT(talk) 08:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall why i'm watching this page, but should anons be editing the userspace of others like this or should i leave it and assume it's Lionelt? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)10:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Given Lionel's disappearance, I can't blame an IP who finds the topic wanting to edit it, especially given the subject matter. It is a wiki after all - so anyone should be able to edit any page. If Lionel wants to revert, then that's his prerogative (as we allow users leeway in their own space), but your fiddling would be as "bad" as the IPs... if that makes sense. WormTT(talk) 10:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey Dave. Brad Hagen asked me to write an article for him, and while most of the stuff is easy to cite, i'm starting to reach the limit of the information. Can you tell me if this looks notable enough to you the way it is going? I'm starting to think the band Trances Arc (of which he was the drummer) is more notable than him and it would make more sense to make that article.
Can i get your opinion? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)16:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2".PumpkinSkytalk21:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Year
Number of cases
2012
11 cases
2011
16 cases
2010
12 cases
2009
30 cases
2008
39 cases
2007
91 cases
2006
116 cases
Hi PumpkinSky. Dispute resolution has changed over the years, it's becoming more and more a community process. The arbitration committee is still needed, to sort out those things that the community can't handle, but it's the exception, rather than the norm. The community is getting better at that, look at how many cases the committee felt it necessary to take, it's a tenth of the number required 5 years ago. It's important that the community should be given the chance to find a solution, and that's why I turned down the case. As to the more general point about administrators, I don't stand for it and I agree that Jmh649's actions were problematic. I don't believe they were irredeemably problematic though and his recent comments on his talk page reflect that. The community is able to sort out this problem and there are other solutions that pulling the bit. If his actions don't reflect those sentiments, then we can look at removing tools. I hope that helps. WormTT(talk) 10:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You'll need to give me a little more to go off, I don't know what you're asking for! Feel free to email me if it's private information. WormTT(talk) 11:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The Hz.tiang one, I did not realise that it was already removed. As for the Oliverlyc one, you can just hide the revision. Bonkers The Clown had already removed it. Cheers. ArcticKangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the issue, the declared information is very minor and not particularly identifying and there is no confirmation of the person's age. For future reference, please follow instructions on WP:OVERSIGHT in future - deal with this sort of thing by email, preferably with diffs which need suppression. WormTT(talk) 14:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I just happened across your user page/talk-page and have gotten the impression that you're friendly and sensible. And I also took note that you're an admin as well. An astonishing trifecta. : }
Well, I'll give you friendly and admin - but sensible? You might have to check with a few others on that one. Good to mee you at any rate! WormTT(talk) 14:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Retro
He's digging himself a bigger hole. I suggest we remove the shovel for the rest of the block time? Maybe to his own benefit? Dusti*poke*08:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I've expanded my comment, which may help. Having said that, I am really against blocked users being removed from their talk pages - there's nothing wrong with venting, or disagreeing with a block. The only problem is when he starts being disruptive, which he isn't at the moment, just not listening to advice. I'm certainly not pulling it for that. WormTT(talk) 08:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
By the way, while I've got you here Dusti, could I give you a bit of friendly advice? I've seen you around the "drama boards" a lot recently. They're not a good place to hang out, perhaps you'd consider focussing on other stuff? WormTT(talk) 08:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
99% agree with you - I too dislike seeing talk page access revoked, however - he's close to getting himself banned. He doesn't understand what he's doing, and he's making matters worse. Like seriously worse. Dusti*poke*08:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm treading lightly - on purpose. I have hope of gaining a new skill set, and I think that's where I'm going to learn. I'm, of course, doing my best to not become the center of attention - because you really don't want to be on those boards. Make sense, or still a bad idea? Dusti*poke*08:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Still probably a bad idea - I've seen almost nothing good come out of those boards, but if you must carry on perhaps change your sig to be a little less noticeable. You're probably not doing anything wrong, just catching my (and therefore others) eye. As for retrolord, I'm not keen on the "for their own good" argument. They'll have to learn, the easy way or the hard way - and revoking talk page access just delays the inevitable. WormTT(talk) 08:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Me too. Kids kicking admins seems to be the new out-of-school sport and it tries our patience - as Worm has already mentioned on my talk page. However, we all have, and are entitled to our views on leniency... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Pedant eagerly weighing in
(LOL hopelessly at the barnstar you just got. Seriously.) Worm, when you wrote about "the current version of policy, not the past version" on a page a little while ago, didn't you mean "the current version, not a putative future version"? I don't believe there is a past version such as the user would like to see. Anyway, I marvel at someone who would answer your comment in detail while at the same time removing that comment. He's fond of pointing out that that's his "right", but it's hardly the action of a gentleman, is it. (I won't post on his page to say so. I prefer not to post on the pages of people who remove everything they don't like.) Bishonen | talk13:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC).
Probably closer to current version rather than a literal minded reading of a specific past version, ignoring unwritten rules of the time. The thing is, we're not in 2006. We're here, today - in the present, where admins are held to a higher standard and are required to act civilly. I don't see a need to post further - I'm hoping he'll get the message. WormTT(talk) 14:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I was going to comment, on one recent discussion, that the difference between now and 2006 is mostly in who is wearing which hats... and that people's opinions on many topics may be largely dependenet on which hats they themselves are wearing! See also Hatology --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Your Wikilove message
Very well played, sir. You may have saved me from being blocked over my personal-attack edit summary. Plus, with any luck, you'll be blocked for attacking me instead. You have a very dull block log so far! Bishonen | talk15:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC).
Should we do like the BBC do for other royalty, and have an obituary prepared in advance, so that it can be posted on-wiki as soon as it's confirmed that the editor has passed away? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
== June 2013 - Blocked ==
Seriously though - I enjoyed that. Even though I'm still cleaning a bit of egg off my face for not reading more carefully, there were certainly smiles to be had all the way around there. — Ched : ? 16:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Eeeek a fake block! I'd better watch my step. I've been chuckling at Giano's page all afternoon, just glad to join in. WormTT(talk) 16:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Ideas
Based on some recent discussions, I have quickly drafted this. It is in no way definitive, but the effort is to keep it very simple and on track. If you have time, you are welcome to help develop this further on its talk page or tweak the draft until such times if and when a collaborative effort can be moved to RfC space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
At the time I redirected it, the article was in very poor shape, and over half of it was a copyright violation (the Duplication Detector report isn't even the full story) of this which would've left a very short article. Furthermore, the three references in the article (only one after I removed the criticism section), I don't see any reason this should stand alone unless it's going to be improved. Full disclosure, as I was looking around at the criticism copyright, Diannaa brought the exact website to my attention. It's a premium essay which I don't have access to (payment is needed). ~Charmlet-talk-16:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
That's different, I didn't realise it was a copyvio. Looks like another article for my to do list then. WormTT(talk) 18:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It's fine :) I'll try to dig up any academic sources I can on use of the term if I get a chance. Work is heck right now, especially in the heat. The redirect was my way of not leaving a short article up, but it can be worked on. ~Charmlet-talk-18:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Snark
It should have been obvious I was referring to CVUA because I specifically mentioned CVUA (something you later struck in your own comment), just as his participation in DYK/GA etc would obviously be fine as that is part of being here to build an encyclopedia, something I also linked. That is obviously a part of content work. I won't distract from the discussion there, but the snark (and the assumptions behind them) wasn't necessary nor helpful.
I've been mentoring and monitoring User:Scottdelaney1067 (now Anderson) since he first arrived at Wikipedia.[4] I knew it was him when he first came back as Anderson and worked with him even though I knew he was socking. I've probably spend more time with him than anyone else, so my comments were not just "drive by" or pile on, but based upon a solid understanding of his history even before "Anderson". Of course, I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, but I did mind the ad hominem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dennis. I apologise for any offence that you took from my comments, that was not my intention - though I did feel the need to make a bit of a point against the meme that is starting to spring up that we're here to write an encyclopedia. You probably didn't deserve to be on the sharp end of that point and do deserve an apology.
My issue is simply that I want to see Anderson coming back and given a chance to do something positive. It need not be writing articles, which appears to be what's being pushed for. I really don't like the idea of saying someone can "only" work in an area - it's very different to specifically limiting areas where they can't work. I never mentioned CVUA, because there's more to that than reverting vandalism - there's a whole meta part and competition - which I agree is inappropriate. When I re-read your comment that people were getting bitten when he was reverting, I struck the option to revert vandalism. WormTT(talk) 07:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Understood and accepted. He isn't a bad guy, even if a bit obtuse at times, but in general he is safer staying anywhere on the building side of the encyclopedia rather than maintaining side. While they are both important, they are distinctly different, with different skill sets and utility to the reader, whom I have always considered to be the most important Wikipedian of all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER09:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I knew that Anderson was Scott Delaney because he mixed up his identities when posting on my talk page, and if I remember rightly he suggested one of his identities for the other at PERM. I think we're being very gentle by letting him back at all. If he were any older, his return would almost certainly get a definitive 'no' from me on the question of an early release from his block. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
WT
As I am respecting your wish to stay away from WT, I would nevertheless however like to point out that I was never '...once a new, immature, and inexperienced editor like me '. Inexperienced and new maybe, but never immature, never warned or reprimanded, and almost certainly (just 50 years or so) a little bit older ;) His continuous mentioning of me where I can't defend myself is, well, inappropriate and just conveys a false impression, propagates further bad noise about admins, and leads to more dramatics. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
That comment made me smile a little too. But it's good that you have a positive opinion about your own maturity and about whether you have been warned or not.
Where's WT101 continuously mentioning you? I can't see your username on either his current adoption page or its talkpage; or on PBASH's talk page or TOS's talk page (where he seems to turn up most often). A quick flick through his most recent contribs doesn't show him posting on dramaboards (or any project space) in the last day or two. The last mention of you by him on his own talk page appears to be on 28th June, in reply to a post you made on his talkpage that same day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
After an email last night, I intend to be scouring WT101's contributions today. I'm certainly concerned with his behaviour since his return and adoption. WormTT(talk) 07:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday Russavia was added to the banned users list and marked as a "vandal". Russavia is not a vandal. Most users listed in the banned user list are not vandals. Vandals do not get banned you know. Vandals get blocked. Getting banned is a privilege of content creators. The list of banned users is Wikipedia's shame, but if the community (or rather the bullies of the community) cannot live without it, don't you think that "vandal" should be replaced with "userlinks" or with a similar neutral template? Besides I am quite sure some former editors listed in the list are listed there under their real names, and calling them "vandals" is a gross violation of their BLPs. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I do agree that the vandal template should be replaced with a userlinks template, as should the vandal-s template. I don't like scarlett letters at the best of times and that is a rather underhand one. However, it might be a good idea to start a community discussion on the matter, rather than just chosing a random chap to fix it! WormTT(talk) 08:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Anyway the template was replaced, but it is not enough.
Banned users list should be deleted. This list is the Scarlet letter that does not let many banned editors go, and it should be deleted not by " the current community of anonymous cowards that currently control this site", but by a named person, by a leader like you. As it stands right now banning comes down to humiliation and punishment. Is this what Wikipedia is about? 76.126.142.59 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Well I thought that you say what you mean and mean what you say, but I see that you are a worthy representative of the Wikipedia community and its Arbitration Committee.76.126.142.59 (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
My word, the hostility. I explained that this was a community matter - that's how things work around here, consensus, not individual discretion. What you don't believe in is the community's ability to agree with you. I don't have the authority to delete the list, and I don't even agree it should be deleted. Recording bans is essential, because we're such a large community, if they're not recorded, they won't be enforceable. Banning is a necessary method to make it clear that a person's help on the project is not wanted. That's not punishment, that's not the scarlet letter. Marking their userpage with a banned template, removing their userpage - those are insults, which come down to punishments. Recording the ban elsewhere is just common sense. WormTT(talk) 09:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
"I explained that this was a community matter - that's how things work around here, consensus"
"I don't even agree it should be deleted. Recording bans is essential, because we're such a large community, if they're not recorded, they won't be enforceable."
And how the list is helping you in particular to enforce the bans?
"Banning is a necessary method to make it clear that a person's help on the project is not wanted."
Ah I see indefinitely blocked editors' help is still wanted, but banned editors' help is not? Is that so? Okay, let discuss a particular example: just a few days ago user:Russavia was blocked, and the block was supported by the community. He's not formally banned. He's not listed in the list. Does it mean that his help on the project is wanted?
"Marking their userpage with a banned template, removing their userpage - those are insults, which come down to punishments. Recording the ban elsewhere is just common sense. Recording the ban elsewhere is just common sense."
Well, a banned editor thinks otherwise. As you see he's going above and beyond in order to remove the mentions about his ban from everywhere.
I'd like to ask you a personal question if I may please. I've noticed that as the time passes many Wikipedians especially the ones with the tools are changing, they start thinking more as Wikipedians and less as human beings. Have you noticed this too? I do not even ask you to respond to me here. Just try to respond my question to yourself. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a fair old leap from "not enough people participated in X discussion" to "there is no community". Of course there's a community, even if there is only a subset of editors who notice what's going on. The discussions on this sort of thing should happen at the Village Pump, where actual useful decisions are made, rather than the admin boards where the fights happen. You ask how the list is helping me in particular - it allows admins I trust to see what's happened and ensure that enforcement to happen. I don't go in for enforcement myself, I don't enjoy it.
The difference between an indefinitely blocked editor and a banned editor is quite simple. A banned editor has gone so far that people have got together and said "enough is enough". An indefinitely blocked editor is one who cannot be unblocked until something changes. It needs to be made clear to banned editors that their help is not wanted. That's the difference.
As much as you may not agree - Wikipedians are human beings. Every single one of them. They think like human beings. They may not have as much empathy for other Wikipedians as they would with a person they can see, but we have research which shows this is normal. I'm satisfied with my actions, I'm open and honest about why I do things and will discuss them and change my opinion if I see a decent argument. WormTT(talk) 09:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
You ask how the list is helping me in particular - it allows admins I trust to see what's happened and ensure that enforcement to happen.
Administrators do not really need to see what happened to enforce the bans. There's a block log you know, and it is more than enough to run around screaming "a sock of a banned user!"
Neither blocks or bans should be enforced at all. If a banned or a blocked editor returns to Wikipedia to make some "positive" contributions why to enforce his block? On the other hand, if an editor (any editor) is disruptive just block him without even looking for socks. Sometimes, I believe quite often, administrators enforcing the bans act simply stupid. Please take a look here. Mr. DragonflySixtyseven whoever he is deleted a few good, encyclopedic articles only because they were written by a sock of a banned user. It is getting even worse: DragonflySixtyseven deleted the articles 1.5!!! years after the sock account was shut down. Was this so called enforcement good for Wikipedia?
I don't go in for enforcement myself, I don't enjoy it.
Well, it is a good indicator that you have kept at least some decency. Good for you!
A banned editor has gone so far that people have got together and said "enough is enough".
An indefinitely blocked editor is one who cannot be unblocked until something changes. It needs to be made clear to banned editors that their help is not wanted. That's the difference.
Hold on a second. Are you saying that a banned editor could never be unblocked even if "something changes"? What about Fae, for example? He was banned and then unblocked, was he not? I am sure there were other situations similar to Fae's, when a banned editor appealed and was unblocked. So could you please come up with another difference or two?
Banning is unneeded, it is a very sick practice, and it brings more harm than good to Wikipedia. I am sure that if there were no banning the sites like Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy would have had much less contributors. You could tell me that Wikipedians do not care about Wikipediocracy, but Wikipediocracy has succeed in creating some bad publicity about Wikipedia, and not only on their own site [6][7] and so on. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see you have run out of arguments to support the necessity of the bans of content contributors. I will not post here anymore but I'd like to remind you that silence gives consent. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Either that or philosophical arguments with hostile individuals who appear to be unwilling to change their strong opinions is low on my list of priorities. I'll attempt to deal with scarlet letters, through the community processes in the future if/when I have time. WormTT(talk) 07:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry, if my comments seem hostile to you. I assure you my intent is not to offend.I simply like to make Wikipedia a better place.
I am willing to change my "strong opinion" if you present a few good arguments to demonstrate that banning is necessary to keep Wikipedia safe and that banning, especially so called community banning, is a fair process. So far I've seen none.
I'll attempt to deal with scarlet letters, through the community processes in the future if/when I have time. In other words maybe you will help suffering human beings "in the future if/when you have time."76.126.142.59 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
No offense taken, don't worry. However, I don't see a need to carry on this conversation, so I will bid you good day. WormTT(talk) 14:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Not going to parse the whole thread, or get into the issue of when people should make stands and when work with the system. But the whole concept that some tiny group of people at ANI deciding in a few hours to ban someone is a complete joke. And it's Orwellian to call that "the will of the Community". It's a very small group and selected for an interest in drama and banning. Yeah, there's a few liberals who attend, but it's still not reflecting content creators who are turned off by the whole shebang. Or people who don't check Wiki obsessively every few hours. And when you compare the duration and content to how long an Arbcom case or an RFC runs (and how logorrheic they are), it's night and day. Of course, it's the reality, just how a lot of things are reality. But I think if you're attuned to language, then "will of the Community" is kind of screwy.TCO (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
...
Sorry, WTT, I was not going to post here anymore but because TCO did, I would like to thank him, and to add one more comment for the record. In some situations human beings are getting community banned with no opportunity to defend themselves not even on their own talk pages because even their talk page accesses is blocked. Please try to justify such treatment of human beings if you could. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
@TCO:, That's a different issue to the one that the IP brought up - but no less valid. The community banning process does appear short on the face of it and appears to be populated by people who defer to "ban". What you're not taking into account though is the previous reports on those dreadful boards - the entire process leading to a ban can take many many months, building up slowly. The people who appear to defer to "ban" are the people who have dealt with the case in the past, possibly many times. There's often a long history which isn't as obvious from the thread. Having rebutted the argument from a "hivemind" point of view, I actually agree with you on a personal level. I don't like our community banning process and would like to see it changed. Again, it's not high on my list of priorities, because there are more urgent issues that need sorting on the encyclopedia - I'm working to improve them. On the up side, there's an appeals process to the community ban, a group of uninvolved individuals who will review the arguments passed by the banned editor and is willing to overturn bans, the BASC. WormTT(talk) 08:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
@IP address, I'm going to suggest that part of the reason you feel so strongly about this issue is that you are actually one of the banned editors. I can think of one who talks in a very similar manner to you, she and I had a long conversation earlier this year by email. The only justification I have is that this is just a website, human rights, right of access, opportunity to defend themselves... they're all concepts for the real world, not a squabbling group of people trying to build an encyclopedia. WormTT(talk) 08:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
WTT, if you think I am a banned user, and I have been using this IP since 2009, it is yet another proof that Wikipedia has no means to enforce the bans, and the banning should stop because it does not let people go, but, no, I am not a banned user. I found out about this list, when Russavia was blocked, and was horrified to see people are listed there as vandals. I've already been accused in being a banned user at least two times,probably more. If I sound as somebody you know, well, it happens to me too. Sometimes I read a post and think that it sounds very much as me. The last time it happened yesterday, when I read TCO's post.
The only justification I have is that this is just a website, human rights, right of access, opportunity to defend themselves... they're all concepts for the real world, not a squabbling group of. The only problem with your "only justification " is that this website is one of the most popular websites in the real world. It is read by millions, and most of them are normal and real human beings. What a normal human being would think about somebody banned by "the Wikipedia community"? A normal human being has no means of knowing that "the Wikipedia community" that banned this person is not really the Wikipedia community, not even close to the Wikipedia Community, a normal human being has no means of knowing that a few "cretins, despots and the slightly odd" are allowed to call themselves the Wikipedia community.
Dave, what's the best way to cite figures from a document that will keep moving and breaking my links? A perfect example is Memento Mars 2013. I cite production and sales figures from that regular publication (Memento i mean, not the 2013 part), but they move off the homepage and end up archived, which breaks the links. Can i cite by document or do you have a recommendation? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)08:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Once you link to an archive, that should then stay still - so that's probably the best solution. You could also cite the document, as long as it's clear how to find it. The important thing is that people can check what you've written :) WormTT(talk) 08:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
How do i cite a document exactly? I only see web, news, book, or journal, in the templates tab. Also their archives aren't easy to navigate for a non-French reader. Their archives are not English-friendly, even with Google Translate or their language button. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)09:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Have you tried archive.org? It has a bot that scours the internet and takes copies of pages. we have a whole procedure on WP:LINKROT. Also, how to cite a document... {{cite document}} (effectively cite journal) WormTT(talk) 09:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Use cite journal as you normally would, fill in as much as you can, then change it to cite document? WormTT(talk) 09:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I can get it like this with Cite Journal:
<ref>{{cite journal|title=Memento Mars 2013|date=21 February 2013|year=2013|month=February|page=50|pages=50|url=http://www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com/fr/pagebuilder/downloadpackage/2293?pid=-1|accessdate=5 July 2013}}</ref>
That has no author field though, just first name, last name, and co-author. I need to add PSA Peugeot Citroen really.
Yes, that's what I meant. If you want to change the word "journal" to "document" it will work in exactly the same way, totally up to you of course. It does have an author field, an alias for "last", so you can put in author=PSA Peugeot Citroen, though I'd probably recommend putting them in as the publisher instead. WormTT(talk) 10:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I've done it now thanks to your sage-like guidance. Will this thing still get tagged as a dead link though? (as this will be archived in 5 months when the new version is released) Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)11:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy
Hello User:Worm_That_Turned,
I am aware it is currently 1:19 AM in UK; don't worry, I am not expecting an immediate response. I have been referred by User:Technical_13 to you as a trainer for the CVUA, although I could not find you on the list of trainers for some reason. I am interested in helping to keep Wikipedia a stronger and more accurate place for users to look up information. In terms of the guidelines:
1. "Check that you have already made sufficient mainspace edits (generally around 200) and that you have addressed any previous advice or warnings about your editing."
I have already done so, in case you are wondering.
2. "Find a user who is in your time zone and leave a message on their talk page to request training. If you don't receive a reply within 48 hours, please choose another trainer."
You are within 3-4 hours of my time zone; I am not that concerned. I have heard many positive comments about you, hence wish to be your trainee.
Let me know if you are interested in training me; I would be more than happy to have you as a trainer. Look forward to hearing back from you; see you around. --JustBerry (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi JustBerry. I've never run a CVUA course and never intend to - I'm not sure where User:Technical_13 got the idea that I might, perhaps because I did help out trying to set up that project. As a sitting arbitrator, I've had to turn down a number of users for adoption, something I'm passionate about. - I certainly can't take on a completely different role, sorry. WormTT(talk) 07:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
With all respect, a person who recuses should resist the urge to make comments. I understand how strong the temptation can be, but if you're out, you should be completely out. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
With the greatest respect for all the arbs who have commented so far there, I feel that in the light of the prominence of the defendants and their histories, every possible effort should be made by the committee to address the case as fully as possible - even if they vote to decline it. Many of the editors who voted at the recent arbcom election expressed that they were hoping to see a stronger committee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, to clarify the reason for recusal, I've got a long history with Kiefer.Wolfowitz - I co-wrote the RfC on him, despite his very best efforts to stop me, and soon after his 2011 arbcom voting guide was rather focussed on me. Early in 2012, we buried the hatchet - I don't feel animosity towards him any more, but it's best that I recuse from matters involving him. When I first read through the case, I read it as being about the larger issue of IRC and off-wiki personal attacks, with the incident between Ironholds and Kiefer.Wolfowitz being a catalyst. Recusal on the incident was obvious, but the larger issue seemed like a normal case. NB, arbitrators have recused on specific users before, for example both NYB and Roger Davies recused regarding specific parties in the climate change case. I took advice and slept on the matter, and when I woke in the morning, I decided to fully recuse from the case - it's more appropriate that the other arbitrators handle it. I left my comments up as they had been read by many participants and commented on by at least one. I hope that answers both your questions, I apologise for any inconvenience, this is the first time I've had to recuse, something I wasn't particularly expecting to happen as there are so few situations I would have to. WormTT(talk) 08:09, 10 July 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.
