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 developed a wiki page for Prof. Richard V. E. Lovelace, who works at Cornell University (where I am working too).
I decided that he is a significant person in Astrophysics, and his discoveries should be described.
Only specialist can describe his work. And I did. My work is not paid and I do not have any advantages of any kind from this contribution.
However, I am a new in wiki and probably my wiki page was not professional. Someone blocked my entrance and re-wrote the contribution in more professional way.
The main scientific contributions are there, I am satisfied with the modified wiki page. No mistakes in Astrophysics, which is good.
It is OK if someone else will be responsible for this contribution.
However, I see a few minor mistakes, which a new person can easily improve.
I would like to help with this.
Other issue is that it would be nice to remove the warning sign in the beginning of the wiki page.
The content now is professional and neutral. Can you simply remove it?
(talk page stalker)@Marinaromanova55: Thank you for the page! (I see you also created it as a draft). There was a discussion about you at the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents after you continued editing the article without responding to concerns raised on your talk page; didn't you see the comments on your talk page? I'm relieved you say the astrophysics is still correct, since I edited the page despite having an extremely inadequate education in science. Can you please post at Talk:Richard V. E. Lovelace with the changes you want made? And please, can you tell us the sources you originally used for the life information you had in your version of the article? It's particularly important for an article on a living person to be based entirely on reliable sources, which is why all the material about his background and education was removed, but biographical information is good to have, which is why I put in what I was able to source. Further, your version of the article suggests that English may not be your first language. Foreign-language sources are perfectly acceptable in the English Wikipedia, and we prefer to use third-party sources as much as possible, rather than just his own publications and Cornell University sources as almost all the sources are now; since he collaborated with Russian-speaking scholars, are there any Russian-language sources you can add? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Worm, I saw your comment at the case and that you was considering to ban me from the english wikipedia. I just want you to get the full picture.
Yes, I was involved in an arb case 12 years ago. But what is important to take into consideration here was that it was me vs one disruptive sockpuppeteer and his sockpuppet, it was proven after the case that the first one controlled the other, and they were both indeffed for abusing multiple accounts:
[1][2], I explained this here:[3]
I realize this isn't a good excuse for my own behavior at that point of time, but what is also important here is that this was 12 years ago and I had just gotten a Wikipedia account. I did not know the rules here and did not know how things worked. I did not know what "edit warring" was or how you was supposed to behave when contributing.
I went more then 9 years without a single block until Valereee recently blocked me 2 times in 1 month over Syrian Kurdistan. One of them was for discussing a source at a talkpage and the other one for saying that a user was cherry picking sources.
I wouldn't be opposed to you extending Rich's block to indefinite since he clearly isn't ready to edit until such time as he acknowledges his editing restrictions and promises to abide by them instead of criticising others. Heymid (contribs) 13:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Heymid, I think that Rich should be given a chance to think on the advice given - especially firmly by User:Hammersoft in the last few minutes. He has put more into this project than many and that does deserve to be acknowledged. If an indefinite block is the right solution, I will not be taking that action lightly. WormTT(talk) 13:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi WTT, I think there are some ambiguous timing issues with your current proposal that could bog down discussion if you go live, taking away from discussion the real point. Might be worth to work through scenarios regarding admins/former admins in various timing states to see if the change is what you are expecting. Documentating these clearly could help avoid drudging though that side topic. PRA="Poll to retain adminship" below. Some states include:
Current active admins (your primary collective group)
This is the primary group that should see the change - no concerns.
Former admins that are currently available for summary restoration at BN, whose RFA's were 10+ years ago
Do they get refused at BN and told they may only regain access via PRA or RFA?
Former admins that are currently available for summary restoration at BN, whose RFA's were <10 years ago
Assume no change here?
Admins that resign, whose RFA's were >10 years ago, but never run in to normal inactivity (e.g. they make 1 edit a year)
Will they be able to use PRA forever?
Will the 5 year rule apply? (The timings related to that rule are already a headache)
Admins that ignore or refuse the poll and are considered resigned, whose RFA's were >10 years ago, but never run in to normal inactivity (e.g. they make 1 edit a year)
Will they be able to use PRA forever?
Will the 5 year rule apply? (The timings related to that rule are already a headache)
Current admins that submit a PRA prior to their 10 year RFA anniversary, but then "fail" the PRA.
Do they actual get desysoped? There is nothing saying they do.
If they do, then what? (do they need an RFA? Can they try another PRA? Really don't think we would want them showing up at BN asking for summary restoration.)
Current admins that submit a required PRA for their 10 year RFA anniversary, but then "fail" the PRA.
Do they actual get desysoped? There is nothing saying they do.
If they do, then what? (do they need an RFA?)
The new wording doesn't actually say that a successful PRA resets the 10 year clock.
Xaosflux, thanks, I don't think there is anything concerning there, as I have clear answers to all of those questions in my head, but I'll tweak the wording to clarify on the proposal page. Thanks also for your edit to the list which was trashed by my bot. I'll be re-making it, I had ever intention of doing the same.
Also, now it's a bit more obvious, any talk page stalkers, I'd welcome your thoughts on the page linked in the title and I'm hoping to propose this month WormTT(talk) 20:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to move this whole discussion there, thought you were about to "go live" and was hoping to head off some of these 'technicalities' that could detail the main point! — xaosfluxTalk20:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Xaosflux. I've made some tweaks - and I'm expecting to put it live sooner rather than later, since my hand has rather been tipped. Largely, I'm hoping to keep to current rules - so things like "5 year rule" being a headache - well, that needs to be sorted else where, I still intend to use it. I'm intending PRA to be used in all situations over 10 years where admin would previously have been able to request adminship back directly. I've also made it clear that the individual does get desysopped - there will be only one eligible PRA - after which it will be a fresh RfA. WormTT(talk) 09:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I would expect the 'crat to resign, but it wouldn't need to happen, per Heymid. I think we're looking at edge cases there though - which could be dealt with either way depending on community opinion. WormTT(talk) 13:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Heymid I agree in principle (of course); while others feel that losing trust as an administrator means one has last trust as a bureaucrat or that there is a dependency (it was made dependent in desysop2021 proposal, for example). I think there’s a difference between "this user doesn’t want to be an administrator (anymore) but is or would be a great bureaucrat" and "this user has lost touch with the community and should no longer be an administrator but the process is silent on their higher-order privileges, so let’s have an awkward situation". While it’s an edge case, it would present very early in such a process. –xenotalk13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Username change
Hello, my name is Rafael Reese, and I am requesting that my user name be changed to rafaelreese38. I was rushing and I didn't go through the page carefully before picking the user name. rafaelreese38 is the user name I use for everything; my new user name is always in small case. I would appreciate it very much if you can please help me change my old user name to my requested new one before I continue writing my page. Thank you very much for helping me with this !!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafael A. Reese (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Stalking WTT's talk page - sorry 'bout that! Anyways, if you would like to change your username globally, you can go here. But do you want a global rename or just on Wikipedia? –Wizdzy01:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Wizdzy, WTT is already rather taken and certainly shouldn't be done from the mainspace. However, some kind soul decided that User talk:WTT should redirect to my talk page - and someone else has put a "not to be confused with" on User:Wtt's page. I don't think there are that many people who are trying to find me that can't though! WormTT(talk) 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Helloo, I honestly feel quite confident on Wikipedia as I only edit subjects I feel I can honestly contribute to and have enough knowledge to help inform others on. Anyway I'm here to ask 2 small things, first how do you create the small boxes on the sides of articles, say I wanted to do an 'interesting fact' that didn't fit anywhere else in the article and cant think of an appropriate heading? and secondly, if I've submitted a draft of an article when can I expect for it to be published? don't worry if you cannot or won't answer the questions just thought I'd pop by and thanks for the brilliant welcome when I first joined :)
Howdy
Hi Worm, it's been far too long. I miss Wikipedia and wish I could get back to it, but don't really see it because of how busy I am, but I wanted to reach out and say thanks again for all the work that you did with me back in the day. Your adoption program was such a great contribution to Wikipedia. I hope people are still doing things like that. Wishing you a great day! RyanVesey22:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nole! Good to see ya, maybe I can take a couple days off of work sometime and crank out some updates to old articles I started User:Ryan Vesey/Jassini is already stub-worthy, so it's a shame to be leaving it sitting there. Are you all getting used to all these weird visual/combination of visual/source editor changes or have most editors turned that off somehow? RyanVesey13:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Ryan Vesey, oooh, umm, good question. I've had it off for so long that I'm not even sure what settings I used. Preferences --> Editing --> "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" possibly? And then on Preferences --> Beta features I have everyone deselected except for Visual differences, which is actually useful sometimes for certain types of diffs. When you go to a diff page you can click something in the top right that switches back and forth between the old diff style and the visual diff style, so it's low cost. Alyo(chat·edits)15:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Ryan Vesey, great to hear from you! Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, so I'm sure it'll be here when you do find time! I hope life is treating you well WormTT(talk) 17:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, I've responded there. It is a shame - the editor has potential to be a boon to the encyclopedia, hard working, understanding of policies. Just keeps being.. not a boon. WormTT(talk) 08:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Xeno, Cheers. It's been 2 years, and I have participated in BN threads about resysoping since (JackMcbarn) - so I better not hold myself to that any more. I no longer believe that edge cases will end up at arbcom, but those that might, I'll keep out of. WormTT(talk) 14:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Akshay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikitext is a little difficult, but it's worth signing your posts. If you put for tildas at the end of your post like this: ~~~~, the software will automatically add a signature for you. WormTT(talk) 11:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for what you do here, sporadic or not. I like when I don't have to look up if a recipient of a thankful reminder was active during the last year because I saw them active. I check that now: no new reminder is needed for those who were not. I plan to issue a special reminder with a different image for the 10th year, possibly with an option to receive more in future years but with a bot function to do that. How I miss RexxS, not only for such things! I'll ask arb cands if they would have listened to SlimVirgin, pleading to not accept. I turned to upgrading articles of what we call Recent deaths, DYK? One is on the Main page now, another to be translated from Polish, - not a language I speak, but nobody has done it in three days. If you like, some images I took of places, flowers and food, with music, - in fond memory of the Stargazy pie ;) - I just complete my 12th year here, and the subject of my first (deleted and revived) article is also pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, Thank you for the message. I'm generally around, I just don't seem to click the "edit" button as often as I used to. I'm far better at replying to emails! I too miss RexxS, I consider him a friend and believe he made a real difference to the encyclopedia. Yet, I was on the committee that led to his leaving - recused due to my friendship. WormTT(talk) 08:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. If Arbcom had done a thorough job and properly done background checks as requested, Sherlock would already have been reblocked, I would not have lost the bit (my forthcoming book explains why), and I would still be an active Wikipedian. As it is, I'm still understandably rather bitter and make no secret of it; I'm regretting every one of the the thousands of hours and $$ I spent on the project over the years and I'm making a huge effort to stay away from it. Beats me how you are content to stay on that Committee time and time again, and defend the odd perception it has of its roles and of itself. Ironically however, you are still one Wikipedia's most fair and placid users and possibly one of the few stabilising influences on the Committee. Time goes fast and the next ACE is already on the horizon. Let's hope for the best, but I'm not holding my breath. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Kudpung, it was the community, not the committee that unblocked the editor 1 and had we over-ruled the community, it would have gone poorly. I'm not sure what background checks you are referring to, so you would have to point me to them.
But, and I'm sorry to say this, if you think you losing your admin rights was just down to one individual, I'm afraid you are mistaken. I know the history, even if I kept out of it. I would, however, be very interested in reading the book. WormTT(talk) 07:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The history is one thing, and that of course is what all arbitrators on the case would say. Nevertheless, knowing the 'history' is not the same as knowing why Sherlock began the procedure. I have to look deep into my institutional memory to find an example such a weird behaviour of socking, PA, and disingenuous hand-wringing. No one has examined that case as thoroughly as I and a couple of others have - and I challenge anyone else to do so.I literally got desysoped for putting the writing on the wall abo9ut Sherlock. Given the very small number of users who have been or are arbitrators, the ratio of malpractice is extraordinarily high and I am still very bitter. I will continue to come out if my retirement from time-to-time to try and prevent anything like it happening again to someone else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The thing is.. Kudpung, he didn't initiate the procedure. It started over at NPP, where you were talking about an autopatrolled admin, Chris Sherlock stuck his oar in, and your response was to put a vague comment on his talk page about how much you'd found out about him. He took that as a threat, started an ANI about it, and another user started the Arbcom case. Indeed, you'd replied to the Arbcom case before Chris Sherlock did.
That incident might have been what lit the flame under the case, but there was enough tinder there to light. You know that I believe you did a lot of good work for the encyclopedia, and I would be overjoyed if you returned to do it, but I also understand why you feel bitter about having the sysop right removed, and that you wouldn't want to.
One thing you are right about though, the ratio of malpractice on Arbcom. It's not just the small number of users, but it's also the type of person who is attracted to the role, as well as the structure of discussions, which make little issues seem bigger. I don't have a solution for that, besides having people on the committee who can point out "it's not a big deal". WormTT(talk) 08:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Central notice and site notice
Regarding this edit: perhaps I'm misunderstanding—your arguments seem to me like you're in favour of dropping the use of the central notice and site notice mechanisms, yet your statement is under the "Oppose" section for removing their use. If you could clarify, that would be appreciated. isaacl (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I nave noticed quite a lot of incorrect information on the Cedar Park, Texas Wikipedia page and would like administrative access so that I may update the page myself. We do not know who the admins of this page are - their names are not familiar to us.
Most notably, the page contains a photo of the "Cedar Park flag". We wish to remove the image of the "Cedar Park flag, as the City of Cedar Park does not have an official flag, the Cedar Park City Council voted to rescind the design as the official City flag and discontinue the flag consideration process on August 8, 2019. The page also contains a photo of our City logo which is a trademark of the City government and is copyrighted and not in the public domain.
I do not see a way to attach documents here, but I can provide the signed resolution and agenda minutes concerning the rescission of the flag. Here is a link to that meeting, but if you will notice on the agenda it is item F.3 on the Consent Agenda portion, so there is no discussion: https://cedarparktx.new.swagit.com/videos/30853.
If you have any questions, the best way to reach me is via e-mail at (Redacted).
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
I've started a new project at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. This time its provided county by county and I have produced a table showing which counties still have missing parishes. The number missing now is only 434 meaning less than 1 in 24 are missing. I will try to get as many different people involved as possible but regardless of what PROXYING says I won't usually explicitly ask anyone to create any since WP is voluntary I anyway don't think its usually appropriate to ask people to do things for you. I hope this is also in accordance with the previous concerns about me personally mass creating them since in this case people will themselves create them and hopefully there will be many different editors involved. With a bit of luck most or even all of them should exist by the time I can next appeal. Anyway even if none get created and we went along with the suggestion a few years back of allowing me to create 1 article a day it wouldn't take that much longer than a year to create them all. When it gets nearer to the time and we have some idea how many gave been created I'l discuss restrictions with you again but I'd actually say it may make more sense to have many people creating them rather than just me so maybe from that perspective the restriction isn't that much of a problem but we'll see. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Bundled options for scheduled RfAs / two-part RfAs
With the second phase about to start soon, with a 7-day proposal drafting period, I was just wondering if you were planning to post your proposal for two-part RfAs? isaacl (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks; I just wanted to co-ordinate with Eggishorn and you so I didn't step on any toes. If you're not planning to make a proposal and Eggishorn isn't planning to either, or isn't planning to include a two-part RfA into a proposal, then I might make a proposal. isaacl (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I realized that I hadn't been giving enough thought to the anonymous vote portion of your proposal, as in the past, my own two-part RfA proposals didn't include this. I've asked Xaosflux if they would be interested in commenting in this discussion on the technical work required. isaacl (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Currently, the only secret ballot software is SecurePoll, it requires WMF staff to set up - and requires someone to scruntize votes if we care about ensuring things like 1-vote-per-person. That last part provides checkuser like data for every voter. This is how ArbCom works - it could be possible to do without some of these options - but that may allow things like the election admins to determine what the vote counts are (but still not how each person voted). No community project is currently managing their own SPolls, so it will have a bit of a curve to deal with. — xaosfluxTalk22:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a bit concerned about making a proposal that involves a significant amount of legwork per RfA without knowing if there are people able and willing to do the work. I'd be more comfortable with proposing a two-part RfA where the second step wasn't anonymous and so could be done on-wiki. It's not clear to me though from the brainstorming discussion how key the anonymity aspect is for the community to support the proposal. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Technical side can be worked out. There are many good developers out there. But the important thing is that the candidate should not be watching their vote, editors should not be following like sheep. They can make their decision on the discussion or their own research. So, for me, the anonymous part is essential - I don't think I'm the only one either, given the amount of times amalgamating ACE and RFA have been mentioned recently. WormTT(talk) 07:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I know there are editors capable of doing the requisite tasks. I just don't like volunteering them to do something on an ongoing, indefinite basis. If a pool of editors had voiced support during the brainstorming phase and indicated a desire to help out, I'd feel more comfortable. isaacl (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Looking further, I thought that there was more available polling systems in MediaWiki, I'm quite disappointed that there aren't. What's more, I don't have time to build one myself, so perhaps the technical side is more problematic than I first thought. Perhaps it would be best to combine this idea with grouped RfAs - tranches or cohorts, whatever we want to call them - and then we can use the Secure Poll system. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Notification of template substitution
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Hello Worm That Turned. I just wanted to thank you for opting-in to receive these notifications. This is the first bot-notification of the trial now in progress. In this case, the notification is a bit late as the goal is to have them posted within 24 hours of the original message. I anticipate that things will improve over time. I'd like to reiterate that you are under no obligation to endorse this or any posted message although you are certainly welcome if you are so inclined. In considering an endorsement, you have fulfilled what was asked of you opting-in. I won't be messaging you in the future when this notification posts, and don't mean to encroach on you now. I am messaging you this time for two reasons; first: because this is the beginning of the trial and I did want to send you my thanks. And, second: because I wanted to tell you about another editor I messaged (without using the template) but you may know this former admin whose tools were removed for inactivity (not under a cloud) and again, you are certainly welcome to consider endorsing that message as well. It is on the talk page of user:Toddst1[4]. I wish you the best and thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@Barkeep49 I was rather smug when I came up with the analogy, but since it didn't make a difference I never considered moving it to an essay. I do hope it makes a difference to someone out there. Thanks for doing it! WormTT(talk) 09:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi WTT, glad to see that you're running. For the sake of it not being there for your nicely early nomination, I did think I'd suggest fixing a typo in your statement. First line currently reads Hi! I'm Dave, aka Worm That Turned and I standing for election as an arbitrator - needs an "am" after the "and I" Nosebagbear (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man Thanks for popping over :) and thanks for saying thanks! The election deadline has been coming up for a long time, as I've had a while to think about it - I don't hold with this idea of leaving it to the last minute, I know my own mind and am quite happy to put myself out there! That said, I do appreciate you taking the time to voice your support (and the same goes for @Nosebagbear and those who have since contacted me privately) - it is difficult to judge where you stand in the community at any given point! WormTT(talk) 14:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I am very relieved to see you running and thank you for being bold and kickstarting this year's election. After all these years you are one of the very few that carries the institutional memory so essential to the tasks. Your impartial and just treatment without favouritism or discrimination has made you a role model for adminship and Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for getting this year's election off to a start. hopefully you are not the only candidate, but I suspect people will be more likely to add their nomination once one or two have thrown their hat into the ring. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions02:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Only candidate? Now that would be interesting. I've often wondered what would happen if not enough candidates turned up. But there are probably a couple of power obsessives who would throw their hat in the ring at the last minute and get a seat by default. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi WTT, did you get any additional information on SecurePoll from someone at T&S? I was going to reach out to jsutherland(_AT_)wikimedia.org to see what stumbling blocks would prevent local communities from running their own SPolls, possibly without needing to include the automatic checkuser stuff and storage encryption. There is at least one secret security bug holding up phab:T290856 that may apply, but I hear that is almost resolved. — xaosfluxTalk15:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
No, I didn't have much luck. There was a similar opinion that I'd heard elsewhere that it couldn't be done, but I'm still not hearing an actual why - I simply don't accept it's a resource issue as resources can be spun up easily in this day and age. I did see a recent phab:T295518 which may be relevant. WormTT(talk) 15:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a question I would like to ask; is it possible-for me- to become an administrator? You can nominate me, or give me some suggestions on what to do. Also, can you check to make sure I am ready to become an administrator. Thank you! Severestorm28 (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Severestorm28! It's absolutely possible for you to become an administrator, just not yet. Generally, the administrator flag is given to our most trusted users and it takes time to gain that trust. Quite a lot of time, unfortunately. As a ballpark figure, most admins have somewhere in the order of tens of thousands of edits, and a good few years on the encyclopedia. While you're working towards those targets, why not keep in mind my magic formula to become an admin? Hit those points and you'll be well on your way!
As for some suggestions on what to do, I'd suggest you clear up your userpage - you've spent almost 1/5 of your total edits there and it really doesn't need to be that involved. Some of the best user pages are just a big image with some userboxes. They should describe you as a wikipedian, and in my opinion, often less is more - as it stops the need for fiddling. Otherwise, get out there, enjoy working on a website where you can actually edit everything! You are already far more of an admin than you are on any other website online! WormTT(talk) 08:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Notification of template substitution
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Hi @Saved by God's grace. Unsurprisingly, I was asked a similar question in my RfA (Q7), and it comes up from time to time. It stems from when I was in school, and our Latin master (shows my age and the type of school, right there) used to make comments like "My dog's a wonderful beast" or call us "you little worms". Well, on one of those days where I was creating my first free email account and didn't want a number after my name, a few friends and I came up with worm that turned, and it rather stuck. I've since discovered I wasn't nearly as original at the age of 16 as I thought I was, and the Two Ronnies and the Great Bard had both used the term prior to me - but at the time I was ignorant of that fact. No relation to either, I'm afraid. WormTT(talk) 15:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
C'mon. WTT, I know you. You're not that old. Now I went to school in a place that was a dead ringer for If... - except of course for the fun and games at the end... I had left school a couple of years before the film came out. I enjoyed it immensly (I mean the film, not my school). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Rathmell, the village and parish are both called "Rathmell" so despite the parish covering a far larger area there is correctly only 1 article. Information about the village and parish go in 1 article. This is the most common form.
Sutton-in-Craven, the name of the village is "Sutton-in-Craven" while the parish is just "Sutton". It is clear in this case that "Sutton" is an alternative name for "Sutton-in-Craven" and thus the parish probably doesn't need a separate article. It can also be seen from this map that the village is sometimes just "Sutton" and also that the parish council is called "Sutton-in-Craven Parish Council" and appears to refer to the parish as "Sutton-in-Craven". Its not clear if the different in names should be mentioned in the lead but I have done and its not clear if the redirect from the CP name (namely Sutton, Craven) should be put in Category:Civil parishes in North Yorkshire or if the parish category should go in the village article. If we had bots creating parishes its possible it may have created an article at "Sutton, Craven" (since Sutton, North Yorkshire is ambiguous due to Sutton, Selby) but then it could be merged however it wouldn't have done so as its on my blacklist, see User:Crouch, Swale/CP blacklist#Manual blacklist, though as may you know I've given up on the bot project.
Thanks for this @Crouch, Swale, yet this is all predicated on the idea that parishes and villages are not only inherently notable, but also need articles to be mass created. If that consensus existed, I don't think you'd have been facing problems over the past few years. WormTT(talk) 15:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
But there generally does seem to be consensus that they should exist, WP:GEOLAND seems to support this as do most editors. For new year's appeal do you think you would support changing 1 article a week submitted to AFC with 1 article a month without AFC? That would mean I would only be able to create 12 a year instead of 52 but would bypass AFC. Separate to that we should probably also consider how many parish articles I can create. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Here are some chocolate chip cookies for you
Here are some chocolate chip cookies for you. I hope that they are still warm!
Hi Dave. Thank you for your courage to rerun in this year's ACE. This kind of scrutiny can sometimes be as challenging as an RfA - if not worse. Some candidates ran on a platform for changes in Arbcom. Now comes the suspense waiting for the results. 52% of the votes were cast on day 1 of the ballot. You might find this analysis of the campaign to be of interest. You are welcome to leave your thoughts on its talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Cheers Kudpung. I made up my mind a couple of months ago to run, when another arb pointed out that the incumbents earliest start data was 2019, and I could see the mood of the arbs who's terms were ending was pushing towards not running. So, I may be regretting it on many levels, another two years of the nonsense, but at least it would mean a feel of consistency on the committee. I'm very glad that @Opabinia regalis is running too, as she was always a voice of reason on the committee and a wild card I hadn't considered in my factors. Hopefully I'll be able to keep my head on straight!
As for the analysis, it's interesting, but probably not worth the time you used to put it together - far be it for me to tell you what to do with your time on Wikipedia, of course! WormTT(talk) 08:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
WTT, for various reasons, I don't do much proactively in Wikipedia these days but the experiment with the analysis might help to predict what might be expected from any suggestions for future reforms to Arbcom and its electoral system. I'm obviously no longer concerned about any impact the Committee may have on my participation on Wikipedia, but I think the newer generations of users and admins deserve the best they can get from the Law Lords. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I know, I'm overwhelmed. I've never come higher than 3rd in an Arbcom election, the idea of over 900 people voting for me... Wow. Thank you all. WormTT(talk) 23:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I came by to congratulate you on your re-election and to offer my kudos for the strong endrosement the community has given you. Happy Winter Solstice ans beyond. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi WTT, I hope that you have a very Happy Christmas! Thank you for everything that you do for the project. From my family to yours, wishing you a very Happy Christmas and a wonderful New Year.
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.
A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.
01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Notification of template substitution
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Huggums537 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
For my appeal in the New Year would you support swapping the 1 article a week through AFC with 1 article a month without AFC? That would mean I would only be able to create 12 articles a year instead of 52 but would mean I would be able to create them myself without using AFC. You stated at the last appeal that you would be OK with allowing me to create 1 article a week without AFC. We should probably also look at if I can create a set number of articles for the parishes project and be able to appeal in 6 months instead of a year if possible. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Things:
Article creation (general) as I've said 1 a month (without AFC) should be enough for now.
Articles creation (parishes) should be as many as reasonably possible, without AFC.
DABs and redirects, as well as some at User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes being redirects needed and this is sometimes needed after page moves and when using DisamAssist but wouldn't be happy with having to use WP:AFC/R and a throttle limit would be a pain so I'd say all or nothing here.
Moves, as already said I can make as many WP:RMT and WP:RM#CM as I want so removing this isn't important. I wouldn't be happy with a throttle limit here either but a WP:1RR or 0RR would be OK.
Appeal, after 6 months to see if (in particular) the 2nd (and possibly 1st perhaps if a different topic is specified).
I assumed you would come back before the appeal date but you didn't, I probably should have asked a bit earlier, I did notice you hadn't edited for a few days though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
I just wanted to let you know you I fixed a few redlinks at User:WormTT/Adopt/Lessons. I infrequently check your adoption page from time to time when I need to quick-primer myself about Wikipedia policies as such, so the redlink from your old account name was bothering me. Hope that's okay.
(Update : I'm quite not sure what exactly your username change was, just that it left redlinks on your adoption page)
(I still don't remember enough about Templates to do what I wanted to do, but I guess I will have to ask somewhere else if digging doesn't help)
Hi @Soni. A few years ago, when I finally decided to stop adoption all together, and was using my subpage index regularly for editing content, I found the large number of adoption pages very distracting and unwieldy, so I moved them to my public account subpages. You're absolutely welcome to play around with them in any way you like. I'm not sure how out of date the adoption pages are, they may not reflect current practise - indeed, I'm pretty sure the Dispute Resolution one is out of date! WormTT(talk) 11:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense, and I think I vaguely remember you talking about it too. Either way, I don't currently plan to use them for actual adoption processes, I'm not quite sure I want to jump into there quite yet. But it helps me remember some simple things like Wiki formatting or templates or how subst works etc. So it's basically been one of my "I want to remember these useful things" link I keep around whenever I feel like refreshing my Mediawiki markup/Wikitext understanding.
Anyway, thank you, and that's how much impact your Adoption guides have. People (or at least me) still use them as reference sheets because they're better than the Help pages :)
For my January article I created Withermarsh Green, my February one was Ford, Chivelstone. Old Lindley was going to be my February one but another editor created it when I was drafting it, since the restrictions originally mentioned "on pages that previously didn't exist" I've always assumed that means I also can't restore articles that were merged/redirected before I was unblocked in December 2017 which is why I counted those. I'm not sure if these meet the presumed notability for places leaving aside the debate about if all OS settlements are automatically notable. The Domesday Book entries may make them legally recognized and Ford does have a 19th century population figure. In any case all 3 articles do contain several sources. In contrast Brunstock was a township which was a type of unit so may well automatically be notable and Theydon Garnon for example has its own council so would clearly meet the "legally recognized" rule. Like with Springhill, South Staffordshire there is debate about if places with a stated population but without administrative functions qualify as "legally recognized" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadow Oaks, Florida and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golconda, Tasmania. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
That's interesting, considering you're a party in said conflict as the admin who locked the subsections. (not sure who has now hidden them as well?) I cannot find myself mentioned anywhere in WP:ARBEE (maybe I'm just not looking hard enough or you think that discretionary sanctions means you can do whatever you please? Don't know) Anyways, I don't think we should clog up WTTs talk page. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. (which I should perhaps add, are not due to trying to hide as I have readily admitted to all of them being me, and that I have had 3 due to renewals from my shitty router - I expect to have a new one soon again) But am I to view this as that I was correct in that your interpretation of "discretionary sanctions" truly means "I can do whatever I please cause I'm an admin"? Because I would believe you are still subject to wikipedia policy in your rulings as an admin - this is not your personal blog. In any case, this is my last reply to you on this talk page. I posted here as I thought it best to have a bureaucrat look at this, not to argue this further with you. I am not seeking you out in any way, it's rather the opposite. 78.78.143.46 (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi IP and @EvergreenFir. I generally try not to get involved directly in controversial articles while I'm sitting on the Arbitration Committee as I feel those articles are more likely to end up at a case request and I'd rather not have to recuse myself. "As a bureaucrat", I have no additional powers or opinions on the content of wikipedia - that role is specifically around closing RfAs and Bot requests.
I will say, IP, if you are intending to work on areas which see such intense controversy, please do register an account and evidence that you are also here for the larger project, giving you an wider and clearer understanding of our rules. There's a reason that we close down many such discussions from those who are not WP:Extended confirmed. WormTT(talk) 11:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Worm That Turned. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 15:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC). 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.
Hi @Kansas Bear. It's a shame that you weren't around at the time, as that would have been an excellent place to share your thoughts, but it has been cleared down since 20th Feb. If you have a proposal to improve situations, please do raise it at ARCA. If you'd just like to add some thoughts, keep watching ARCA, conflicts around West Asia turn up there fairly regularly. If you'd just like to chat generally about your thoughts, well, here is as good as anywhere else! A few Arbs watch this page, as do other community members, and between us, we may be able to signpost you to the best location for your thoughts. WormTT(talk) 11:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I've just self-nominated for an adminship. I was wondering whether you would bes so kind as to also nominate me and check that I have completed the process successfully below. Thanks very much for your time.
P.S The best example of my work is probably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_devolution I made the page myself and the vast majority of contributions.
Titus Gold (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Titus Gold, thanks for popping by! I'm very impressed by Welsh devolution, a well put together and good looking article, a quick glance and I don't see any issue with the sourcing or prose, that's good! I'm afraid, though, that your contributions don't currently meet the (probably too high) standards at request for adminship. As a rule of thumb, almost all editors with under 10,000 edits are unlikely to pass, simply because the community wants to see more of how they behave in stressful situations, the sort of work they do and whether they are likely to stick around.
I'm sorry about that, but I will say, you're on the right track! Quality article work is definitely an area that RfAs can fall down, indeed, it's the first step in my magic forumla to becoming an admin. Have a read of that and a bit of a think to see what sort of other things you could be doing. One of the top priorities would be to get some peer review on that Welsh devolution article, and any other high quality articles you write. I'd also suggest we delete the current RfA (which hasn't actually been transcluded yet, a required step before voting) and focus on the rest of my magic formula.
You're welcome to drop in to my talk page for pointers, and when you've moved a bit closer to that magic 10k, we can chat about what an RFA would look like. WormTT(talk) 08:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Regarding this edit: I assume you meant you "would not object to being considered inactive"? I imagine most wouldn't object to being considered objective. ;-) isaacl (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I am Always kind I just now got my emails back I haven’t had email for several months now and I find myself in trouble again I don’t know what I did wrong please explain whenever you get a chance thank you 2600:387:15:719:0:0:0:6 (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
After years of proposals, RFCs and discussions, I can't believe that policy was amended. Change is possible!
I hadn't seen User:Worm That Turned/Admin activity before, it is very revealing, thank you for pulling that together. Do you think the new activity requirements might prompt some relatively inactive admins to return or just give us a realistic picture of how many admins there are by thinning the ranks to those who are actually active? LizRead!Talk!23:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
My opinion is still that we should be looking at admin activity over 5 years, not edit counts. But that suggestion will have to go on a future RFC. LizRead!Talk!23:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Liz, if you want the realistic picture of how many active admins there actually are this is usually the quickest and easiest way to go about it. Since 'inactivity' became a thing in 2011, the "number of admins who are actually active" figure has always very consistently been 45% of the total number of admins. (The figure is deceptively low, as if someone's away for a few weeks they temporarily drop into "inactive"; at any given time probably around 20% of admins are truly inactive in the "no recent activity and nothing to suggest they're coming back" sense.) The current figures (1050 admins of which 451 are active) are exactly in line with the projections made three years ago in this article and the thread on my talk which led to it. On current trends, Wikipedia dies in roughly 2033. ‑ Iridescent06:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi both. Thanks for popping by.
@Liz I certainly hope that some admins may be prompted back. My intention was to set a bar that was high enough to actually require a little time on the project to get themselves back into the swing of things, but low enough that it will not feel insurmountable. All the admins have history on the project, and should be able to manage that sort of level of editing - if they're actually interested in being part of the project.
I don't agree that we should be looking too heavily into admin activity - because I do believe a member of the community who is involved in day to day editing may be performing well as an admin, without actually making logged actions. It might be sorting disputes, editing through protection, viewing deleted to create or merge articles or any number of other bits and bobs - being an admin can mean all sorts of things to different people.
@Iridescent I will be interested in an update of that graph and how it tweaks after over the next few months (and, of course, in January) - I think we have to accept that there is a possibility that Wikipedia will die off - and certainly with another decade down the line - with the evolution of big data and the internet, it may be that shutting up shop is the right thing to do. I'd like to think that highlighting the issue by losing another lump of admins might help - we did have a whole RFA review in 2011, after all. It didn't achieve much - and may have actually made things worse with this scary edit notice, designed to remove NOTNOWs, but I think it may have discouraged far more individuals. WormTT(talk) 11:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
The number of admins defined as "active" (30 or more edits during the last two months) as of the 17th of each month since the data began to be collected in August 2007
Having nothing better to do, I've manually recreated the dataset to make sure there weren't any data-scraping glitches, and brought it up to daye. I haven't taken every single day's measurement—I'm not crazy—but taken the 'active admins' figure as of the 17th of each month (or on the rare occasions when the bot failed to take a count that day, the closest date to the 17th on which the bot ran). There appears to be a very regular pattern of a gradual downward drift, punctuated to the occasional precipitate drop, and each of these drops is followed by a rise to a level lower than that preceding the drop. ‑ Iridescent15:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, Worm That Turned, you could be right about admin actions vs. edits. There are lots of activities one can do as an admin that aren't "logged". All of this data is really interesting to see even when the news isn't good. I always thought the figure was about 50% of existing admins were actually active on a regular basis and I guess it is less than that.
But I'm alarmed by your statement that there is a possibility that Wikipedia will die off and "shutting up shop". I've heard dire predictions about the falling rate of new editors coming in and the general decline in active admins but I never heard someone go as far as saying Wikipedia will be no more! It seems too enormous to just flip a switch and say, "Well, it was big in the 2000s but there just isn't a place for it any more". Everyone I know relies on Wikipedia, many check it daily even if they don't understand what editors and admins do here.
I do know that I'm busier now as an admin than I ever was before and many tasks that I do, like checking the daily PROD list, that were once shared by half a dozen or more admins are now just basically done by one or two of us. In this case, I expect the work to be up-to-date but when I check the list, it's been hours and hours since the PROD'd articles have been checked and either deleted or untagged. And I see admins who I know once did a wide variety of different activities limit their focus to one or two narrow areas. I sometimes wonder, if I was less active, would other admins then step in to pick up the slack? It's the uncertainty about the answer to that question that keeps me very busy when I'm online. None of us is indispensable but I really notice when certain individuals have retired or moved on to work in a different area of the project. Wikipedia is really just dozens of circles of specific activities which each rely on a small group of admins and editors to function and the loss of a couple of people can really put a big dent in operations. If these new requirements resulted in the return of even 10 or 12 formerly active admins, that could be an enormous help to the rest of us. LizRead!Talk!19:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
@Liz I think we have to accept that technology moves forward, and that one day this generation of Wikipedia will be defunct. That's not to say our hard work over the years will be for naught, with the advent of structured data and the forethought of the CC licence, the information will be reused and available for all humankind for many years to come. It may appear in apps, in clever voice activated software, heads up displays, I have no idea of the tech that will harness it - I just think that at some point in the future, this old text based repository will be pretty unused.
Of course, I could be completely wrong - but it has happened with major sites that were part of everyday use for many in the past... Myspace, Geocities, Altavista - all mainstays of the internet in the 90s, all superseded by other technologies. WormTT(talk) 08:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Which ties in with your idea that there's a bit of drift for periods where people are away for a few weeks and then marked temporarily as "inactive". It might be my eye - but it does seem to be plateauing a bit. It's also interesting that the Fram situation didn't have as much effect longer term. WormTT(talk) 15:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Remember, because of how we define "active" there's a natural lag as it takes two months for someone to drop into the inactive group, whereas a single burst of activity immediately switches an editor back to "active". The mass resignations over Fram were in July 2019 and thus started being seen in the data from September 2019, but from March 2020 onwards the stats (as with every participation stat across the whole ecosystem) got artifically inflated owing to furloughs and WFH. ‑ Iridescent16:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
(adding) There's more discussion of the same chart in this monster thread. Looking closely I think it forms two virtually straight lines; a steep drop 2007–2014 and a more shallow but still steady decline from 2014 onwards, absent a pandemic-shaped blip. This would tally with other statistics, where edit rates, active editors etc all fell steadily from Sue Gardner's arrival to Sue Gardner's departure and then steadied from 2014. ‑ Iridescent18:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I've heard dire predictions about the falling rate of new editors coming in... Writing this from memory, but when I first became aware of WTT in 2015, I mooted that a non-active basic editor tool should be available, based on Talk pages of the late ron h jones (admin). WTT, as a self-identified IT worker responded but failed to follow up. More recently I approached a new sysop accoladed as a whizzo programmer, without direct response but some tps responders.
At the time of Je suis Charlie when journalists were adopting the epithet in support, Jimbo was on semi-live UK nationwide television quoting 19 million editors; nowadays the figure is 42 million. My initial trigger was that Projects were relatively inactive, but for some years now I thought that an inactivity-threshhold should be applied to all (perhaps on a softer block basis).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Rocknrollmancer - I dug through my emails in 2015, and I am sorry, that one did get away from me. I have excuses, I was in the middle of raising an Arbcom case, clearly never thought too much more about it. Now, reading back over the email, part of what you were discussing already exists. WP:Navigation popups does give you the date of the most recent edit when you hover over a user's signature. Last "login" date is not something that we would easily be able to access as it's not information given freely by the system.
As for the hanging question, should we "soft block" all inactive accounts? Well, I don't see the benefit. I could see the benefit, perhaps, of a bot that went round and removed userrights from old accounts, but again, it seems a bit redundant. My concern with admins is that there is a social disparity between the user-groups and a general feeling of contempt towards the unfair "lifetime" status of admins from newer editors. WormTT(talk) 08:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Updates to bureaucrat minimum activity requirements
Hello Worm That Turned.
Following a discussion at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, the minimum activity requirements for bureaucrats have been updated to also include the the recently updated minimum editing requirements for administrators (i.e. at least 100 edits every 5 years). This will be enforced beginning in January 2023. Should you no longer wish to volunteer as a bureaucrat you may request removal at SRP and.or let us know at WP:BN.
Ukraine day today: Maks Levin DYK, expanding Kyiv Symphony Orchestra (have tickets), and creating Anthony Robin Schneider, the bass who could be heard opening the singing in Beethoven's Ninth twice on 10 March 2022, live in Frankfurt, Germany, and recorded in Auckland, New Zealand, singing "Freiheit!" (freedom) instead of "Freude" (joy), in a tradition started after the Fall of the Wall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Regarding some of the points discussed in the 2022 ARCA, thankyou for supporting part of the request but regarding the other points,
You stated that there is no consensus to create the articles but there is no requirement to obtain consensus outside WP:MASSCREATE for creating a large number of articles. Is there a logical reason why the ~389 CPs in England should be treated differently to the 10,474 that do exist or the fact that it seems like almost everywhere else in the world that has low level administrative units appears to have 100% coverage yet England only has around 96.3 why should the remaining be treated differently and why should I need consensus to treat the remaining ones the same as the rest and everywhere else in the world! This point may have somewhat been countered by Adam in that many units in other countries like France have far more significant functions etc but it is even taking that into account ridiculous they still don't exist, as you can see there are around 34,965 Communes of France and all appear to exist here despite the fact we have less French readers than England does.
Regarding Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC there was a consensus against them being created by a bot, there was also a consensus against mass creating them unless they were created with good content, there was also consensus that those with a settlement of the same name should not have a separate article which is exactly what I proposed and is what is done for similar such places around the world. A throttle limit starting at say 2 parish articles a week (in addition to 1 article a month on anything) that the parish number could be reviewed every 2 weeks by you and increased if everything was OK such as moving to 5 a week then to 7 a week etc but could still be appealed completely after 6 months would IMO be more than sufficient to make sure the articles were created with acceptable content. Such a gradual increase of the number of parish articles would whittle away at the number and perhaps bring it down to 0 by 6 months! As I noted when my restrictions have been relaxed there hasn't been many problems for example when my geographical NC discussion ban was lifted I didn't come close to having it reinstated and when my restrictions were modified in February 2019 to allow me to create other pages (like categories and templates) I haven't caused problems there despite at the original siteban appeal it was pointed out that I had created many categories and templates that had ended up being nominated for deletion. Of the over 1000 categories I have created only 1 (Category:Ribe) has ended up at CFD but the nomination was withdrawn about a minute after being nominated[8]. As far as I can see almost all evidence shows that I can be trusted to create appropriate content.
Regarding the comment about mass creating 400 odd articles in my userspace being considered disruptive, I don't want to sound rude since it was probably a bit of advice rather than a statement that you would sanction my if I did it, but it seems bizarre to come out with that in 2022 especially when my request is to remove the need to draft and instead create in mainspace and the fact that in my unban restrictions in 2017 (where it would have been more like 700) I was explicitly allowed to create pages in my userspace. Do you not think its far more likely I'd have done that in the 1st 6 months when that was one of the only things I could do as opposed to now where I can create categories and participate in such geographical discussions. Also WP:MASSCREATE does not apply to things like userspace. If an editor was mass creating unencyclopedic pages in their userspace its possible restrictions could be imposed if people really thought it was a problem but 400 odd on clearly notable topics would not likely be a problem. While I appreciate it was more like advice it did look a bit like you were trying to push non-existent rules on me, there is certainly not a requirement on me or anyone else to pre-emptily obtain consensus to create ~400 userspace drafts.
I haven't done this firstly because I'd prefer to just create them myself in mainspace and secondly because such drafts would probably not be found/improved by anyone and would probably end up being redundant to a later created mainspace article. If I mass created them in draftspace most of them would probably be deleted in 6 months per WP:G13. I could perhaps create a few at a time with someone who intended to "adopt" them and move them into mainspace as long as I follow WP:PROXYING. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
In terms of what the restrictions and policies say about mass page creation:
My original restrictions stated "prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace)." so it was explicitly stated that I could create pages in my userspace and no throttle limit was even discussed never mind enacted. That said if I'd produced hundreds or thousands of likely NN drafts like individual buildings or streets I'd expect a few may consider that problematic but I don't really think I'd put my money on anything much being done to prevent that.
WP:MASSCREATE, since 2019 has applied to other content pages as well as articles, before then was only for articles. This only applies to automated or semi-automated creation and in some cases fast bot like creations. It does not apply to drafts which like creating them in smaller batches is another alternative. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Crouch, Swale. As you have been told, multiple times, the issue is with you creating large numbers of articles. That is true whether the articles are live, or yet to be live. This isn't about MASSCREATE, this is about your causing disruption.
I won't argue about "other countries" coverage, except that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it may well be incorrect that the coverage is so high elsewhere, given that the articles would have been created when the encyclopedia was in such a growth spurt. We're more reflective at the minute, and it is important that consensus now is followed. So that brings us back to consensus, which you see is against being created with a bot, or created without significant content. There's also the silent consensus that (apart from you), no one is creating these articles.
Regarding "the parish number could be reviewed every 2 weeks by you" I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to do so. WormTT(talk) 12:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
What is the problem with me in particular doing it?
In terms of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we can look at the others in other countries and the ~96.3% that do exist and say that all such places in other countries are notable and the others in England are also. I'd agree though with you that WP inclusion guidelines are stricter that they used to be as WP:DEFUNCT notes but these still clearly meet GEOLAND. I'd also agree that there is a stronger consensus against mass creating content pages but outside MASSCREATE no firm rule on this. The consensus again bot or without significant content is not the same as consensus against, requiring me to get a positive consensus to create them all is excessive, the consensus we have seems to support allowing me to create a certain (flexible) number a week which would seem sufficient to follow the consensus against bot/short creation. Claiming that I would need to have consensus to mass-create them in my userspace is clearly false never mind disproportionate, leaving aside my explicit permission to create pages in my userspace as part of my unban conditions I've never heard anyone mention about not mass-creating drafts in userspace and you did not mention it until 2022.
It would only take you a few minutes to check my talk page for any concerns and to check a few of the articles. The number could also be brought to 0 a week etc by any uninvolved admin or the pages moved to draftspace if problems occurred. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
It would only take you a few minutes to check my talk page for any concerns and to check a few of the articles I wouldn't be happy to "sign off" items with only a few minutes check over, I care about the articles on Wikipedia and if I can't do the job properly, I wouldn't do it at all. Even if it was only a few minutes, that's a few minutes I don't have - I have precious little free time, and what time I have for Wikipedia is largely spent working on Arbcom committee business. Finally - I don't believe it's appropriate for me to be the one looking over your articles, as I'm also one sitting in the appeals chair.
As for why is there a problem with you doing it - because you are single minded, to the exclusion of community consensus. The same reason we have had to reduce the regularity of your appeals. We have asked you to get explicit consensus that the articles need to exist, by motion, no less - you have not done so, instead pointing to your interpretation of Wikipedia policies. In the places you have asked for consensus, mass creation by bot for example, you have been told explicitly "no".
As for MASS creation in your user-space, that was never covered in your initial restrictions either way. Yes, you could have done so, but I'm sure the community would have come down like a ton of bricks if you had. You are right, you are still not under any such restriction, but I stand by my statement - if you were to MASS create articles in your user space, it would likely have repercussions. WormTT(talk) 07:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
You were the one who proposed the 2020 motion that I "should ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions" so since I made a reasonable attempt to do this and as noted while there was a consensus again bot/no significant content there was a weak/silent consensus that significant content would be OK. As an arbitrator who set the previous restriction/recommendation I think that would be an important/useful part of you're arbitration work and would be a reasonable request for you to put a small amount of time for the benefit of the project and me.
Yes I am single minded but I have made reasonable efforts to do as asked and improve my work which even you agreed my writing had got better, you can't expect superb work all the time, its not something I have the capacity to do and its not expected by the project.
I think the fact that the userspace creation exception was passed with the understanding that I wanted to mass create articles and the fact neither a throttle limit or even a comment that excessive creations would be problematic. While WP:CREEP may point to not setting a rule in every place I think the very fact in the circumstances nothing was even mentioned suggests it wasn't seen as a problem, not that's not to say it was desired but otherwise what was the intention/expectation of allowing userspace creations? My guess was the intention was to allow me to create a small number of drafts to demonstrate that I can create reasonable articles but anyone participating in that appeal would surely have realized that was reasonably likely. I'd even go as far as to say that if it wasn't for the fact I said I didn't want the userspace exception at one point that it may be a bit surprising that I did not mass create drafts in my userspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree, you made a reasonable attempt at seeing if there was consensus for the mass creation of the articles. There wasn't. There was a feeling that articles could be created at a reasonable standard, but that should be done on a case by case basis, not through mass creation methods. This is what you've been allowed to do, craft an article a month, and put it live.
Regarding my own involvement, I do try to stay out of the "enforcement" of arbcom decision, for a number of reasons. One principle is the equivalent of "separation of powers" (from a simplistic concept, which in no way actually matches wikipedia) those who enforce the law should not be the same people who decide on it. I've already noted my limited time, too - what you may deem as a small amount of time is not so in my eyes.
Mass creation in userspace wasn't an issue, because you hadn't done it. It still isn't an issue, because you havent' done it. I don't believe anyone would object to you creating a few, or even a dozen articles ahead of time that you're working on. I'm suggesting that creating them en masse, anywhere, is problematic. WormTT(talk) 07:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The point of the 1 a month is for other topics rather than civil parishes, that was supposed to run concurrently with a different limit for parishes only. Creating a few a week and gradually increasing that number isn't as far as I can see against that. You have agreed there was a feeling that the articles could be created at a reasonable standard, I agreed there was consensus against bot/no significant content creation. Its perfectly possible for me to produce several good articles a week or even per day, it would probably be a different question.
You were the one indeed who decided the motion so you're involvement here would be the relaxation of the restrictions namely letting me create a certain number of parish articles a week/day. Why aren't you prepared to give me a chance there? Despite you're and others concerns about my judgement about conduct etc it actually seems like whenever you or others have loosened my bans almost nothing problematic has happened, for example when I was unblocked in December 2017 a number of users seemed concerned about it yet I never came close to being reblocked, when the geographical NC discussion ban was removed in July 2018 a 6 month "probation" was added but nether in the 6 months nor the time after have I come close to having it reinstated, in January 2019 when AFC was allowed there was concerns about size but that doesn't seem to have been an issue and as you know almost all have been accepted, in February my page creation ban on namespaces other than mainspace was lifted after concerns at the original unban discussion about me creating templates and categories yet almost none have been deleted and none ended up at XFD, in 2022 I was allowed to create articles on anything directly but so far no problems have come about. So yes what evidence do you have that in 2022 these very severe restrictions are still needed? Could you please just give me one chance at the weekly/daily parish limit. What evidence do you have to support that if that is done there will be problems? If there is indeed problems that let's show it either way, if there is problems then the throttle limit can be reduced or removed completely and the articles deleted/moved to draftspace. This suggestion is compliant with the weak consensus formed and is not against the WP rules in general, and I have made reasonable efforts to follow consensus etc. Yes I understand you're busy but you could share it with another uninvolved admin or the AC, I'm not asking a lot from you while you and others are placing significant restrictions on my contributing which is a hindrance to the project. If you have any other questions then you can ask first but could you please consider such a modification, thankyou. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Can you help by giving me some advice about how I should go about requesting a name change to a Wikipedia page? The page in question is 'Saturday Morning with James Martin' but should be named James Martin's Saturday Morning. Thank youDavidsmith2015 (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for having caused that. All I wanted to say is that I won't come again, - the growing sapphires got oversized, and ten is a good number to reach. I was told 2 days ago that I'm on Wikipedia 13 years, and yesterday was my 12th anniversary of the Precious precursor, - so what should I say about age? If you look at the list: I am in the process of streamlining it, making it less personal, - eventually a bot could send the reminders when done ;)
Remember the infobox wars? I believe they are over. Yay! - I wanted infoboxes for operas, and by now, not only do thousands of operas have one, also the previous alternative, side navbox, was deleted after lengthy discussions - probably the last "battles" - for all composers (in 2021). Yay ;) - How could arbcom be brought to lifting the DS? (Did they ever serve a purpose, I wonder). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Today (19/08/2022)I have post a article that was deleted by you. I have also made this article yester day but it was deleted so I have have completely change the article.
On the 14th I merged 46 district council articles to their districts per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Districts councils merges. 46 would be almost 4 years if I was creating the articles instead of merging them from my 1 article a month! As noted I excluded any where the district didn't have a separate article from another type of place (such as Eastbourne being about the district as well as town so Eastbourne Borough Council is kept) as well as ceremonial counties. I also excluded London boroughs, metropolitan boroughs and unitary authorities per the request of John. Last year I also created an essay at Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate which these generally fall under. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
