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.
Kudpung, Bwilkins & Dennis do you mind if we have a bit of a chat about this block? I'm a little concerned by it and I hope that you two can either put my mind to rest or we can come up with a different solution. First off, I've put together a timeline of the key events - let me know if I've got anything wrong.
1st May: WT101 gets blocked (by Bwilkins) for 1 week for hounding an editor (User:Seanharger) to indef block. Started at this edit, which is forthright and shows a lack of understanding, but not a personal attack.
10:00 12 June: WT101 is blocked for two weeks (by JamesBWatson) for "disruptive editing", largely due to refactoring and removing edits on talk pages after being told not to.
17 June: WT101 asks for his block to be lifted early so that he !vote in an RfA. In response to this (and a number of other unblock requests and some forthright comments on his talk page), Nick revokes talk page access for the remainder of the block.
26 June, WT101 comes off his block and comes to my attention due to some oversightable info on his userpage. I remain shocked that so many people involved in this case completely failed to deal with his full name, date of birth and a lot of other identifiable information sitting on his userpage. I look over the history, think he's been rather hard done by at this point, and spoke to TheOriginalSoni to suggest I help guide his adoption. Nick points out that WT101 needs to up his article space count.
That's the relevant history as I see it, up to this weekend. He's had a number of blocks, mostly over not knowing the rules and refusing to back down when they're pointed out to him. He's had a lot of warnings and far too much advice, some good, some poor - all confusing. It's easy for us (knowing which advice is correct) to spot the good and the bad, but he's having to decypher it himself.
Everyone with me so far? Should all be factual stuff above, not too much interpretation. So, here's how I see it - I think that WorldTraveller101 is trying his best in a bad situation, he's got the eyes of some quite strict editors on him. He's following suggestions which are unhelpful, eg Nick telling him to improve his article %, that makes it a goal and the quality can be lost. He tries to follow the example of those who criticise him, eg telling someone else off for hounding after being told off himself, and it backfires. He tries to actually sit down and work on an article, the only consistant advice he's been given - and when he tries to take a little credit for his hard work, he's told his contributions are worthless (haven't improved the article at all). I understand him being a bit upset.
Now, Bwilkins, having said all that, I agree with the block, a block was necessary in this situation. I think your comment that he's a net-negative is unfair, he's done a lot of good work on improving bare urls, and has worked hard on a lot of articles over the past few weeks. I think the timescale is excessive, and would suggest a reduction to 1 month (under normal escalation, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month)
Since Soni is taking a break, WT101 needs a new adopter/mentor. I am not happy with his current suggestion of Arctic Kangaroo, I think it should be someone with a bit more experience in these matters, preferably an admin who can summarily block if required. I would do it myself, but just don't have the time. User:Yunshui jumps to mind, if he's not too busy. I might go an ask him. WormTT(talk) 12:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This comes a bit late Dave, because Dennis and I have already commented there. That said, I'm not entirely adverse to shortening the block somewhat, but we do have a serious case of maturity here and I'm not sure that even mentoring from a very experienced editor will help much. You have more experience with mentoring younger Wikipedia users than I do, but I would evoke a caveat that I often use: While we can teach editors in the ways of Wikipedia, helping them to grow up is not within our remit - only time can help young people develop an adult approach to their projects.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Days late, I'm well aware, but as they say "better late than never". I do agree we have a maturity issue, my wording of "forthright" and his refusal to accept when he's wrong being strong evidence of this. I'm not sure about the best solution to be honest, if I thought we could sort this problem out quickly I would have pushed for a much shorter block length. I think whatever happens the month away will help, but I don't know if it will help enough. It may be that leaving the block length at 3 months, and reviewing after 1 might be a better solution than dropping the block length. WormTT(talk) 12:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that he has the best intentions in the world but his maturity is the problem. It is my opinion that part of the problem is he has too much time during the summer, and that once school starts and he is busy with classes and has to be more selective about the time he spends here, he will have a much better chance at complying with expectations. I personally think that boredom and the desire to "do something" with all the spare time may be playing a role. This probably sounds presumptuous but I think we all have seen the influx of teenagers each summer and some of the problems that this causes, so at a minimum, it is a plausible presumption. Most of these new editors cause no issues, others adapt after being thumped once or twice, others are just too young to make the transition. I am convinced that WorldTraveller101 will eventually become a very good editor as his heart is certainly in the right place, but not for a year or so. It would be easier to help him and monitor his edits if there were not so many of them. This has been an expensive exercise so far, more so than meets the eye, as I've been in contact with his mentor and monitoring his edits myself, although I have chosen to pull back and not approach him on his talk page very often due to the existing flood of advice being more than he can handle. Between now and then, I think the forced "wikibreak" during the summer is best for everyone. I won't labor the issue if another admin feels differently and wants to try something else, but I think that at a minimum, the block needs to extend through the summer period. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER13:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Hey guys, especially Kudpang, I hope you don't mind me budging in here for just this comment. Even if WT101 doesn't get me as an adopter, but I would be glad if Worm adopts him.
@Worm: I believe he can excel under you. You are very experienced, even have OS and CU rights.
AK, my rights mean nothing, I do intend to hand in my entire set of hats on 1 January, 2015, I'll be quite happy to get away from them. I'm afraid the very fact you mention rights like they mean anything exemplifies one of the reasons I think WT101 needs a different adopter, one who has different priorities on the encyclopedia. As to me adopting him, I'm just unable to - I don't have the time to focus on him, nor do I have the time to monitor his edits, as most of my time is taken up with Arbitration work. WormTT(talk) 13:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I mentioned the rights because you were only given them as you are a very trusted editor. I wanted to highlight that, as it makes you even more suitable for adopting WT. ✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎13:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Rights don't show if a user is trusted... there are users who have been told they can't have the rights who I would trust absolutely... I think he needs an admin to adopt him, one who has a clear idea of what he needs to achieve to become a "useful editor" and how he can go about doing it. Carrot and stick. WormTT(talk) 13:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, hopefully one would adopt him. But if none, I would be glad and willing to adopt him. And BTW, I've gotta admit that I'm stupid. What's carrot and stick? ✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎14:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I won't want to interfere too much in this admin's thread. Let's see how it goes. Hopefully Yunshui/another admin adopts WT. ✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎14:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The 3 month timeframe was based on escalation, AND on getting WT through the "summer" to mature a lot more. Sure, feel free reduce it until Sept 3 when school is back in, no issues if you want to wait until school returns. I still hold that at this point, he's a massive timesink and a net-negative. Hell, after being told that he was using an awful lot of admins' time overall in babysitting, he immediately asked if he could be mentored perhaps by an admin ... wait, you're already wasting admin time, now you're asking to waste more? Rather convoluted, isn't it? At one point, he meant well. I'm no longer convinced. He clearly doesn't know a thing about mentoring, FAC's, or indeed personal interactions. Whether he was the partial cause of Soni's break or merely the straw on the camel's back, you don't get away with behaving that kind of dick, then simply saying sorry and everything will be ok ... yeah, this is the internet, but the people on the other end of the wire are just that: people - you need to treat them like you would the person sitting in front of you. This is farrrr too many times that WT has clicked "save page" and tried to retract later. This is not acceptable behaviour in anyone (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
He wouldn't be the first to retract unacceptable comments, I'm sure everyone on this page has done it in the past. By the way BWilkins, thanks so much for asking WT101 a question his page when I told him to stop editing! But I wouldn't consider it forum shopping when the very guide you linked to in your block summary suggests UTRS as an option. Nothing wrong with an uninvolved admin checking it over. WormTT(talk) 14:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
It was a rhetorical question ... if he's silly enough to respond to a rhetorical question, then it says lots :-) ... although UTRS is valid, it's only valid if there's been no other method of requesting unblock available - since he's already had one declined, he should not bee of shopping - it's one or the other, not both (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The point that seems to be getting lost is that mentoring isn't the solution to every behavioral problem. Sometimes, someone is simply not mature enough to benefit from mentoring, regardless of who the mentor is. In those cases, the only solution is a liberal application of "time". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER14:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean any offence, but I'm rather concerned over some of Bwilkins's comments. He can be rather uncivil occassionally, and this is a problem that has been going on for years. To source that, just take a look at his 1st RfA and 2nd RfA, as well as this message. I wasn't offended by it, it was basically him shouting at me "WTF". Definitely there are many other such comments that have slipped me. Earlier today (my time), I had also considered requesting at WP:ANI or wherever appropriate to discuss this, and see whether Bwilkins deserves the admin rights. Some recent actions/statements from him were also considered, but I'm not going to mention any details. However, I reconsidered it when I logged on just now, as I also saw how beneficial he was as an admin. I hope you won't mind me highlighting here, it's something that I hope Bwilkins can improve on, and I have wanted to tell him about this, anyway. ✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎14:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
There's a major difference between "blunt", "uncivil", "required emphasis" and even when I prodded you as you linked above (by the way, there was nothing offensive or uncivil in my message to you that day), nor was any such offensiveness or incivility intended. If you're soooooo taken aback, why would you essentially copy my signature? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I regret to say that I probably don't have enough time to take on an adoptee requiring that level of mentoring - thanks to recent real-world events I'm not on Wikipedia nearly as much as I used to be (or as much as I would like to be). I'm even considering taking semi-permanent retirement very soon, so I'm really not a good choice. Flattered that you'd consider me, though. For what it's worth - since we're on the subject - I find my own thoughts regarding WT101 are in close accord with Dennis': he doesn't need mentoring, he needs maturity, and that's not something I or any other adopter can provide. Yunshui雲水21:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
How about asking user:GorillaWarfare? Otherwise, I think any admin is going to have second thoughts about mentoring WT, and it looks as if he will have to sit out his block, and be content with a bunch of admins watching his edits. If that happens, admins should be able to do that without fear of unnecessarily being accused of bullying. Some admins are getting understandably sensitive and have been laying down their tools recently and retiring - we can't afford to keep losing the active ones. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not willing to mentor WT. If I thought that mentoring would solve the issues for which he was blocked, I would have granted the unblock request. I think it's in WT's best interests, as well as the interests of the project, for him to take some time off. – GorillaWarfare(talk)04:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
That's a shame, but I do appreciate everyone taking the time to comment. I guess I'll see you all in 3 months... WormTT(talk) 07:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users
Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-officeconnect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail(talk • work), Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Academic, peer-reviewed publications are among the highest quality sources available for use by Wikipedians. Articles need not necessarily be based wholly on such publications, and it is acceptable and encouraged for Wikipedians to present other sources in contradiction to a proffered source in an attempt to divine the current scholarly consensus regarding a particular topic. However, it is not appropriate to reject the inclusion of such material simply because one disagrees with the conclusions drawn by the publication's author(s).
Is actually, IMO, incorrect.
What would make more sense is
While neutrally written academic and peer-reviewed sources are strong reliable sources on Wikipedia, they are often not about current events, and thus other sources are frequently of greater use for readers. Partisan articles about current events are, even if peer-reviewed, better used as sources of opinion than for matters of objective fact to be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
Perhaps it's the sentiment rather the specifics that I agree with - but it's certainly too close to ruling on content. Your updated suggestion suffers from the same issue, in my opinion - though again, I do agree with it. At any rate, I'm keeping out of that finding for the time being. WormTT(talk) 13:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Other than my position (which is that a neutral readable article is a reasonable goal - if you read the moderated discussion you will see pretty much where I come from) most of this entire case is "content-driven", with an extraordinarily low threshold for the "evidence" of actual behavioural issues entirely. When folks have to make a big deal of blocks from 5 years ago, one can guess that "straw-grasping" is taking place. There is, moreover, a pretty high likelihood that "my own personal stalker" will drop by [1] Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Re: "tag team" proposal:
The use of a team of like-minded editors in any manner which prevents the arrival of a WP:CONSENSUS following Wikipedia policies and guidelines is prohibited.
The recruiting of a team of like-minded editors in any manner which attempts to create or prevent a WP:CONSENSUS following Wikipedia policies and guidelines is prohibited.
An editor's use of like-minded editors in an attempt to influence a consensus according to their own view is prohibited.
I am unsure how one could prove "recruiting" at all - that would be a much stronger burden to prove than is likely to ever be met. And all editors seek to "influence" other editors - the key question must be whether the editors in some way seek to prevent a normal consensus discussion. I do see why you thought of these alternatives, though. Collect (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Isn't recruiting going to be exactly as difficult to prove as the tag-teaming? If there's only coincidences and never any proof anything is being organised by the two (or more) then they can't be accused of Tag-teaming in good faith can they? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)16:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Nope - just trying to see if ArbCom can finally decide to simplify the boiler-plate they are so attached to <g>. I avoided the use of "tag team" because that, too, is pretty much intrinsically impossible to "prove." Thus my insertion of "in any manner" meaning that it is the repeated use of the same people doing the same things in the same topic which ought to be considered the problem - and the reason why it is a problem is that it interferes with finding a real consensus. Is that a tad clearer? Collect (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
NYB has suggested that he might put a little of Bradspeak into crafting a finding on the matter, so I'll wait and see what he comes up with. Having said that, I've pinged him in this message, so he'll see your wording Collect - which I do think is useful. I do agree that "tag-team" isn't the best description, and there's certainly a bit of a fallacy that crops up - if editors agree with you it's consensus, if they don't it's a tag-team. WormTT(talk) 08:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC) fix link and re-sign WormTT(talk) 08:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick comment - the proposal to ban Kiefer is troubling and quite badly wrong. The suggest of banning a user who was badly treated at the hands of a Wikimedia Foundation staff member is catastrophically wrong. It has all the hallmarks of criminalising the victim and apart from the questionable morality of such an option, the damage it could do to the project is enormous. The actions of the Arbitration Committee are closely scrutinised by members of our community and by people from much further afield, press and academics, and the negative reactions such a decision will create could do untold damage.
There's already a feeling of the community spreading out and clustering, of a caste system developing, with WMF staff at the top, functionaries and arbitrators also at the top, administrators some what further down, and regular editors without advanced permissions feeling really far adrift at the bottom, a decision to penalise such an editor when they were the victim of unsavoury and unacceptable comments by a WMF staffer is only going to reinforce that feeling amongst much of the community and polarise opinion unfavourably against the Arbitration Committee and the project itself.
I don't think Kiefer causes so much disruption that a permanent, indefinite block is the correct course of action anyway, the community is capable of dealing with any issues he raises, some of which are very important, such as the child protection issues. The most recent blocks have all been overturned, either at the behest or with the support of the community and some shouldn't really be on there - I blocked him for what turned out to be a spurious, bad faith outing complaint, for example. The use of his block log as a stick to beat him with is wrong and shouldn't be taking place.
I'm not suggesting no action should be taken against Kiefer, but it needs to be proportionate to the complaint, the comments made by Oliver, the overall level of action taken by the committee in the case and the risk of disruption Kiefer could conceivably cause for the project in future. I'd suggest some sort of admonishment and reminder about civility. The suggestion of a ban is a good example of what is wrong with the project - yes, Kiefer can be unpleasant, overly insistent and ultimately a little disruptive, but it's frequently because he feels he's being ignored and being unduly penalised. The current Arbitration case shows this to be largely correct, the Arbitration committee want to take no responsibility for IRC and personal attacks made via that medium, instead choosing to focus on the results and responses to those personal attacks, but only when they take place on Wikipedia.
I trust you'll take onboard the comments I've made and make a more appropriate series of proposals at the RFAR, for the future of the project, for the benefit Kiefer and for the integrity of the committee itself. Nick (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick. If you look at this case from a very narrow point of view, ignoring all the history leading up to this point, and only look at the incident in question, yes, I agree that a proposal to ban Kiefer would be quite horribly wrong. The incident can be framed as "WMF staff member badmouths user, user finds out, complains, gets taken to arbcom". There is, however, a lot more to it than that. For one thing, "user" is a user who has a long history of casting aspersions with out diffs, disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, gross incivility and so on. There was a reason the WMF staff member was badmouthing him. What's more, there's the way they've both behaved subsequently. One party expressed regret and actively tried to put things right (by moving away from IRC, offering to discuss his issues and showing regret), the other carried on in the same manner at the arbitration pages.
Arbitration isn't about a single incident. If we were only worried about the incident, then the community can (and did) handle it. It's about the history leading up to the incident, the behaviour of the parties over a protracted period, which lead to the incident. Ever since the last Kiefer's block in June, I've seen no other solution but his removal from the encyclopedia until he understands the issues with his actions. I stated that at the administrators noticeboard, and made a suggestion at the workshop too. I'm fully recused on the case and acting as a concerned editor. Anyone else is welcome to propose other solutions at the workshop, I'd be interested to hear them. The unrecused arbitration committee may or may not take my suggestions on board, I've no idea what they think of them, I'm not privy to their discussions. WormTT(talk) 09:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
No, David, you did not consider his points.
He stated that my last blocks had been wrong and quickly overturned, and that it was wrong of you to bring up such blocks. He could have mentioned that I have received so many wrong and patronizing admonishments that a thoughtful administrator has sketched a template to simplify the leaving of such admonishments for the next administrators taking leave of their senses.
He could have mentioned that you have returned to the dishonesty of your RfC/Us, where you accused me of removing antisemitism from articles, etc., and removing material to advanced my political agenda, when I had not.
He could have mentioned why you have not acted on child protection, when you know that your friend has contacted a minor off-Wiki against the parents' wishes, not once but over and over again. Perhaps your other arbs may have similar questions? Kiefer.Wolfowitz09:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer, if you have something to say, say it at the case page, I've no interest in discussing matters with you here. If you believe there to be a child protection issue, send it immediately to the arbitration committee so there can be some action taken. For piece of mind, you can even send it to the "-b" list, which is used for the case, as I would not be included on any emails. WormTT(talk) 15:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hide IP/ Oversight IP
Hi Worm, I'm not sure on the policy for hiding or oversighting edits, but Yenwei showed his/her IP when making this edit. You may want to hide/oversight it, following this. I will leave it up to you. Cheers. ✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎14:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, not too much help - the issue was trying to use the display:none on part of my name so it displayed as WormTT, rather than Worm That Turned. It's no biggie really. WormTT(talk) 09:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I'm Persian Wikipedia users. Complain I'm a bureaucracy and a user. They did not respect the rights of others., Please investigate this issue.
I could tell you what is my problem?
(Translated by Google Translate)
((Note: I'm sorry if I do not speak good English because my native language is Persian))--Boyabed (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Boyabed, as Rschen has said on your talk page, the English Wikipedia Arbcom cannot help you with this matter, nor any matter from the Persian Wikipedia. WormTT(talk) 08:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Tea Party movement case
I received a notice from Callanecc today that there was a proposed motion on an ARBCOM case that affected me.[2] Penwhale notified me of the case 16 July.[3] I did not reply because no comments were made about me. AGK, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and Silk Tork have voted to ban me. Could you please explain why I am part of this case. TFD (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Checkuser?
Dave, are you able to see if these two are the same person? I've seen both attempting to impersonate another editor in the last 36 hours. User:81.178.248.223 attempted to sign as Collect and User:81.178.244.213 attempted to sign Christian's talk page as "walesj". I tried help desk but they suggested a sockpuppet investigation and i don't want the hassle of that since i'll be on holiday friday. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)08:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Cyberpower is right on that, I can't give any info even if I did do a check. What's more, I generally keep out of checkuser at the moment, I haven't had time to really learn the ropes. WormTT(talk) 08:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That's certainly understandable, but I think there was also a misunderstanding there. This was unlikely to have been Collect per his edit summary and i'm not insinuating or assuming any registered wikipedian is one or both of these IPs.
Thanks for no one asking me - and since I am not in London (or anywhere near London), the issue that they might be me is ludicrous utterly. Ban the hoaxers post haste, please. Collect (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Ask you what? This edit summary is pretty clear that it wasn't you. I've not insinuated it was you in any form, in fact i've been clear that i wasn't assuming it was you since then it made even less sense ツ Jenova20(email)13:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Adoption school and Mentorship ... new ideaLab project explores some new ideas!
Hi Dave (worm that turned), it's good to connect here, you were highly recommended as a person I should speak with about a new project with big ideas :) I can see from your pages that you've done a tremendous amount of work with the Adopt-a-user program and I'd love a chance to speak with you about your experience and run some ideas by you. This is very early stage and some good conversations have started around format, design, needs etc here and here . Would you have sometime in the next few days to connect live, via phone, hangout or skype? Cheers! Sylvia slv (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I am impressed with this, notwithstanding the excellent work Dave has done on adoption in the past. I haven't looked at the programme yet, but is this likely to be discussed in Honk Kong in just over a week? If so, please let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, thank you for the encouraging words. I don't know if there will be any sessions/discussions on mentoring or this particular project in Hong Kong (unlikely this is pretty new), but I will enquire and will let you know. All the best, slv (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Sylvia, that sounds like a really interesting idea. Please do send me an email to discuss best modes of communication and timescales. WormTT(talk) 08:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Worm, sorry I scanned your User page but couldn't find an email or way to email you :( could you direct me to next best option for us to connect live? Thanks and looking forward to it! slv (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Along these same lines, slv recruited me to be the Curriculum Lead on the project, and my curriculum is mainly based off of GP's, which is mainly based off of yours. Anyhow, I digress. I'd love to speak with you about this topic and how you think that it can be improved, as I think you're indisputably the foremost adopt-a-user worker on WP. I also have a curriculum question of my own for you of a technical nature - for the final, you designed a bit of a template that gives a "count-down" until test completion, and I anticipate that this will improve adoptee retention due to the attached behavioral contingencies. Can you guide me as to how you made that work and how I can adapt it? --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
And much of my work was based on User:Hersfold's! Still, I've been thinking about redesigning the course, with a little help from User:KoshVorlon who seems to have made a rather good multiple choice answer script. I've said I'll try to get in contact with slv soon, unfortunately I'm in a period of lower activity, so am rather hard to find. Feel free to email me though. WormTT(talk) 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Dumbfounded
How is blocking someone you're in a dispute with and protecting the page in question, esp when the block is ruled 100% bad, not tool misuse? Enquiring minds want to know where the admin standards have gone.PumpkinSkytalk09:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, I was referring more to Bwilkins comment that there is no tool misuse... trying to say that even if there wasn't tool misuse, there may still be a case to answer. I'll clarify my statement. At present, I haven't fully investigated the allegations, I'm waiting to hear a few more statements and going to (hopefully) spend a little time reading the background to each of the incidents. WormTT(talk) 10:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Not involved when he was part of the edit war 2x? And why was prot and block needed? A block mind you that was so over the line it was unanimously overturned within hours, just like Doc J. Are you kidding? And " that I do appreciate Bwilkins' offer to step away from administrative areas" UH, hello, he claimed that game before and failed miserably. Are you and the other arbs naive enough to think he'll be successful this time? The other means of DR don't work at all, esp with someone like Bwilly who never sees the errors of his ways and I refuse to waste my time with them. It's only the threat of losing their bit that gets their attention you know that. High time for AC to stop circling wagons around admins and start instituting some real meaningful reform in dealing with wayward admins. Once again, no one in power gives one tiny crap about the innocent victims strewn all over the place. Once again AC tells incompetent admins they can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. PumpkinSkytalk22:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
@PumpkinSky:, Arbcom is the final step of the dispute resolution process, not the first step. We will not just jump every other step just because you think that they won't work. If you "refuse to waste your time" with steps of dispute resolution, then you have absolutely zero right to come to final step. You've been around long enough to know how wikipedia works. Either use the process or suggest an improvement to the community - don't just ignore it. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Suggesting improvements gets you exactly nowhere here. All one needs to do to understand that is to look at the number of failed proposals for reforming the admin processes here. A flurry of OWN always descends on the person foolish enough to suggest changes (usually led by the same handful of individuals who claim "it's been tried before" and point to a mountain of linked discussions that all seem remarkably similar). And nothing happens, while those who blocked the proposed changes complain that "no one ever wants to fix things." From what I've seen from watching these processes, following the normal routes when dealing with an admin is guaranteed to accomplish exactly nothing. The admin's friends can delay the process, minimize misconduct, and generally wear down the complaining party until they commit some sort of transgression out of frustration. Then they're blocked or banned, and the whole thing continues on just the way it was. Cynical, perhaps, but this closed society (again from what I've seen) tends to function most robustly when it's protecting its own power structure. Just my $.02, which is likely worth less than that. Intothatdarkness13:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I spent well over a year trying to reform the RfA system and didn't have much success, so I do understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, that stems from one of the largest issues with Wikipedia, it's size. People are resistant to change, and when you look for decent consensus you see how resistant to change people are. Look for instance at the current WYSIWYG editor - it's a fantastic idea, overall a benefit to the encyclopedia, but it's being shot down because it's not perfect. To get something changed, you have to really sell it. WormTT(talk) 14:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Actually I think the size argument is something of a red herring. And the VE thing has more to do with the fact that it flat-out didn't work for basic functions like adding citations (something vital for article creation). VE will likely be quite good once its issues are ironed out, but it wasn't up to scratch when it was pushed out. But back to the size issue...I think if you look at most policy discussions here it's usually the same set of folks arguing against change. I've said before that OWN of policy is a much bigger roadblock here than just about any other single issue, and that's clearly on display at those sort of discussions. Even though the theoretical community is large, change can be effectively blocked by a handful of people provided they work quickly to confuse the issue or steer it down dead ends with tons of "we've seen this before" links and long posts. Frankly, I have no hope for real change here. That's why people jump cases to ArbCom...they have no faith in the earlier steps in the process. It should be quite concerning when long-term users start doing this. Intothatdarkness14:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it doesn't work, I KNOW it doesn't work. Suggest change? WTF for? It's pointless. ITD is precisely right, you should be truly concerned when long term editors, esp one that has been at the high and lowest points like me and been an arb, is so fed up and disgusted with the now completely dysfunctional mess on wiki, that they know the one possible solution that will even remotely accomplish anything is to jump cases to AC and get shot down because AC is more concerned with legalistic maneuvering than fixing a major problem that has ripped the community apart and drives large numbers of editors away. Doc J and Bwilkins are just the tip of the iceberg. The largest issue isn't resistance to change, it's complete and total dysfunction. I am sure I don't need to belabor why we're at that stage though. I'm so thoroughly disgusted with the mess that I'm no longer going to even try to suggest changes to a process, system, etc. Dysfunction can reign freely for all I care as long it leaves me alone. AC has lost its compass, it needs to find itself, but that is also hopeless. Even better, AC should be abolished. PumpkinSkytalk20:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Precious again
'support'
Thank you for your generous support wherever it's needed, adopting mentees, proposing candidates, supporting them ("a knack for saying the right thing and getting stuff done"), helping fellow editors to get out of WP:Great Dismal Swamp, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
No, thank you for giving me the kick up the arse. I've not been a drafter on a case yet and that was a valued perspect to get me going. WormTT(talk) 11:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Remove the template asking for more evidence if the page is closed
Hello - you left me a message on my talk - "Hi Smeat75. I've reverted your evidence on the infobox case. I'm hoping we're getting closer to finishing, and believe the evidence page should be closed to facilitate that. WormTT(talk) 14:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)"
Hi, User:Smeat75 The "Evidence presented by {your user name}" template at the bottom? It's just a standard skeleton which is often left in cases after the closure, I'm happy to remove it though to save confusion. You'll note at the top that the closure date for evidence was 31 July, a week ago. WormTT(talk) 14:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Revert of Evidence
Since you are reverted Victoria's evidence, were you aware that she first added it much earlier diff, then removed it after what I consider to be bullying by Pigsonthewing on one of the talk pages, and then added it back? If you must remove all evidence added after the deadline, please be aware that mine was added after midnight GMT (though not yet the next day for me locally). Ruhrfisch><>°°14:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not going to revert everything after the deadline, I felt uncomfortable enough reverting those edits based on a time limit. I'm not generally too keen on the bureacracy and am pretty lenient on such matters, but adding new evidence today, when we should be drawing to a close, is only going to prolong matters - so I drew a line in the sand. I was aware that Victoria posted and removed her evidence earlier, but as it happens, when she first put it there, it was after the deadline. As she appears to have asked permission, I've returned it. WormTT(talk) 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope you don't feel I'm being rude by paying you a visit here.
You said, "I've been doing my best to avoid this, bury my head in the sand in the vague hope that a better solution will come along." I proposed a better solution on the Talk page. ArbCom divides into panels of three members. Each panel is chaired by one of the most active members who haven't recused, and each panel also gets one clerk. Each panel reviews the evidence against 1/3 of the editors at Tea Party movement, boils it down to a brief summary with a few key diffs and recommended sanctions (if any), and presents the report to the entire committee. Thus each individual ArbCom member has 1/3 as much work to do. From that point, if a particular ArbCom member accepts the report at face value, vote for (or against) sanctions accordingly. If that ArbCom member suspects that the report isn't 100% accurate or the recommended sanction isn't 100% fair and in the best interests of protecting the Wikipedia project, then that ArbCom member is still free to conduct an independent review of the evidence.
I suggest this proposal will get the enormous volume of evidence reviewed (relatively) quickly, and the worst offenders will be topic banned (relatively) quickly, while the rest of us can get on with improving the article. Moderated discussion with SilkTork was slowly improving the article, believe it or not; and would do much better, much faster, without these worst offenders bollocksing things up.
I know you don't like that motion. No one does ... except the worst offenders, who are getting off scot free and will be back six months from now, rested and refreshed and ready to do battle. This motion gives a Wikistalker a free pass. At least three tendentious POV-pushers are getting a free pass. They're getting away with stuff that in most other cases would earn them all indefinite topic bans. But no one seems willing to seriously consider this alternative. kind regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Phoenix and Winslow. That's fairly similar to how it's done already - the drafting arbitrators doing the bulk of the work and the rest of the committee comparing reading through and accepting some information on trust. When this case dragged on, I sat down and made notes on many of the editors, trying to work out who deserved what sanctions. The problem is that very few would deserve sanctions on their own, as the disruption to the article has been cumulative, but no individual is to blame. If we went down that route, we would be left in exactly the same position. The only reasonable solution is to take all the old faces away, and let in fresh blood for a little while. WormTT(talk) 06:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that it isn't a reasonable solution. Within your explanation is the seed of the solution that is genuinely reasonable: "The problem is that very few would deserve sanctions on their own[.]" Focus on those Very Few in your mind's eye for just a moment please. I suspect those Very Few are the very same people who have been demonstrated, with abundant, reliable evidence, to be trouble makers on other articles. Therefore it isn't the "cumulative disruption" at the Tea Party article that's to blame for the behavior of the Very Few. It's their own editing habits, because they've consistently displayed unacceptable behavior at other articles where this particular crew of editors isn't present, and cannot be blamed. The current solution simply delays for six months what must be done sooner or later anyway. They are unlikely to improve their behavior. They've been doing this for several years. Remove those Very Few with long-term or indefinite topic bans, and let the rest of us get back to work improving the article.
In particular, I'd like to direct your attention to WLRoss, a POV-pusher with a peculiar POV: believing that the minority viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT should be treated equally with the majority viewpoint. This has been particularly problematic at BLP articles, where the minority viewpoint is, "Those innocent people were really guilty, and it was all a cover-up." See Kerry and Kay Danes, and Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Both were stubbed, one by Jimbo Wales himself, the other by NW and FloNight, because of BLP violations.
WLRoss had a hand in those BLP violations. At Franklin, it was the guiding hand in the violations, and the recently departed Apostle12 was his sidekick. The principal defendant in the Franklin case was a prominent local businessman who happened to be African-American. WLRoss was pushing the minority POV that this individual and his co-defendants, who were never even charged with child prostitution or any of the other related allegations, were actually guilty. I was instrumental in directing administrative attention to the Franklin article, and so WLRoss has been Wikistalking me in retaliation for two years, joining the other side in every content dispute I've encountered, and becoming very tendentious at Ugg boots and related articles.
Surely there is room in the committee's decision making process to remove WLRoss, at the very least, with topic bans on the four article areas I've mentioned. If the committee still chooses to pursue its motion, it would have no effect on that motion and wouldn't cause the slightest ripple (except for the ripples that are already there) with regard to the cries of unfairness. WLRoss and his four topic bans could simply be added on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
According to the EXIF (metadata) that I could look into, there wasn't any copyright information. This doesn't mean they're not copyrighted, just that they aren't in the EXIF data. I would suggest e-mailing them, as most times photos like this have an "all rights reserved - use in media reports okay" or similar requirement, which would not be acceptable on Commons or WP (unless you can make a fair use case). ~Charmlet-talk-19:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem @Jenova20:. If you ever have questions about copyright, the helpers in #wikipedia-en-helpconnect can usually help you - they get questions about that every day, and they're almost always in there. ~Charmlet-talk-20:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. Hopefully they reply at some point as i've asked them to clear my questions up or release one into the public domain if possible ツ Jenova20(email)08:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
@Jenova20: If they're unwilling to public domain one, there's always the CC-BY-SA 3.0, which I've found people are generally much more willing to use, as it requires them to be attributed. @Worm That Turned: Sorry for stealing your talkpage :P ~Charmlet-talk-23:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, they haven't replied yet (must be busy promoting some of their more popular bands) but i'll certainly suggest it if they are unwilling. Thanks a lot ツ Jenova20(email)11:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Important development in Freddo Frog pricing conflict
Why? Has teh Worm eaten Freddo teh Frog? (Put like that, I suppose the reverse is more likely. Or am I confusing frogs with hedgehogs?) Bishonen | talk12:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC).
Need your help and fast!
Hi, haven't asked you for anything in a while (I guess I was a good boy than). My main reason to ask your help now, is because admin @Edison: sent me a message on my talkpage where he deliberately accused me of Welcoming vandals (keep in mind its plural). Now, I decided to become a greeter only 3 days ago, and got this accusation on day 2 with a diff to his vandalism. Now, if you will look carefully, his warning came 3 minutes after my welcome. How did I knew that he was a vandal if he made his edit at the same time I welcomed him? Now, probably would have apologized and live it like that, but he also told me that You do the encyclopedia no favor by uncritically welcoming every vandal. Now tell me, is that an assumption of bad faith on his part? Yes. Does he need to apologize for it? Yes. And when I approached him even with an award, here is what I got: diff and diff. So, can you please intervene, in it, because I am honestly offended by the fact that I thanked 1300 souls in three days period (if not more), and now hearing that I greeted vandals! I demand Mr. Edison to bring me an apology for his assumption of bad faith toward me, his accusation of me greeting vandals (even though it was only one), and his accusation of new users as vandals and assumption of bad faith toward newcomers! Seams fair? Your thoughts?--Mishae (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As I explained in detail to Mishae, the BLP violation in question was an editor making an unreferenced post on a high school page that someone was a porn star. It was tagged as a "possible BLP issue or vandalism" by a robotic monitor or filter at the time it was initially posted, at 17:49, August 21, 2013. That tag was there on the vandalized page when Mishae discovered the edit and went off to welcome the new editor. The timing of my reversion or warning of the vandal a bit later are irrelevant. It is great that he welcomes new editors. I suggested that Mishae take a look at the nature of the contribution by each new editor, in case it is something which should be reverted rather than given thanks for. I did thank Mishae for the barnstar he awarded me, but I said that I had "blocked" rather than "banned" the number of editors he cited, and I linked to an explanation of the difference. I do not feel the need to go around apologizing for my good faith edits, but I do apologize for having hurt his feelings via the wording I chose for the message. That said, I still encourage him to see what the edit is, and to take the time to note if a filter has said the new edit is a likely policy violation, rather than just uncritically "welcoming" all. since sometimes a reversion is needed, and a different message to a new editor who starts off with a vandal edit might produce a better outcome. Edison (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Edison, for understanding that my feeling were hurt. You know, here is what we should do: Its difficult for me to catch up with the contributions because when you click backspace the Recent changes list updates in a second, so I need to decide weather or not the current contributor deserves a welcome. Do however note that I welcome all by default, since that's the tool that I use. I don't use Twinkle, or Huggale, to warn or revert vandalism, that should be yours or someone else's job. Plus, I believe that some vandals might become a good contributors and I saw at least one page with a userbox This user is a repelled vandal. Which means, we all suppose to assume good faith even if the other side does not. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which means that if one welcomes everyone, the other user should warn those that don't deserve one, not the users that welcome everyone. Again, I am thanking you for understanding and I do hope that all of us will continue with our own task: Me, welcome everyone, you warning vandals. P.S. Everyone have their own skills and all are good. P.S.2: I have more than 3 windows of Wikipedia open annually, but even that's not enough to check on vandalism.:(--Mishae (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Indefinite break
Just saw you saying you'd be going on indefinite wikibreak soon. I do hope that, as we often repeat about blocks, indefinite is not infinite in this case. It'd be sad for Wikipedia not to have its favourite Worm around. :-( Heimstern Läufer(talk)11:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Very kind of you to say so Heimstern. I just don't have enough time at the moment for Wikipedia, but for the time being I'm confident that Worm will ReTurn. WormTT(talk) 11:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Good to know ;) - Until then, I will cherish as your legacy to the project the wisdom of "Infoboxes, in general, appear to be a good thing." A brave statement, thank you, it made my day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't plan to "use" it, I just enjoy! (I responded in short to some of the "more", and don't want to occupy your precious time by responding in long to the "more" - only if you want it.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
"If you stay with this game long enough, the worm is bound to turn."
You'd better come back when you're ready Dave! This pond tree needs more big fish worms that abide by the rules and are respected. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)12:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dave. I fully understand when RL get in the way of Wikipedia. I've just returned from Hong Kong to a monumental workload. I hope however that you'll still be able to contribute to the office we elected you for at Arbcom before your term expires. Enjoy your break, and best regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
So, are you taking a leave from ARBCOM, too? Will you be replaced or just taking a Wikibreak? I'm just trying to understand the process when an ARBCOM member takes an indefinite leave.
I hope you have a restful time away from the busyness of WP! LizLet's Talk15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
@Liz:, as NYB says, there's a discussion at that page, which explains things slightly better. I will be going inactive on Arbcom cases and discussions, meaning that I won't be checking or replying to emails, nor commenting on cases. I won't be replaced. If I'm still inactive towards Christmas, then I would step down to allow my seat on the committee to be available. However, I find that very unlikely - my Wikibreak is a blip due to real life being more important. I'm not sure how long the blip will last, hence "indefinite", but I have every intention of returning. WormTT(talk) 08:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for the kind words, here and elsewhere. It's nothing bad that kept me away, just life. Indeed, I'm not quite ready to get fully back up to speed, but will be a little more active than 0 edits. WormTT(talk) 12:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - September 2013
Note: If you would like opt out from receiving future newsletters, please place a note next to your name on the project's participant list.
Project News
The project has been updated with new Goals, with target numbers of 500 each for Featured and Good articles, and for 10% of all project-related articles to be improved to B-Class or better.
A new Welcome squad section has been added to the project's main page. If interested, please sign on!
A new DYK articles page has been created listing food and drink articles that have been featured on Wikipedia's Main page as Did you know entries. Please add new food and drink DYK articles to the list!
The project's Top-level importance nominations page has several new entries. New additions and discussion are always welcome.
A proposal to create a Chocolate Task Force is currently being discussed.
The new ' was created in June 2013.
The Coffee portal was significantly expanded in May–June 2013.
Please see the project's Tasks and To do sections for project and article tasks, and feel free to update the lists with new entries.
Please feel free to contribute to the creation of the newsletter's next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome!
The project's previous newsletter was published in August 2008. Its reintroduction has been performed in hopes to increase project participation. Apologies if you did not wish to receive this newsletter (see opt-out message at top).
Also, in July 2013, (at least) 41 new food/drink-related articles were created. To view a listing of them, see New articles. Also, please add new articles to the list when discovering them!
I have high respect for Smerus, author of FA Richard Wagner.
@Giano: the experience you describe, what date is it? I came late to the discussions, and - repeating - the contributions of Andy seemed much less "heated" than those of others, - please look yourself.
@NW: your wording "ban the worst offenders" reminds me of "arrest the usual suspects". As one of them, I urge you to go beyond suspicion, to facts.
I have high respect for Tim riley, won him back to the project, work with him and am proud to be considered helpful by him [5], [6]. Tim asked Andy for help with an infobox, asked about his health and greeted him on his return, - if we had more of that attitude the "problem" was solved."
Instead: we lost two editors already (Ched and Smerus). I left two projects to not cause more trouble. What else could I do to prevent more damage? Or you? For one more thought, follow the link on top of my user page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gerda. Disputes like this lead to editors leaving. It might be loudly, it might be quietly. It might happen during a big decision, or they might just fizzle out. Life outside Wikipedia is regularly a factor too.
You ask what could be done to prevent more damage? Well, making the disputes less unpleasant would be a start. How can that be done? Well, one side could just stop, walking away - That would be, of course, be totally unfair. Everyone could be more respectful of everyone else. Seems obvious, but it seems to me that all the participants stopped seeing each other as people with legitimate viewpoints. I do mean everyone.
Alternatives could be explored. If people don't like aesthetics, why not look making infoboxes more aesthetically pleasing. Even across languages infoboxes look very different - see English, Spanish, Dutch or Polish versions of the Terry Fox article. If there's too much information at the top of a page, look into transclusions. If there's too much incorrect information agree what information you can be certain of. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure the very clever members of the community could work out more. WormTT(talk) 12:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I walked away from the two projects where an infobox on a symphony or an opera are considered "contentious". Please name one discussion you would describe as "unpleasant"? I don't remember any, - tedious, repetitive, yes. - I am concerned that you think that I stopped seeing another editor as a person with a legitimate viewpoint. Again I would ask you to show me one instance. If you looked at my user page (I hope you did) you saw "Every editor is a human being", also quite high up. - I am afraid - and really mean it - that some voting seems more based on summaries and block logs than looking at the evidence of actual recent discussions. One is here and here, trying to find good parameters and make the aesthetics more pleasing, partly successful already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that tedious and repetitive discussions are pleasant? I would suggest that any "tedious, repetitive" discussion is unpleasant. Different editors bring a different set of factors to discussions. Some are rude, some are relentless. I'm sure there are other factors. Sometimes you have to agree to differ and if editors are repeating the same argument, then perhaps they've stopped accepting that the other view point is legitimate. WormTT(talk) 13:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Can we please look at one discussion, to illustrate what you mean? (My English, or lack of it: I meant "repetitive" not within the same discussion but that the same argument is repeated in different discussions, for example that an infobox is redundant. Well, it has to be, or would be not correct.) You pick a discussion? Otherwise I suggest Talk:Don Carlos. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not think that will help, Gerda, as the issue is largely that these points have carried across so many discussions and I'm here to look at the big picture. I, too, meant discussions were repetitive across groups of the same, not on an individual basis. Indeed, there are few discussions which are problematic on an individual basis. But the sheer volume of discussions, regularly repeating the same arguments - that's where things become unpleasant. Do you see? WormTT(talk) 13:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Dave, is there anything community-decided on the reliability of the Mail Online or Daily Mail as a source? I have someone trying to argue a point on my userpage and i'm sure there was a discussion about it once or twice and its reliability. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)08:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Unless anything has changed, no, there has not been a community decision on the matter overall, mostly because it's not completely unreliable. There's a judgement call to be made. However, it's something that comes up time and again at the reliable sources noticeboard. I think the problem is that it regularly editorialises and those editorial opinions then find their way into Wikipedia, where they have no place. It's not so much the newspaper that's the problem, but the content that's being put in. WormTT(talk) 08:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I've been performing (mostly minor) edits for a few months and I want to become a more effective editor. I don't know exactly how to go about this, but would you like to adopt me? You seem to have a good track record adopting new users. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The project now has a new bot-generated list of new food and drink articles at AlexNewArtBot – New food and drink articles. A link to the page has been added to the project's main page.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vivamus facilisis diam at odio. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, lacus ligula molestie metus, non feugiat orci magna ac sem. Donec turpis. Donec vitae metus. Morbi tristique neque eu mauris. Quisque gravida ipsum non sapien. Proin turpis lacus, scelerisque vitae, elementum at, lobortis ac, quam. Aliquam dictum eleifend risus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam sit amet diam. Suspendisse odio. Suspendisse nunc. In semper bibendum libero.
Proin nonummy, lacus eget pulvinar lacinia, pede felis dignissim leo, vitae tristique magna lacus sit amet eros. Nullam ornare. Praesent odio ligula, dapibus sed, tincidunt eget, dictum ac, nibh. Nam quis lacus. Nunc eleifend molestie velit. Morbi lobortis quam eu velit. Donec euismod vestibulum massa. Donec non lectus. Aliquam commodo lacus sit amet nulla. Cras dignissim elit et augue. Nullam non diam. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean vestibulum. Sed lobortis elit quis lectus. Nunc sed lacus at augue bibendum dapibus.
Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project.
I've been rather lax on my mentoring over the past year, since working on Arbcom. I wasn't aware that it had got so bad, I'll drop him a note. WormTT(talk) 07:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a big place, your name was right there, forest through the trees. Too bad nobody noticed your name a couple of weeks ago. Someone to trust when facing the entire world. Thank you very much.Sammy D III (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Manchester meetup
Newsflash! The location of this weekend's Manchester meetup has been moved back to Wetherspoons on Princess Street - the Ducie Arms isn't open on Sundays! Can you believe that?! Bazonka (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Park there anyway! If they're not open, there's unlikely to be anyone policing the car park (although you should check anyway). Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)19:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not the Ducie's parking, it's the university's... plus it's a fair old walk to the new pub. We've got our Manchester parking spot, don't worry... but it does mean we'll have to pay an extra 50p. Grumble grumble. WormTT(talk) 07:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. You complain when we go somewhere new, and then you complain when we go somewhere old. Sheesh! (Wetherspoons is probably cheaper than the Ducie though, so you should make your 50p back.) Bazonka (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Not that I suppose you care much, but yes, I did notice. ANI really works weirdly sometimes. Look at the timestamps here: [7][8]. And yet I'd swear on a stack of bibles that your post wasn't there when I saved mine, and I didn't get an edit conflict. Just mentioning it. Bishonen | talk16:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC).
And so do Wikipedia editors. Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously, Worm, I do not believe that "enough is enough" is enough. Indefinite blocks are for very specific purposes, and no purpose was served by this one. "you impotent sanctimonious arse hole" and "why don't you just fuck off"--that's what got him from three months (already draconion and out of measure) to indefinite? Cooler heads should prevail in this kind of situation, and that extension won't cool anything down; honestly, the more I think about it the more puzzled I am. The three-month block was just punitive, but yours doesn't even have the benefit of righteous anger. Blocks are supposed to prevent drama and disruption, aren't they? Let me propose a thought experiment: what if you had undone Fram's block? Would we have more disruption or less than we do know? Crazy experiment, no doubt, but this liberal use of the block button reminds me of a proverb about someone holding hammers and seeing nothing but nails. I supported your RfA and B and I can't remember having ever questioned a decision you made, but there's a first time for everything I suppose. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Drmies, I appreciate your comments. I'm on my phone at the moment it will address these comments in a short while. WormTT(talk) 18:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Worm, you don't have to--I think I'm just venting--something I just admonished one or two others for. I'm really trying to step away and log off and do something else for a while. I'm sure you had a good reason for doing what you did; you don't need me to question you; my apologies. Don't interrupt a phone call, and don't let me redirect your attention from what's really important right now, which is the cooling of heads and the finding of a solution, if a solution can be found. I got nothing, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Anyone and everyone are always welcome to vent here, especially regarding my actions! The three month block that Fram imposed was wrong. It wouldn't help the situation, it wouldn't improve things in the long term. Eric himself said that defined blocks wouldn't change him (though I'll need to look up the diff). However, Eric did need to be blocked for a while to get some sort of solution together. If we (as the community) can come up with a solution, which either Eric can agree to or he can't - then we might actually have a permenant solution. So indefinite is the right length here. I'm not angry, I'm not offended by Eric's comments I just believed that the situation was untenable and shutting it down for discussion might ... just might... help. I'm willing to face the music on that. WormTT(talk) 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't doubt your motives, Worm, but think of it this way: an indefblock doesn't just shut things down for conversation: it fundamentally changes the debate. One one level, it changes the debate by disallowing the blocked editor from participating (even though it was unlikely that Eric would've joined it anyway). On another, it changes the default outcome of the debate: it changes it from "Do we block this guy or let things be?" to "Do we unblock this guy or let things be?" It changes the default outcome. On a third, althoguh I know you don't subscribe to this view, there are others who equate an indefblock with a ban (see also the people on AN who said that Eric was already banned). The instinctive assumption becomes "this guy is a bad egg", and it shifts the burden of proof to the people who disagree with that, and I don't think that's fair; the burden of proof should be on the people who do think the guy is a bad egg. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. I still say that a more permenant solution needs to happen and I believe I did everything I could to give the community a chance to put one forward. WormTT(talk) 18:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
As you probably know, I've often secretly chided you for being too lenient. But you've been bold now and your were walking on eggs when you made this block; there will be people who agree with it and those who won't. Those who won't are probably mostly the ones who go around Wikipedia sowing this perpetual anti-admin paranoia that is doing more harm to the project than all us admins could do together if we tried. Those who agree with you will say (at least to themselves), "Well, someone had to do it, but I'm glad it wasn't me". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I note that you high ranking admins have loads of time to make foolish drama inducing blocks that result in inordinate time wasting. Why is it so difficult to get United Visual Artists moved to my userspace so I can work on it? Am I mistaken in thinking we are here to build an encyclopedia? And as far as Kudpung and his "anti-admin paranoia" comments, you'll note that he insisted on giving me a Google translated copy of the article from Italian Wikipedia which itself had been Google translated from the original English version. Apart from the attribution issues, which I know Kww is VERY concerned about, I'm unclear on why any admin would act in such an unhelpful manner? Is an RfC needed for you guys or what? Seems like more time wasting to me, but if you gents can't bring yourselves to help out then I think you should step down from your admin roles. Thanks for your kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You'll need to learn a little more patience Candleabracadabra. You only asked for it to be undeleted 2 hours ago, and the page is backlogged. I've done this for you in any case. Anyway, I've explained myself and how I tried to keep dram to a minimum. I advise you read some of the "drama" and see what actually happened. WormTT(talk) 08:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I asked for it quite a while ago on user:Bbb23's talk page. He and a second administrator, Kudpung, have been active since. Kudpung directed me to "back translate" from the Italian Wikipedia article, which he acknowledges was itself translated from the original English version that was speedily deleted. A member of the group was asking Bbb23 about the article and why it was deleted. The response he or she received epitomises what's wrong with Wikipedia and why we have trouble attracting and keping competent editors. I have some patience, but it's not unlimited. I was under the impression that assisting good faith editors in a collegial and collaborative fashion was part of the role of administrators. If I am mistaken I hope you will explain. Candleabracadabra (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Notification of Arbitration request
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Baiting and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
NYB and Courcelles believe that the case request will be archived procedurally. On another subject ... it would be nice if the AN threads were a little easier to follow. Does this mean that you're withdrawing your proposal? If so, I'll stick a "discussion" tag on it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I still think it's the best proposal out there, I'd prefer it was left there and closed with the rest of the thread. What I meant is that I won't be actively pushing the proposal, responding to the criticisms from both sides. Thanks for asking though. I'd have no problem with the earlier proposal having the discussion tag though, and User:Adjwilley may not mind his closed either. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Little user not know if be precedent for admonishment of admin by motion? Haha. Surely many times! See how even Bishzilla herself admonished by motion for (very good) admin action![9] ([Tolerantly:] Show silliness of little 2009 committee.) Little Worm please add note to comment here, dispel ignorance! bishzillaROARR!!17:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC).
Of course. The big bad zilla would of course be the precedent. It's a bad precedent. A stupid stupid stupid precedent. Admonishment by motion? ... I couldn't roll my eyes more. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Since it's "your" block, I'll ask: mind if I just unblock him? I don't think there's going to be much of a consensus one way or the many others on AN, so just letting him "out" seems to be the status quo option. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a note, it's very unlikely you'll catch Worm this late at night... you know the old saying about worms and earliness. It may be nine hours or so before he sees this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
SB beat me to it ... but yea ... the 24 hours are up. I'd like to unblock, but I have a ton of respect for you and I don't want to subvert what you're trying to do. Can we please unblock? I think the AN thread would support that. — ChedZILLA00:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I've no problems with an unblock, I was planning to do one myself at some point. Apologies I wasn't here to give my blessing, but I'm glad to see User:Mojo Hand did the honours. WormTT(talk) 07:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Notification of Arbitration request
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Baiting and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
NYB and Courcelles believe that the case request will be archived procedurally. On another subject ... it would be nice if the AN threads were a little easier to follow. Does this mean that you're withdrawing your proposal? If so, I'll stick a "discussion" tag on it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I still think it's the best proposal out there, I'd prefer it was left there and closed with the rest of the thread. What I meant is that I won't be actively pushing the proposal, responding to the criticisms from both sides. Thanks for asking though. I'd have no problem with the earlier proposal having the discussion tag though, and User:Adjwilley may not mind his closed either. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Since it's "your" block, I'll ask: mind if I just unblock him? I don't think there's going to be much of a consensus one way or the many others on AN, so just letting him "out" seems to be the status quo option. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a note, it's very unlikely you'll catch Worm this late at night... you know the old saying about worms and earliness. It may be nine hours or so before he sees this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
SB beat me to it ... but yea ... the 24 hours are up. I'd like to unblock, but I have a ton of respect for you and I don't want to subvert what you're trying to do. Can we please unblock? I think the AN thread would support that. — ChedZILLA00:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I've no problems with an unblock, I was planning to do one myself at some point. Apologies I wasn't here to give my blessing, but I'm glad to see User:Mojo Hand did the honours. WormTT(talk) 07:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Not that I suppose you care much, but yes, I did notice. ANI really works weirdly sometimes. Look at the timestamps here: [11][12]. And yet I'd swear on a stack of bibles that your post wasn't there when I saved mine, and I didn't get an edit conflict. Just mentioning it. Bishonen | talk16:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC).
And so do Wikipedia editors. Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously, Worm, I do not believe that "enough is enough" is enough. Indefinite blocks are for very specific purposes, and no purpose was served by this one. "you impotent sanctimonious arse hole" and "why don't you just fuck off"--that's what got him from three months (already draconion and out of measure) to indefinite? Cooler heads should prevail in this kind of situation, and that extension won't cool anything down; honestly, the more I think about it the more puzzled I am. The three-month block was just punitive, but yours doesn't even have the benefit of righteous anger. Blocks are supposed to prevent drama and disruption, aren't they? Let me propose a thought experiment: what if you had undone Fram's block? Would we have more disruption or less than we do know? Crazy experiment, no doubt, but this liberal use of the block button reminds me of a proverb about someone holding hammers and seeing nothing but nails. I supported your RfA and B and I can't remember having ever questioned a decision you made, but there's a first time for everything I suppose. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Drmies, I appreciate your comments. I'm on my phone at the moment it will address these comments in a short while. WormTT(talk) 18:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Worm, you don't have to--I think I'm just venting--something I just admonished one or two others for. I'm really trying to step away and log off and do something else for a while. I'm sure you had a good reason for doing what you did; you don't need me to question you; my apologies. Don't interrupt a phone call, and don't let me redirect your attention from what's really important right now, which is the cooling of heads and the finding of a solution, if a solution can be found. I got nothing, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Anyone and everyone are always welcome to vent here, especially regarding my actions! The three month block that Fram imposed was wrong. It wouldn't help the situation, it wouldn't improve things in the long term. Eric himself said that defined blocks wouldn't change him (though I'll need to look up the diff). However, Eric did need to be blocked for a while to get some sort of solution together. If we (as the community) can come up with a solution, which either Eric can agree to or he can't - then we might actually have a permenant solution. So indefinite is the right length here. I'm not angry, I'm not offended by Eric's comments I just believed that the situation was untenable and shutting it down for discussion might ... just might... help. I'm willing to face the music on that. WormTT(talk) 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't doubt your motives, Worm, but think of it this way: an indefblock doesn't just shut things down for conversation: it fundamentally changes the debate. One one level, it changes the debate by disallowing the blocked editor from participating (even though it was unlikely that Eric would've joined it anyway). On another, it changes the default outcome of the debate: it changes it from "Do we block this guy or let things be?" to "Do we unblock this guy or let things be?" It changes the default outcome. On a third, althoguh I know you don't subscribe to this view, there are others who equate an indefblock with a ban (see also the people on AN who said that Eric was already banned). The instinctive assumption becomes "this guy is a bad egg", and it shifts the burden of proof to the people who disagree with that, and I don't think that's fair; the burden of proof should be on the people who do think the guy is a bad egg. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. I still say that a more permenant solution needs to happen and I believe I did everything I could to give the community a chance to put one forward. WormTT(talk) 18:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
As you probably know, I've often secretly chided you for being too lenient. But you've been bold now and your were walking on eggs when you made this block; there will be people who agree with it and those who won't. Those who won't are probably mostly the ones who go around Wikipedia sowing this perpetual anti-admin paranoia that is doing more harm to the project than all us admins could do together if we tried. Those who agree with you will say (at least to themselves), "Well, someone had to do it, but I'm glad it wasn't me". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I note that you high ranking admins have loads of time to make foolish drama inducing blocks that result in inordinate time wasting. Why is it so difficult to get United Visual Artists moved to my userspace so I can work on it? Am I mistaken in thinking we are here to build an encyclopedia? And as far as Kudpung and his "anti-admin paranoia" comments, you'll note that he insisted on giving me a Google translated copy of the article from Italian Wikipedia which itself had been Google translated from the original English version. Apart from the attribution issues, which I know Kww is VERY concerned about, I'm unclear on why any admin would act in such an unhelpful manner? Is an RfC needed for you guys or what? Seems like more time wasting to me, but if you gents can't bring yourselves to help out then I think you should step down from your admin roles. Thanks for your kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You'll need to learn a little more patience Candleabracadabra. You only asked for it to be undeleted 2 hours ago, and the page is backlogged. I've done this for you in any case. Anyway, I've explained myself and how I tried to keep dram to a minimum. I advise you read some of the "drama" and see what actually happened. WormTT(talk) 08:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I asked for it quite a while ago on user:Bbb23's talk page. He and a second administrator, Kudpung, have been active since. Kudpung directed me to "back translate" from the Italian Wikipedia article, which he acknowledges was itself translated from the original English version that was speedily deleted. A member of the group was asking Bbb23 about the article and why it was deleted. The response he or she received epitomises what's wrong with Wikipedia and why we have trouble attracting and keping competent editors. I have some patience, but it's not unlimited. I was under the impression that assisting good faith editors in a collegial and collaborative fashion was part of the role of administrators. If I am mistaken I hope you will explain. Candleabracadabra (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Italian
I'm just letting you know that I found no reason to restore the article and am under no obligation whatsoever to do so. I helpfully provided Candleabracadabra with a very accurate Google translation in a user sub page from another identical article from another Wikipedia instead, which he could easily have worked from. Because the article was blatantly promotional, I would have mailed him a copy but he has chosen not to be accessible by email. I did not provide him with a copy of an Italian article, and the gratitude he shows was to vandalise my user page (reverted seconds later by Voceditenore). For more background, please see User talk:Bbb23#Studio article deletion. Let's get the facts straight please, Worm. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Facts straight? I'm sorry if I came across as complaining about what you did - I genuinely meant to apologise that my actions over-rode yours. Had I seen your comment, I wouldn't have undeleted, but there wasn't anything at REFUND to say it had been looked at yet. I absolutely agree that your actions were acceptable and I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes. WormTT(talk) 09:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It's troubling that you think pointing a good faith editor to an article in Italian Wikipedia (translated from an article created in English) and telling them to "back translate it" is okay. Apart from the attribution problems, are you suggesting that editors should resort to translating from foreign articles when an English version is available but an admin can't be bothered to undelete? Please clarify your position on this matter. As for Kudpung's other lies, I won't dignify them with a response. But if civility was truly enforced he would be blocked instead of your assinine disruption by blocking another good faith administrator facing obstacle and baiting from ne'er do wells. What a fucking mess. Candleabracadabra (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Candleabracadabra, the article has been undeleted, you're working on it. The rest of your comment is unhelpful, please just accept the outcome and move on. WormTT(talk) 10:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Candle, if your discussion with the deleting admin showed any signs of the WP:BATTLE you're waging here, I wouldn't have responded either. Wikipedia has no time limit ... and if the deleting admins chose not to undelete (for whatever reasons), then you simply move politely to the next location (which is WP:REFUND. Those requests may take days to action - an extra couple of days without this article being undeleted was not going to cause harm or death to someone. Rome wasn't built in a day ES&L11:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
If admins can't abide by basic standards of civility and collegiality, why the hell are they doling out enormous time wasting jabs at competent editors? We don't need to "back translate" from the Italian Wikipedia to know that these Mussolini types should get their egos in check and do a better job of keeping in mind why we're here. It's an affront that it takes days to get deleted articles restored when all these jibbering naboobs have so much time to play MMORPG. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess you didn't read the WP:BATTLE ... already invoking Godwin's law as well? Priceless. So, someone somewhere might have made a mistake ... now you want them to hang. FantasicoES&L12:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
