Jump to content

User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Happy Holidays!

User:Sportsguy17/Happy Holidays 2013

Happy Halloween!

 Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween Worm That Turned! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween! —  dainomite   15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.

To quote some guy from Little Britain, you do realise that by posting and promoting this crap all over Wikipedia talk pages, you have hugely reduced the amount of drama, because when people see, "I blocked your bloke because you earlier blocked my bloke" they immediately dive into the fray because they think either one or the other bloke has been unfairly either blocked or unblocked, whereas when people see "STUPID CRAP ABOUT HALLOWEEN" they just ignore it and move on...
... YOU DO REALISE THAT, DON'T YOU? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)"

Large precedent for admonishment by motion

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![1] ([Tolerantly:] Show silliness of little 2009 committee.) Little Worm please add note to comment here, dispel ignorance! bishzilla ROARR!! 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)
In more recent times, [2] which you supported :P --Rschen7754 08:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I actually laughed at that. I'm an idiot. A complete idiot. WormTT(talk) 08:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't going to be the one who said it... ES&L 09:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hex is going to be a good boy from now on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

help needed

Dave, a user has been pestering the life out of me (in good faith) on my tp and by email. Where he is headed iis clear, and I've tried to answer as friendly as possible but I'm running out of ideas, and time to devote to this. Maybe you can help. See threads here, here, and here. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi @Kudpung:. Sorry for the delay in replying! I'm afraid I'm not really in a position to help at the moment - but have you considered pointing him towards WP:ADOPT? There's some very good people there who should be able to give him regular advice, meaning you won't be constantly having the hanger on. The other place is the Teahouse, questions used to be answered very quickly there - letting him know that the answers will be correct and fast would probably get him going there... Sorry I couldn't be more help. WormTT(talk) 10:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I think he's already got the message that he won't be ready for adminship for a few years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad to hear that! WormTT(talk) 10:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Adoption

I would love to be adopted! If interested as much as I am, please visit my talk page and let me know! Here2HelpWiki3-to-talk 18:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

To revert or not to revert...

This is not clear to me. Your opinion? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess the fella might have thought it was a bit to fluffy, words that didn't actually say anything. However, it's totally up to you, the most obvious thing to do is ask the IP, possibly with a WP:BRD. WormTT(talk) 10:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
If it's not necessary then i have no problem with it being removed. I just didn't know if it was a necessary part before a list of vehicle trims. Thanks Dave ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Spam-whitelist Staplers?

Dave, do you have a presence over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist or does anyone else watching here? I'm stuck in the backlog and have been for almost a month. I'd appreciate any help possible with my request. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jenova. I don't really have presence over there. I had a look though and ended up thinking... "couldn't you find something better"? Generally Rotten Tomatoes is the place to go for online reviews, then newspapers for offline. The Examiner has a poor reputation and you'll need to do a little better than "it looks fine to me" I think... WormTT(talk) 09:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I've found quite a lot of reviews for this film and found that one to be the most factual and accurate (I don't count "it's shit" as a useful review, and i tried to avoid the blogs). It's a good review, and worth featuring. I don't see why the reputation of the Examiner matters that much here. This is a review after all, so it's a biased personal opinion (You either like the film or you don't). The only barrier i see there is if they were paid to review the film and are biased, and there's no obvious evidence of that.
Does reputation matter so much when the topic is a personal opinion?
Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It's more that sources are meant to be reliable, and in general the Examiner is not considered reliable. The more we use it, the more it is considered reliable, so a good reason should be put forward. As an alternative, have you seen this? WormTT(talk) 10:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't it strike you as odd that we have to judge an article on the basis of the entire site, even if it's well written?
That means even a highly recognised and awarded journalist/writer would still be on the blocked list for their work, just because the homepage of the site they wrote for is generally like the Daily Mail, or contains a lot of adverts. I could use another review, but then that avoids this situation, which is something that should be sorted. I'm not arguing for the domain to be unblocked, just the review on one page. And the Whitelist page does say it can be done, but certainly doesn't argue a blocked domain can have no unblocked pages. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
If you can show that the writer is highly recognised and awarded, I think that would be a reason to whitelist. I don't think that's the case here. Effectively, the Examiner is not far from a blog - and thats something you agree with should avoid. WormTT(talk) 11:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Censorship isn't an answer. Some things should be blocked, but this is like a range block to stop a few bad editors. In the process you lose others who may be good contributors. I don't think i'm making good arguments just yet in the day... ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What can be done?

What can be done about the uncivil behaviour of Eric Corbett? See Talk:Wells Cathedral#Restrictive which. I would like to take this further if I could. There should be no room on Wikipedia for his awful behaviour. Particularly this comment, which I consider to be baiting: "My only difficulty is with your ignorance". I would appreciate your help very much. Inglok (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocking you for disruption would be a damn good start. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Inglok, there's a few points here. Firstly, you're framing the situation incorrectly - looking at the link you have provided, you have been as uncivil as Eric, but you escalated first. There is no way that "If you are having difficulty understanding..." could be considered civil and his response was in kind. Going on to accuse him of abuse and quoting policy at him, when you clearly do not understand how to talk civilly is a further uncivil act. Consider this a warning that if you carry on behaving in a similar manner, you will find yourself blocked. (I am aware of the history, when you contacted Eric civilly in July and at that point Eric stepped over the line.)
Now that that is out of the way, I should point out that Eric does sometimes cross a line and that behaviour does need to be curtailed. I intend to talk to him, when I can devote the time to, to perhaps work out a way that the encyclopedia and him can move forward. In my head, the line is when he is uncivil without provocation, or drastically escalates an argument. He did neither in this case. WormTT(talk) 08:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks you for your message about an appropriate warning to people over the Wells cathedral edit war. It is obvious that Anglicanus is angered over my drawing attention to his uncivil behaviour, and considers that I was bullying him, even though I still feel it was appropriate given the language he used. For what it is worth, I have placed a message on his talk page and offered to discuss the matter with him, and to also apologize to him. I am willing to be flexible about my position with him, but a compromise does require some change in position for both of us. I consider I have started that now, and it is up to him or her.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I am slightly surprised by your interpretation of events. To respond with "rubbish!" to my first statement together with his reversion I think betrayed an unwillingness to engage in dialogue and possibly also a lack of understanding. Note that I said "*if you are* having difficulty understanding", not "*you are* having difficulty understanding". The two are quite different. I was not to know what was behind his saying "rubbish!". It closed the opportunity for debate and the way to resloving our difference of opinion. I admit it was speculation on my part, but it was certainly not uncivil. Picture yourself in any in a normal, civil situation in which someone is trying to explain something to someone else, and it would be very surprising if one person would be offended that the other said "if you are having difficulty understanding..." It is difficult to see that anyone would be offended by such a thing unless, crucially, they were assuming bad faith on the part of whoever was saying it. Also, a lack of understanding is not a bad thing in itself and I have made no insinuation that it is.
And to say that "I have been as uncivil as Eric" is a bit silly really. Just to read what was written disproves that. I am also not sure how you come to the conclusion that linking to Wikipedia policy constitutes uncivil behaviour. Please share your reasoning on this one.
Overall my second attempt at resolution showed that I assumed his good faith and my willingness to talk sensibly. But after consideration I think it was not right of me in my second attempt to say that his behaviour in this instance had been abusive, for which I apologise, but it turned out to be a sign of things to come – "you are quite obviously an idiot" – which I think does constitute abuse of a kind. Inglok (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
For context
Inglok, thanks for coming back for a discussion. I'm going to frame the discussion by pointing out that the content doesn't matter, it's the methods of interaction that I'm going to focus on. You mention our policy that one should "assuming good faith". Well, from the very start you appear to be assuming that Eric was changing something "for its own sake". That's not assuming good faith. You then told him to go and look it up ("consult an authority"). You see, that's not opening debate, that's telling someone that they are wrong and they should make the effort to check.
Yes, Eric's response was "Rubbish" and could have been a lot better, but since you weren't opening debate, I could also understand him not responding at all. Neither of you were willing to engage the other and you are both therefore equally at fault.
You responded with "if you are having difficulty understanding". Now, it's obvious that you both think you are right on the matter, so that comment is akin to calling someone ignorant, which is exactly what Eric did in response. Again, equally at fault. Looking at the diagram on the right, both of you were sitting squarely in the "Contradiction" section. IE saying the other was wrong without evidence backing it up.
It was at this point that you actually started opening debate, explaining your reasoning and moving up the triangle. Which was all well and good, except you finished the well put together argument with "And, Eric, if your abusive behaviour continues I will refer you to the administators' noticeboard. Remember that you were blocked last time for your abusive behaviour. Please see Wikipedia:Civility." That comment starts off complaining about the tone of his comments and then goes on to attack him as a person. One step forwards, two steps back. You were undoubtedly the editor who escalated the argument and that was the reason for my response.
You ask why linking to a policy is uncivil, well, that takes a bit more explaining and it's all to do with society. Imagine you're in a queue for the cinema with children around you and in front of you is a bloke who's effing and blinding. There's a number of ways to handle it, you could ignore it, you could ask him politely to moderate his language as there are kids present. It unlikely that you'd present him with a book on queuing etiquette which includes a chapter on acceptable language. It's basically saying "you are wrong in your behaviour, but you aren't worth my time to explain what you're doing wrong", and quite simply, it's rude. You're not the only person to behave that way on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it less rude. See my sub page for other situations that I consider general behaviour of Wikipedian's to be uncivil, making the civility policy fundamentally incomplete. WormTT(talk) 10:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:DLTR could be another way of why, sometimes, linking to a policy is uncivil and counterproductive. — ΛΧΣ21 15:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Worm That Turned/Eric Corbett

Three weeks have passed. Any plans to do anything with User:Worm That Turned/Eric Corbett any time soon? Fram (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, real life has rather got in my way - for which I do apologise. You've been very reasonable in waiting this long, and I'm not going to be able to write the RfC I would like to write within reasonable timescales. As such, if you're still keen to get the RfC underway, please do go ahead. Sorry again for the delay. WormTT(talk) 13:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
No need to apologise for having a life, I should get one too. I'll see what I can do about it, and whether it makes sense to start it with Eric's refusal to participate no matter who writes it (which is his right of course, though perhaps not the most constructive approach). I'll let you know if and when I'll do anything about it. Fram (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother with an RfC/U Fram. Why not wait until the new ArbCom is in place and see if you can get me banned there? Eric Corbett 13:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Because it would be better IMO if there could be found a way to keep your contributions coming but get the disruption (no matter who causes it and who escalates it) reduced to a minimum? Because an RfC/U may produce fresh ideas on how to deal with this? ArbCom is the last step, only to be taken when nothing else helps anymore. I am not willing to go that far yet. But if one party to the problems isn't willing to even discuss or explore possible options, then the chances that an RfC/U or anything else short of an ArbCom will improve things are obviously minimal. And as long as you make statements like "Doesn't matter how long it's protected for. If Inglok and his faux priest mate Anglicanus don't butt out this article will never be ready for FAC" (when someone claims that he is a priest, then you just go around calling him a "faux priest" just becaues he has offended you or because you don't believe him), you will inevitably get into trouble again anyway.
So you don't want an RfC/U, and you probably don't really want an ArbCom case either; what do you propose to change the (baiting-)incivility-block cycle? Ignoring your incivility and not blocking you is not really an option. Uninvolved poming down harder on the baiting, on the other hand, is a possibility, but that only helps potentially in those cases where there was clear baiting. Any suggestions? Fram (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the Inglok and Anglicanus situation, you may want to see the preceding section on this page. There are certainly better ways that Eric could have handled it, but the fact is both Inglok and Anglicanus were the ones who caused this. Inglok, I explained above, Anglicanus went quickly in with a direct insult "patronising git". A few weeks ago, Eric's behaviour was more pronounced and without direct provocation. Today, it has been tempered despite direct provocation. It is important that we acknowledge that point, and not treat all actions as equal. WormTT(talk) 15:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
That's why last time he received a block, and now I simply mention it here. It doesn't raise to block level, but baiting, or simply incivil or attacking comments from the other parties, doesn't mean that one is free to respond in kind. I understand that sometimes the provocation can become too much for people, or that people have bad moments (I've had some of those myself onwiki), but when people respond to nearly every single incivil or attacking comment in kind, then it is problematic. It may have been somewhat more tempered today, but in se some of his comments were still unacceptable. Fram (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I will simply note that you haven't visited the talk page of Anglicanus, so one must therefore assume you believe that language such as "patronising git" is perfectly acceptable, and commonplace among priests. And that you are pursuing me and not Anglicanus tells an objective reviewer everything they need to know about your motivation. Eric Corbett 16:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about an RfC/U Fram, but if you want to waste your time initiating one that is of course your prerogative. Eric Corbett 16:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
This section is about an RfC about you for issues that have been going on for years, the Anglicanus comment you made was just a very recent example. I'm not starting an RfC/U because of that interaction, and you are well aware that this was started a few weeks before this, and put on hold at WTT's request. Fram (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is also an issue when Anglicanus reacts so badly to my increasing pressure on him to withdraw the "patronising git" comment that he starts to talk about getting me removed as an admin, yet being completely intransigent when I try to reach out to reach a compromise with him. He has bluntly refused to budge one bit, which shows an unwillingness to negotiate and reach a mutually acceptable compromise (though I do not think I can change my opinion about his "patronising git" comment.) You can read it for yourself on his talk page, and his response led me to believe that walking away was the best solution at this point.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

The Special Barnstar
I saw your question to Richwales today and wanted to thank you for the work you do despite all that has happened to you. I know what it feels like and feel so sad that you and probably others have been subjected to this kind of treatment. Best wishes. olive (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I know what it is like too. All the best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Olive, Hawkeye7, thank you both for taking the time to come over and say that. I do appreciate it. Personally, I'm fine with what people say about me, I've long since made my peace with that side of being on the committee. I weigh up my thoughts and pick the least worst option, but I'll never please everyone. That means that there will always be people who do dislike me and it then follows that the poor treatment appears.
I felt it was important that the next crop of arbitrators were aware of what it could be like though. I'm not one to complain and would have happily never mentioned it, but they deserved to be aware of what they were coming into. WormTT(talk) 10:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
(watching) Curious by the above, I looked up your good question and support the barnstar. You may have noticed that I asked my own and collected the responses which are promising: most candidates looked without bias at the fact that troubled me, and the one who came up with too easy an interpretation could be helped. More communication among the arbs seems a good goal, in any case, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Curses! WormTT(talk) 08:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
So much for your cunning plan to rig the election... You're not standing for another term, then? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Unless I wanted to run two terms at the same time, I thought it a poor idea. My term runs out at the end of next year Having said that, no, I very much doubt I will be running for a second term this time next year. WormTT(talk) 08:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Meh, infographics are too complicated for me. Nice pastels, though; I might print the chart off to help me and the wife decide on some new curtains. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
You should have seen the chart before it was brought to this readable state, - or better not ;) - I will miss you, WTT, and NW in the next committee, but have hopes looking at answers from candidates, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, I think you've misunderstood. I'm not going anywhere yet! WormTT(talk) 09:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
You are right, - I confused it with your less time here and more for real life ;) - Looking at the observations from some candidates, I trust that they will look at evidence, in context, without bias, question the reasoning of colleagues, communicate, assume good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
You haven't quite gone power mad yet and ruled as a benevolent Wikidictator. I'd give you my vote. Just please stop mailing me pieces of my dog! Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
... yet WormTT(talk) 10:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Bringing a constructive idea out of the former confusion, maybe arbs who can get elected intra-term actually should be able to have two arbitratorships running concurrently, with each arbitratorship allowed one vote in arbcom decisions? Continuing confidence of electorate = extra power. Just like Julius Caesar, who ... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Why stop at two? We could allow people to run for election multiple times each election so there's the possibility for one person having all the arbitrator positions at once. It'll definitely make decision making more simple. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked IPs

There is a serious backlog of about 20K individual IPs that are blocked without expiration. I have broken the IPs into groups of 5000: m:User:とある白い猫/English Wikipedia open proxy candidates. So they are effectively blocked until time ends. This creates considerable potential collateral damage as the owners of IPs tend to be not very consistent. Some of these IPs are on dynamic ranges which results in arbitrary blocks of good users. Vast majority of the blocks go back years all the way to 2004 - some were preemptively blocked. Nowadays even open proxies normally do not get indefinite blocks.

The problem is that no single admin wants to review this many IPs and very few have the technical capability to review. Such a technical review would be non-trivial for individual IPs which in my humble opinion would be a complete waste of time. I feel ArbCom could step in and provide criteria for bulk action. A bulk unblock of all indefinite blocks (with exceptions if the specific single IP unblocks are contested) before - say - 2010 would be a good start.

Open proxies tend to be better handled at meta as open proxies are a global problem for all wikis.

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Important article improvement milestone - nice to see this essential article getting the recognition it deserves! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 16:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bacon WikiCup 2012 Award

Hey! If you've got a good memory, you'll remember that about a year and a half ago, you participated in the Bacon WikiCup 2012. Unfortunately I became inactive before I could give out the awards, which I apologize for. It's been forever since I disappeared from Wikipedia, but I decided to check back in out of nostalgia. I know I'm really pushing it with "better late than never", but here it is: your very-long-overdue medal. Cheers, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

[[

Image:Bacon WikiCup 2012 Medal.svg|120px]]

Bacon WikiCup 2012 - Participant Medal
Due to your work in expanding bacon-related content during the Bacon WikiCup 2012, you have been awarded the Bacon WikiCup 2012 Particpant Medal. You received a final score of 204, earning yourself second place. Congratulations, and thank you for your great work! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Craven - update re: status

Greetings, Mr. Craven,

I messaged you apprx. 5 months ago re: adoption and at the time you weren't adopting even though you had listed on the page that you might have time for adoption - at least I believe that I am remembering this correctly! I messaged you and, at most, possibly one other person about adoption, but I do believe that you were the one person that I messaged about this opportunity. I've read that you are moving into a lower stage of Wikipedia work, but, I would like to know if you might possibly be able to take on a lower activity adoptee who also does their own research on how to enter edits, etc on Wikipedia before asking for help. Is there a chance that you might consider taking on an, at this time, low maintenance adoptee?

Also, regardless of the adoptee question, I wanted to ask you a question, quick question, about an edit I made to the "Mink Stole" page - I believe my second edit, the citation, was done correctly but, as you will clearly see, I added a film for 1971, "Is There Sex After Death" and I followed the formatting of the other films in that decade and had a big blunder - the list ended up outside of the sectioned box! It is really very obvious, is in the filmography section of her page and the problem addition is on the far right side - listed in the early 1970's section - film is a 1971 film. I am not even sure of how to flag the page so that somebody can assist me with the correction of the formatting. All of the information is there and when in edit mode it even appears correctly in the list of her film history. If you have a moment and can check on it, I would really appreciate it, Mr. Craven. If you do drop in and correct it, could you please, in brief, explain why the film listing didn't appear in the row once I chose to "Save" the edit - I would really appreciate it.

I hope that all is well with you in England, Loren M. Cooley (lmc33) Detroit, Michigan - USA 20:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmc33 (talk • contribs)

ps - Mr. Craven, I attempted to reply to your message to me from 5 mos. ago, and this is message to you placed here, "User Talk", I'm not sure if this is correct! I am so sorry if it is not and hoping that you might show me how to properly reply to messages received and how to message a user correctly when initiating the contact. Thank you, again, for your response and assistance. lmc33 20:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmc33 (talk • contribs)

Hi Loren, please do call me Dave, Mr Craven seems far too formal for me! (If you prefer, you can always call me Worm, or WTT, or...)
I'm afraid I'm still in a period of lower activity, since joining Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee (a role which you really don't want or need to know about) - so really I can't take on any adoptees. You are, however, always welcome to leave me a question here at my talk page (which you did absolutely correctly) and I will do my best to answer it. There's also the teahouse, a group project which has lots of helpful volunteers.
As to your question, I had a look at code. You were so close! The code for new line is |-, and you wrote | -. Can you even see the difference? It's a miniscule space. I've removed the space and it's now showing perfectly. WormTT(talk) 10:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

EotW

Dave -- Good day, I tweaked your post to add a header and started a section to the talk page. Apologies if I overstepped my bounds. I also seconded the nomination as I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of that Editor. Lettik (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No problems at all. I'm not exactly the most active in the editor of the week stakes, but when I see one, I like to nominate them. I appreciate your help getting the bureaucracy right, I'm generally pretty rubbish at such things! WormTT(talk) 14:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cold?

Best wishes
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays


JianhuiMobile talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, 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:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

JianhuiMobile talk 07:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Cyberpower678

—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, 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:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! :-)

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)


~TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, 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 Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Dave, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please Help me!

Hi Worm That Turned, Happy New Year! I am not asking to be unblocked. I am asking that my block be replaced with a global lock, and my Mbz1 user pages were left undeleted. Global lock is possible by an editor request. Please see here. The thing is that vanishing my account probably will not work for me. It was tried on Commons, and it just did not work because of the images.

Also could you please undelete all pages in my user space deleted by Jehochman. I have never asked him to delete my user pages.

I am not asking to be allowed to edit Wikipedia, and I am not interested in editing Wikipedia. The only thing I am asking for it is just a little bit of understanding. Is this so much to ask for?

Thanks. Mbz150.150.100.112 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Mbz1, I agree that the top level pages should be re-instated, however, I do not agree that all the other ones should be. Vanishing would be positive, and the closest we can get to that is a rename, and removal of all sub pages. As for global lock, there is no reason you cannot have a global lock AND a block in place, I suggest you get the global lock sorted first, and then discuss removal of the block. From what I understand there may be technical difficulties with instating a global lock, which you should attempt to sort first. Yes, this all bureaucracy, but it could mean a positive outcome. WormTT(talk) 15:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the response!
First, I am asking to undelete my user pages now, when I am being discussed on AN because users who vote should know about positive contributions I made for that project. It is very important for me. Please undelete them at least until the discussion is going on. What is wrong with this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mbz1/Latest_contributions for example?
Second. I have already created a unified account. I don't think there would be technical difficulties with a global lock.
Third. Did I understand you correctly. If global lock is achieved, my Mbz1 is going to be unblocked?50.150.100.112 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Worm That Turned, could you please make my talk page the way it used to be? There are some DYK and some pictures of the date and some request for my images. I'd like it to stay like it used to be at least until the AN discussion is going on? Thanks.50.150.100.112 (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It is the way it used to be. It has been like that since I deleted and recreated it in July. I have no intention of changing it from that. As to your other points -
  1. Every single sub page increases the number of links between you and wikipedia. If we are trying to sever the links, then they should be removed. If that's not what you are after, you should be appealing the ban to BASC. The former is what's being discussed at AN. If you do not want that, you should make it clear.
  2. I do not understand the technicalities of global locks, they do not interest me. But I would suggest you get that one first, to disprove the naysayers.
  3. I make no promises, for either the community or the committee. But if a global lock was in place, I would support removal of the block and rename of the account.
I hope that clarifies. WormTT(talk) 15:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. Worm That Turned, I am upset, but not drank. My talk page was not like that yesterday. Somebody redirected it to my user page. Would you please remove the redirect?
  2. Yes, it is what I am after, but not now, when the AN discussion is taken place.
  3. OK.

And here's one more simpler solution

Wikipedia wants me to leave. I want to leave Wikipedia even more.

Blocks are not to punish.

In my particular situation it is.

So here's a proposed solution. I will email my password to you. You will login to my account, change my password, remove my email address.

I am leaving wikipedia and everybody is happy.

If I am back, the block is reinstated and banned user template is added to my user page.

I see no reason to refuse me in such simple and fair for everybody involved solution other than to punish me.

Do you see any other reason that could prevent the committee to treat a named person with dignity and understanding? 50.150.100.112 (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I will not log into another users account, nor will I accept your password. You are welcome to log in, remove your email address, and scramble your own password. WormTT(talk) 16:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure I could do it myself, but it will not unblock my account or would it?
  • Did you see my request to remove the redirect from my talk page? Worm That Turned sometimes I feel that some Wikipedians want to delete all my Wikipedia history that I specifically asked to be kept, and leave only my block record, like they want to prove to themselves they banned the right person. I uploaded hundreds of featured pictures. I wrote about 100 DYK. Why am I treated as a vandal? I am not going to use my talk page, but allow others to use it, even if it is simply to request a use of an image. Please don't let an absolutely unneeded Jehochman's harassment to stand. 50.150.100.112 (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I did miss it, but I have seen it now. I'm not going to undelete that page. You don't get to pick and chose which bits of Wikipedia get shown - you have a simple choice, leave or stay. If you want to leave, then leave with your head held high, don't fuss over what's left behind. If you want to stay, work towards the unblock. That's all I have to say on that matter. WormTT(talk) 08:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    I deserve to be treated fairly and with dignity, which at least means I should have a right for an open appeal, and not for a closed tribunals, in which I am not a part. There's nothing in my case that requires any secrecy because I have never outed anybody, and I have never harassed anybody. I am not afraid of an open appeal, but the arbcom is. Anyway...
    The last question for now: You said above that you would support unblocking my account, if global lock is in place. I talked to a steward, and he told me that it could be discussed, but first the arbcom should decide on their part. So could you please put my request up for a vote and tell me what is the decision? And please remember I am not asking for unblock I am asking for replacing my block with a global lock. 24.6.41.214 (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    I have raised it with the committee and will let you know, by email, how it turns out on Monday. WormTT(talk) 14:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you!50.136.135.95 (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Worm That Turned, Jehochman keeps trashing my reputation, and his own as well. The latest claim here is that this IP was me. This IP is in Germany, and I don't think it is even a proxy.I am in California. I tried to tell him it was not me ,but he reverted me with yet another false accusation of harassment.
  • Worm That Turned with this situation my request, even if accepted will not work, because Jehochman or another idiot (I'm ready to apologize if somebody proves that Jehochman is not an idiot) would claim that every IP from all over the world is me. So here we go: I withdraw my request. I am sorry I took your time.
  • I am Mila Zinkova, my user name is Mbz1.
  • I have never harassed anybody.
  • I have never kicked a person who was down.
  • And I am proud to be banned from the community that tolerates jehochmans and others like him, and allows them to harass defenseless persons.71.198.212.227 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for an open appeal

Worm that turned, you advised me above to appeal the block to the arbcom. I am not interested in editing Wikipedia, but I'd like to appeal my block and to leave your site in peace. I am requesting that appeal to be in an open here on Wikipedia on my own talk page, an appeal, in which I am allowed to participate. I'd be very civil, and everybody would be allowed to comment. I am only asking of one thing: "every comment that accusing me of harassment (I am banned for harassment) should have at least one on-wiki diff". I would accept the decision of this open appeal. And listen, I am not looking for attention, I am looking for transparency. I am not looking for drama, I am looking for the truth to come out, and I am requesting this open appeal not only for myself, but also for others in a similar situation, and for Wikipedia too because nobody should be ever treated as I am. Regards.24.6.208.112 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678


—cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, 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 New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


Jianhui67 talk★contribs — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, 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 New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi, Worm That Turned! I am not sure if you remember me, but you adopted me in February, 2011. You archived my page because I was inactive. However, I would like to graduate. Is this possible with your schedule? Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo Michael (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

DS review

I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the here. I'd be interested in hearing your views.  Roger Davies talk 19:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been meaning to weigh in there for a while, but keep getting distracted. WormTT(talk) 08:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You nailed it

I can digest the archives only in small quantities, so only now came across your precious comment which said it better than my own. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me grumbling again. One of the worst things to happen to Wikipedia since I started. WormTT(talk) 10:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes. See my user, I closed for the season and will see how long this ice age lasts. I am happy that at least my last-mentioned hope came true, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: I melted a bit. A person whom I knew died, to put things in perspective, (I wrote an article) - and this cheered me up. Sorry about my wrong procedure in arb clarification, - I thought if other people (not only me) see that something is not fair it's better they say so than the victim does. (I don't feel like asking for mercy for myself, for example.) Teach me, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

First assignment completed

Hi Dave, I've answered the leftover questions which were due for sometime. You can have a look at them, and then we can proceed forward. Thanks. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hiya TGU. They're nearly a year old! I'm afraid my time for Wikipedia has severely diminished, and I won't have time to carry on your course. Perhaps you could have a chat with someone else at WP:ADOPT? WormTT(talk) 14:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I might have, but I like your style of managing the courses-having assignment with questions and everything in detail. And there is hardly anyone doing that. I'm not saying to you to be available everyday for looking over the course. For now, the best thing I would suggest is that you can just copy paste the next course after checking those last four answers and I'll let you know later when I complete the next course. Cheers. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not likely to have time to mark things quickly, but as long as time's on your side I'll add all the different courses for you to do :) WormTT(talk) 14:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Vote

That is intended to be a vote to close, right? [3] --Rschen7754 08:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything. WormTT(talk) 08:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrapping up the Kafziel case

Your vote would be appreciated on the Conduct unbecoming FOF to enable us to close the case.  Roger Davies talk 10:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've logged on specifically this morning to do that. WormTT(talk) 10:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

For the oppose [4]. You're probably wikisaavy enough to get it's not a personal thing, I'd oppose any sitting arb from taking on that role. (Actually it's your own fault for posting on 28bytes page, 'cause I have that, not Rfb, watchlisted).NE Ent 00:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen a single personal oppose on that page, pretty much every one is an oppose for good reason. I've no problem with your vote or anyone elses. Don't you worry :) WormTT(talk) 10:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic

Regarding the topic of the unspeakable little things, please tell me one occasion in 2014 where you found my discussion unhelpful, - please not counting where I spoke for Andy, because that will stop once he is free again to design "his" articles as he likes them. Repeating: I am not passionate about the things (not even all my own articles have one), but about people and fairness. I can't say so in the clarification, because I exhausted my permitted number of comments in a discussion by pointing out what I really thought was productive collaboration of editors on "different sides" ;) I would like to see more of that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, I hereby give you special dispensation to comment further at the clarification - feel free to link to this diff if you are worried that it might be used against you. Unless the motion passes, you are still able to use the word "infobox". Could I ask why you feel that I should not be counting any 2013 actions? Or why you in particular needed to speak for Andy, who is quite capable in speaking for himself? WormTT(talk) 12:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I asked only about 2014 because of my new year's resolutions, hoping that my sins of 2013 could be forgiven ;) - I explained above that I am not going to ask for mercy for myself, so I felt Andy wouldn't ask for his. I tried to help him in a situation that looks unfair to me. - I took my last restriction although it didn't make sense and is against my quality standards. I can take the next the same. I don't want special dispensation, but thanks for the offer. Remembering 28bytes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
ps: ""He who breathes deepest lives most." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Worm, FWIW, I think it's clear that both Andy and Gerda are wondering where the next blow will come from, and your proposed sanction-tightening on Gerda at the request for clarification is proof of this. It's like saying "Voldemort!" or something. I really don't get this at all; the bullies won the Arbcom case, their nastiness, innuendo and bullying continues, and two damn good editors go around with their hands tied. Yet over half of all wikipedia articles have infoboxes and most are non-controversial and standard for their respective projects. I am having a lot of trouble figuring out why some people are clearly allowed to own articles - or even a whole wikiproject - but other people trying to edit them are accused of WP:OWNership and sanctioned. It's worse than the way poor-quality playground aides give detention to both participants in a fistfight, both the 200-lb bully who threw the first punch, and the 98-lb. stripling who is bleeding on the ground. I cannot express the degree of frustration I am feeling about this situation. Montanabw(talk) 20:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
@Montanabw: no, I am not wondering about a next blow. 28bytes leaving froze me, - this is nothing in comparison, just another restriction, as absurd as the present one.
Not you, them. The restriction is unnecessary. The issue will not go away just because two proponents are silenced, particularly when it should be a non-issue. Montanabw(talk) 19:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
@Worm: please give me a feeling for what to expect: what would happen if I made a comment like this under the proposed motion"?
Did you know ...? I wrote about a man who was not afraid to oppose the pope - while all his colleagues didn't - to follow his conscience. It helped. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Montana, post-Infoboxes, Gerda asked a series of questions intended to determine whether Arbitrator candidates would have reached a different verdict on the case and wrote an election guide based on the issue. Then she brought the case back to ArbCom for relitigation. No sane ArbCom wants to encourage that kind of transparent political manipulation. Furthermore, Gerda was quite explicitly warned by an outgoing Arbitrator (who did not participate in the case) that she would face exactly this sanction if she persisted in her conduct, and told how to avoid it. She did not. You and Gerda may be shocked by this, but I don't think anyone else is. I am sorry for Gerda, who is an excellent article writer in a difficult position because her tastes conflict with others writing similar content, but her present predicament is of her own making. Choess (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I know that, and I think it was perfectly acceptable. ArbCom made a terrible decision in the infobox case and to have candidates discuss how they migh handle a similar situation is a good, solid question. I also think Gerda is completely in the right to look at the edges of the issue and ask for clarification before she acts (as above), sometimes sanctions can be very arbitrarily applied, as here. The bullies won on that case, getting off all but scott free to continue intimidating anyone who invades the ownership of their private domain. Risker was wrong, on this, Worm is wrong now to restrict her further, ArbCom has gone off the deep end with its own "obsession" on this topic. Gerda's predicament is the making of multiple parties, many of whom were not acting in good faith. This is hurting an acknowledged good faith contributor and it is sanctioning the continued bullying by bullies. Montanabw(talk) 19:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I politely disagree. 1) I didn't ask questions about a different outcome of the case, I asked about different looks, and got them. 2) I am not shocked, I said above that it means nothing to me compared to losing an editor and meant it. 3) Informing readers should not be a matter of taste, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
ps: in case of interest, I described my view of the Planyavsky case - a fact mentioned in the arb case - in November, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi All. Sorry I've taken so long to get back to you on this. I'm not very active at the weekends, and whilst I did log on it was primarily to vote in the Kafziel case. I understand why there is opposition to this restriction, I really do. I've regularly seen Gerda being a fantastic influence on all areas of the encyclopedia, especially on the community - an area that needs the most work. We need more people like Gerda, not less. I took that into account when I voted on the original case - if you remember, I didn't even support an admonishment.

    Since that case though, half the time I've come across Gerda is when she's been re-hashing the case. The important thing about arbitration is the finality of it and that is why Risker and Brad (I believe) suggested she move on. Sometimes a decision needs to be made and it needs to be accepted once it is made.

    My express hope is that Gerda will move away from infobox debates and re-focus on the things she is not only good at, she's one of the best at. WormTT(talk) 11:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your expression of appreciation. I just started another Magnificat. I am very pleased to see how many arbs voted against the ownership of articles. If that was taken seriously for infoboxes, not a single further comment in "debates" would be needed. - I accepted the finality of the infoboxes arb decision, but when I made up my mind about for whom to vote I asked all candidates about the one diff that was presented as evidence in the case. (I will not know what the arb saw who was "deeply concerned", not what the others saw who left it in the so-called evidence unquestioned. The analysis by 28bytes was best.) - I can stay away from infobox debates without a restriction, - try it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
ps: I requested peer review for BWV 172 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

I have closed your RfB as successful and you are now a bureaucrat. Probably the only context in which that isn't an insult... WJBscribe (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! WormTT(talk) 08:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Message on DS review page

Hello Worm That Turned,

I've left the message below the DS Review page [5], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.

Getting to know each other

Dave, after the piles of congrats to which I added, can we get to work? You have limited time, I have limited time, I am a DYK person and suggest simple questions and answers.

Did you know

Interrupting, how about getting to know Andy? See article, European Parliament project and NPR appearance. You will see immediately what's missing in the article. Help, All Things Considered? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

article needing help: The Crescent (Birmingham) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
ps: and that I am even more pleased than further up that 28bytes turned ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well done on your RFB, oh most hatted of Wikipedians! Yunshui 雲‍水 15:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just saving up so I can make more noise when I leave ;) WormTT(talk) 08:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

ADMIN

Could you make me admin? I learn so much from Wikipedia and I would love to be an admin. Please grant me permission

THANK YOU!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDraggon (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To become an administrator you must submit a request for adminship, where the community will decide whether to make you an administrator. Simply because Worm has the power to do that (being a bureaucrat) does not mean that he will unless you have passed RfA. However, I would strongly advise against running right now because you need several years worth of experience and to have shown you can handle all aspects of adminship. As your current total edit count is 18, wait a while. Rcsprinter123 (converse) @ 16:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colton Cosmic:

Don't you think that the user should be unblocked and allowed to participate in that RFC? The danger he damages Wikipedia is none, and you know that. Please do the right thing. Let Colton Cosmic to participate.69.181.40.211 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, I just logged in an incident on ANI. Check this [6]. I feel that the action by the admin in discussion was harsh, sudden and one sided. Whilst I wait for the discussion on ANI to progress, I am placing a request to you if you can review this independently and give me your feedback. Cheers AKS

Comment placed on Roger Davies' Talk page

I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger,

Could you please correct this comment you made at [7]:

This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.

Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.

Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).

"Fun"?

Are you sure you want to use the word "fun" in regards to the case that involves the comments made about a young man who is no longer with us? 69.181.193.108 (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(watching): I don't know of any comment made about that young man, note: "about". Or what did I miss? Anyway, I comment the whole thing Sorrow, top of my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Despite attempts by some to make that thread about a deceased Wikipedian it wasn't. It was a thread about Wikipedia's attitude to mental health. If you wan't to talk about that one particular young man, a quick internet search will tell you that his tragically sad death came after, suffering for years or as one obituary put it "after years of quietly battling depression and anxiety." Attempts to lay the blame at Wikipedia's door are quite frankly false. Attempts by others to manipulate all discussion of that thread and the posts in it to suit their own ends are disgusting, as is also the inference that any mention of anything surrounding the thread should only be spoken of in sepulchre and sombre tones. In short, no one is disrespecting that poor boy because this is not about him. Now if Worm is sensible he will obliterate this section and ban you as a trolling goul.  Giano  17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Giano, my post was not about Wikipedia. It was about being a compassionate human being. This thread indirectly involves a dead person, a very young person who died tragically, and using the word "fun" in regards to this case is beyond the pale IMO. 69.181.193.108 (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • No, you crassly used a late Wikipedian to make a point, your point (it was yours?) was that Wikipedians should treat the mentally ill with more compassion [8] you wanted to suggest "a day of kindness" that was the reason for your post and the wisdom of that is what was debated. When the thread did not develop to your liking, you and others used the dead to try and gainsay those that offered an alternative view, and that's something that you're still doing.  Giano  18:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Quoting Penyulap: "Not every Author is married, with a wife hanging over their shoulder nagging and criticizing their every word. Wikipedia has a lot to offer these Authors". Stop going around looking for phrasing to be sanctimonious about, Mbz1, if you don't want your range blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
(talk page stalker)So the OP of that screed was a sock of an indef. blocked editor? Shame that Kevin hadn't had his self proclaimed sock detector working instead of his misfiring BLP detector. Leaky Caldron 19:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • and we still have Admins insulting Eric [9] this time he's "belittling a suicide," These people need severe action taken against them, and I am becoming even more short tempered than usual on this subject. Why doe the Arbcom allow these lies to continue? That's a bloody good question - and I'll have the answer.  Giano  19:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(Ec)*Everybody, mentally ill and mentally healthy, should be treated with more compassion, more kindness and more understanding. Eric got upset about somebody using that template at their talk page, but honestly Eric's retirements is the same thing. His retirements is his way to request for assistance and understanding, and as every human being he should be given some.

  • But once again this particular post has absolutely nothing to do with Eric, with Kevin, with mentally ill, with mentally healthy, with Wikipedia, with the arbcom. This post is only about using the word "fun" in regards to this particular situation.
  • @Bishonen, it is quite useless to block my range. You could get more info from user:Mark Arsten. Instead of blocking the ranges treat people as human beings. 69.181.193.108 (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Giano, let me please tell you my story.
Two years ago I submitted rfc concerning a bully admin. I did it on Meta because I was blocked on English wikipedia by my own request (It was within meta policies). Suddenly without any warning, my self-requested block was replaced by the arbcom block. I was accused in the harassment of that admin. When I tried to question my block on my talk page, my talk page access was removed. But wikipedians were not done with me yet. They decided that the arbcom block is not enough and I was community banned. Half of the users who supported the ban were involved with me, I was not able to say a single word in my defense, not even on my own talk page during my ban discussion, but the most important thing is that although I was blocked for an alleged harassment of that admin, there was no single bloody evidence of that alleged harassment. I repeatedly said I was willing to apologize If I am presented with valid evidences of an alleged harassment, but I was refused in that too.
Because I was editing under my real name, that ban hurts me in my real life.
I am not interested in editing Wikipedia, and I decided to make it simple. I asked that my block were replaced with a global lock of my account, just to remove it from the public records. I was refused in that. I told them that if this is done, I would never touch Wikipedia again, and I assure you I would have kept my promise, but I was refused. So here I am, still trying to make Wikipedia a kinder place and not only for myself but for others too, and it includes everybody, and you and Eric too. Remember I asked for your unblock?69.181.193.108 (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
And, Giano, one last thing for now. You said: " you crassly used a late Wikipedian to make a point". No, I did not. I gave my post a lot of thinking before I made it. I did not want to hurt the memory of the young man I really like. I did not want to hurt his family, and there were so many articles about him on the NET, and he himself was so public in his habits of questioning the authorities, just like you, Giano, that I decided to go ahead with the post. In my post I simply wanted to demonstrate that a person who asked for the assistance and understanding here on Wikipedia was give neither. My only goal was/is trying to make Wikipedia a kinder place for everybody. 50.143.130.25 (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You didn't need to mention the deceased even indirectly. It took me less that 2 minutes to identify him on wiki and subsequently all the stuff on-line. You breached WP:BDP - unintentionally - by providing details which enabled identity to be revealed and prying eyes to burrow into his family background and the circumstances. It was extremely clumsy and trying to pin violations on another editor is eye-opening hypocrisy. Leaky Caldron 21:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:BDP does not prevent somebody from talking about a dead person. It only requests that this person is treated with respect, and that the facts told about him were supported by the reliable sources. I did treat this person with respect because I respect him. I read a lot about him, and even corresponded with some people who knew him. I believe he would not have minded my post. 50.143.130.25 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
No, but you did not have the family's consent to plaster a screed over one of the most highly viewed pages on the internet. BDP clearly includes "material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide". Get thinking and get apologising. I'm staying off this talk page now, it doesn't belong to me. Leaky Caldron 21:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo's talk has "no index" and it is viewed mostly by Wikipedians. It is not even close to "the most highly viewed pages on the internet".
As I stated above there are articles on the NET (you read some yourself) about the suicide of this young man. His father was interviewed for one of them. The suicide is not a secret. I have known he committed suicide for a few months, but I made the post only when the articles about it have appeared on the NET. So my post had no implications for the young man living relatives and friends.50.143.130.25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I lost my son - similar age - in tragic, unexpected circumstances 4 years ago. The idea that kooks and creeps like you would be discussing anything to do with him, in any terms, would disgust me. Leaky Caldron 21:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • i am in no position to comment as I'm on my phone, but will tomorrow. Suffice it to say that I was referring to the issues which should have petered out while I was on holiday but instead escalated to edit warrin on Arbcom pages. That you struggle with my meaning mbz1 is your issue, not mine. I ask you to leave this page, I'm disgusted by your use of a death to further your goals and any sympathy I had for you is now gone. Goodbye. WormTT(talk) 21:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • What a mess. I hope it's obvious that the "fun" I was referring to was the waste of time arbitration case. I've made my feelings quite clear to Kevin by email as had a number of arbitrators, and as far as I can see, he had backed down. I went on holiday. I come back to find requests for pounds of flesh, edit warring over case names, people storming off. This was NOT worth the time that has been invested into it.
    I hope it's also obvious that the word "fun" was written sarcastically. Of course it's not fun. Having said that, from the comments above, it's clear that the vast majority of people knew exactly what I meant, and it was one banned editor who caused the whole mess and is trying to cause more trouble. It might be a communication difficult, as English is not her first language, or it might be something more sinister - but either way if she cannot see that using a death to further her goals is reprehensible, she is clearly not someone I want to know. I hope that she will not be returning here. Having said that, I've reopened my talk page, so she can have her last word. The last word means very little to me, but hopefully will help her move on and keep off my page in future. WormTT(talk) 08:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    It is nice of you to allow me to have my last word, but before I do, I'd like to ask you please to explain me something. You said that I was using a death to further my goals. May I please ask what "my goals" you had in mind? Thanks.50.143.130.25 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Suburban Express

Hi,

I noticed you taking over the block on User:Arri at Suburban Express on behalf of Arbcom. Note that I had also blocked two declared alternate accounts of the same person, User:Arri416 and User:Suburban Express President as part of the same administrative action. I don't know whether taking those over would amount to anything more than bureaucratic nitpicking, but it's probably best if you're aware of these. I'll also note that I blocked the second one 2 months later after another user drew my attention to it, and there were no shenanigans involved with that particular account in the meantime. Thanks, MLauba (Talk) 14:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll grab both of them too. The fact is there's too much off wiki stuff for an admin to make an informed decision, so it's going to have to be Arbcom that does. WormTT(talk) 14:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. MLauba (Talk) 17:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Stargazy

You should know that I used the pie for a special award for a brave editor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sooner or later, the editor in question is likely to leave a puppy on my talkpage as a gesture of thanks...
... and, true to my roots in the north-west, ... that, too, is likely to result in pie! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Editor review#RfC: Should we mark WP:ER as historical?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editor review#RfC: Should we mark WP:ER as historical?. As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editor review (2nd nomination) last year, you may be interested in the current RfC discussing closing and marking ER as historical. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Holdek

Do you really think it was wise to unblock him? He started trolling me immediately after your misguided goodwill gesture. See ANI. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I have not been following the Toddst1 drama, but he was right about this socking issue. Just ask user User:Ymblanter, who was the main target of that IP socking/trolling. In your (ArbCom's) misguided attempt to punish Toddst1, you have enabled the return of a much worse editor (Holdek). Someone not using his real name (talk)

Have you (ArbCom) formally decided that Holdek was not IP socking? Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Someone not using his real name, I've commented on ANI. I took the unblock action myself, after reviewing the situation. I did discuss with BASC members, but no part was an Arbcom decision, nor an attempt to punish Toddst1. So, I reviewed the history, I looked at Holdek's behaviour and blocks and absolutely agreed with the 1 month block. The indef, however, wasn't appropriate. The alleged socking wasn't socking, after 4 years it's not unreasonable that an editor came back under an IP first - I've explained that at Holdek's talk page. One single incident of logging out in an edit war does not make an indef. However, if you've got evidence of other logged out editing, I'd be interested to hear it - or you can start an SPI. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

SG for Stargazy Pie

Guten Appetit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ahhhh it's spreading! The world will all know of the fishy pie! WormTT(talk) 15:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It's spreading, more than 600 views - in English, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

York edit-a-thon

Hi Dave! Not sure if you remember me from the Training the Trainers event last year? I'm currently the Wikipedian in Residence at York Museums Trust and we're having an edit-a-thon on March 16th. It'd be great to have you along! There's a broad spectrum of topics inspired by York's luminaries and the curators will be bringing some fun stuff to show and tell. Hope to see you there! PatHadley (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi PatHadley! I'm not likely to forget you :D, twas a good event. Unfortunately, I very much doubt either Stacey or myself would be able to make it due to other commitments. Thanks for the invite though. WormTT(talk) 16:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries! Can I ask a big favour? I'm guessing you're pretty handy with the advanced formatting? No matter what I do I can't stop the event page from being over-wide/fixed-width. I'm guessing the coloured frame and table are conflicting or something? Is there any way to fix it without changing the whole look? I'd like it to stay consistent for new visitors. Any thoughts? Cheers! PatHadley (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I'm that handy, PatHadley, but I've seen something like that before. It's something pretty stupid, but URLs don't wrap - meaning they force the column width the be at least as wide as the URL. It happened in 2 columns, which then blew your formatting. I just tidied the links up, and the columns fell into line - tada! WormTT(talk) 08:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
You star! Thanks PatHadley (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Any time :) WormTT(talk) 09:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passed

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

  • By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drink, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Closed Clarification request: Toddst1/Holdek

Clarification request: Toddst1/Holdek has been closed and archived. An archived copy of the of the request can be seen here. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

About an Article

I was wondering if on the Spanish Wikipedia. If I am allowed to make an article about a Spanish Christian church, in Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDraggon (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Worm's powers don't extend to the Spanish Wikipedia, nor indeed to most times between 9pm on Friday and 9am on Monday. So this really depends on policy on the Spanish Wikipedia - perhaps they have a help desk type thing there?
My first guess would be that the Spanish Wikipedia is likely to have similar practices to the English Wikipedia regarding churches, namely that all churches are generally considered notable; and thus one can create a separate article about each church.
If, as your userpage implies, you are fluent in the Spanish language, then my suggestion would be yes, go right ahead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Adoption Suggestion

Hi WormTT,

I understand you are not taking any adoptees ATM but I would love an adopter suggestion. Maybe a former student? etc?

Thank you, Forrest ForrestLyle (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dennis (below) is indeed right that the Teahouse is a great place to go. Adoption has been in decline for years and recently has been fairly quiet. I'd suggest it's been decentralised to the Teahouse, where people can ask any questions they like. At the moment, I couldn't tell you which of my former students are active, let alone interested in adopting - to my shame, I've rather lost track. The last person I spoke to in depth about adoption was User:Yunshui, and if he's not able to take you on, he may be able to suggest someone. WormTT(talk) 07:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Worm may have someone specific in mind, but regardless, a good place to start is WP:Teahouse. They can answer any basic questions, and might be able to find you a mentor. The place exists only to help new users like yourself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dave - thought I'd swing by and say hello after your message, since we haven't been in touch for a while. You got me thinking - given the serious rate of adopter attrition (have you taken a look at the list of adopters recently? Not a lot of green headers there...), do you think it would be a worthwhile exercise to temporarily shut up shop on the existing adoption program, and reopen it as part of the Reimagining Mentorship project when that eventually goes live? I'm - very casually - considering whether or not to open an RFC on the subject. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be necessary, but I've done almost nothing on adoption in a year due to arbcom so I've no idea what the current state of play is. If it's as bad as you say, yes, we should hold an RfC on shutting up shop (similar to the one on Editor Review). I could have a look at creating something new in the new year when my arbcom term ends if no one else does sooner :) WormTT(talk) 08:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you will go swanning off with your Arbcom buddies, leaving the rest of us to wallow in the muck... I'll canvass (not WP:CANVASS!) for some opinions among the other active adopters (there's only about six left) and see what people think about holding an RfC. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Would it be better to incorporate that into the Teahouse? They get the right traffic, some that need to be adopted, some that just need a helping hand or a single question answered. It would be centralizing the whole "new user help" experience. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea, but I don't know if the Teahouse would accept their function being "watered down" as it were. Actually, I'm thinking of something closer to the Wikipedia adventure, a javascript version of my course that anyone can take... but it's going to need far more time that I have presently. WormTT(talk) 07:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I think, on reflection, that it probably makes sense to leave the AAU system as-is for the time being. The Reimagining Mentorship project has a very similar remit, and I suspect it will completely supplant AAU once it's completed - it makes sense to have something in place during the interim period, and the current incarnation of AAU might as well be that something. There definitely ought to be some sort of clear connection between the Teahouse and whatever adoption/mentorship system we end up with, though - we originally put this forward to the Teahouse when we revamped the AAU program last year, but it got somewhat sidelined. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
As a new user, I can tell you that the hospitality of the users in the TeaHouse was very welcoming. Wikipedia is a little daunting to a newbie and I was simply searching for mentorship upon my arrival. Your comments have helped and all things considered, the TeaHouse has helped me tremendously in place of a more formal educational resource. (just some newbie perspective) ForrestLyle (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the comments ForrestLyle, I'll make sure I pass them on to the volunteers there - I'm sure they'll appreciate it. WormTT(talk) 07:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow!

OK, gotta admit it, "I'm impressed". Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW: Are "Walking on water" and "Turning water into wine" also tools you keep up your sleeve?

New Sig

How do you like it?—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comic sans... aaaaAAAH! ;) Nah it looks fine. Slightly overlaps though. WormTT(talk) 14:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Making it cross browser compatible, will push it over 255 :p.—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

I'd like to point out that in order to make my request I had to remind arbitrators of what happened first. How could I make a point without explaining the facts? And I believe there is a difference between users having to avoid each other and clear, blatant censorship. The arbitration case was not about three users behavior when interacting among themselves, but about the use of inappropriate sources when writing articles. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a full record of what happened and why on the arbitration page, along with the combined memory of the 2013 remaining committee members, myself included. If this was 5-10 years ago, I might see the argument, but in this case it appeared to be framing the request with your opinion of the other parties. That is clearly a violation of an interaction ban, and just because it happened on an arbitration page doesn't make it acceptable. WormTT(talk) 11:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Why are you so worried if I mention the reasons to why I asked for an arbitration case? If the committee believes that's not what happened, then the committee should declare the entire case void. But keeping me shut unable to discuss something so grave is wrong. I am the only person, only one, in the entire Wikipedia in English who is an expert in Latin American History. And I do not say that to brag myself. But to make the point that when the committee unwisely censors me on the very topic I am knowledgeable it is making a big mistake. I thought this encyclopedia would be glad when a specialist identify contributions that can seriously harm its reputation. Or not? --Lecen (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The entire point of an "interaction ban" is to stop you and the other two editors interacting. There are good reasons for that, interactions between yourself and the other editors will never be productive. You making comments about the other editors, their editing habits and their sanctions is a violation of that interaction ban. Now the other editors will feel slighted by your comments and slighted by the fact that they cannot respond in kind, thereby increasing the mess. You could have asked your question either privately to the arbitrators or framed it to talk about the interaction ban only - instead you publicly posted negative comments about the other editors. That is why I have an issue with your behaviour. WormTT(talk) 11:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
If what I said is not a fact, then the committee must declare the entire case void. That was precisely the reason why I went as far as to request an arbitration. I appreciate your time. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

[talk page stalker]I find this conversation disturbing, to say the least. While I have not personally examined the evidence presented at the Argentine History case, it was my understanding that Lecen did present evidence to back up all of his assertions, and that the ArbCom did examine it, and as a result, banned both of the editors named by Lecen from further edits on the topic of Argentine history. No one wants Wikipedia to be used to promote a fringe ideology. And yet, Lecen is being told that his discussion of their conduct is inappropriate, while nothing is being said about their discussion of his conduct.

Lecen's assertions have been presented in forums specifically dedicated to examining editor conduct, and have included diffs to back up the assertions. MarshalN20's accusations against Lecen, in the form of very publicly visible edit summaries, have been coming through my watchlist for several days now, most recently publicly accusing Lecen of slander, ("‎Slander, AN/I, and ArbComm"), which in the U.S. at least, is a legal issue. While Lecen has posted multiple diffs of the behaviour of MarshalN20 that he considers problematic, (see for instance here), the "evidence" posted by MarshalN20 consists of mostly blue links to essays like WP:STICK and WP:MEAT, which are in themselves unsupported accusations. And yet, you don't see one-way interaction bans being used anymore. I hope the committee would consider lifting the interaction ban altogether, since it seems to be enforced against only one of the participants, the only one who doesn't need it, and who also seems to be the only editor who is willing and able to monitor the others for infringements of their topic bans.

I also think you may have misinterpreted Lecen's comment about being blocked. His statement was, in part, "For three years I tried to warn the community ...the community is unable and unwilling to do anything about it. You should lift the ban and let them do whatever they want. That's what's going to happen anyway." I don't interpret this to mean Lecen wants Wikipedia to start reflecting a fascist point of view, to me it just expresses extreme frustration. It's an example of a Reductio ad absurdum argument, a type of irony which for some reason never seems to work very well in threaded discussion.

You may also be interested in a current discussion at ANI, which involves a proposed community interaction ban, in a matter that has already been accepted for consideration by the ArbCom. In this case at least, it seems the community does not want to view an interaction ban as applying to meta discussion, such as at ArbCom. —Neotarf (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

It's worth noting that these edits (actually "this edit" - there is only one) would not qualify under the original Arb case as "automation". It is only because of the amendment by motion (which of course I bear some of the responsibility for, but which is incredibly far reaching) that the question arises. I took the view at the time, perhaps naively, that no-one would abuse that ruling, and no admin would back them up if they did. Time and again, I have been proved wrong.

As to Roger's question, I have, I hope, answered it on Roger's talk page. It's a bit TLDR but I expect that will not deter you. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

I don't want your reply on my talk page as I've just said there. If you want me to consider what you say, post it on the /Clarifications request page.  Roger Davies talk 19:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 Core Contest

5th Prize
Relax and have a drink after a gruelling contest. Nice work! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Cheers Cas! Not bad for a rushed job at the end of the competition. Hopefully next year I'll have a little more time and actually win the thing! WormTT(talk) 06:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Congrats! Second 2012 remembered. - And yes, Stargazy Pie appears in the Signpost, shortest link on top of my user page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
That link was replaced today be memory of the dead, the Deutschland feature is here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

How about you ...

after the first person whom I asked Did you know ... declined? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well Gerda, one of the tenets of the encyclopedia is WP:SOFIXIT... if you see something that needs doing, you should do it. Is there a reason that you can't do it yourself? Perhaps political reasons? WormTT(talk) 11:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I could do it (turn, turn, turn), but I would prefer to see Andy praised by someone else. The one who has "... aside from ridiculing the silly time wasters who contribute nothing on here fussing about infoboxes ..." on his user page was my first choice for a potential reconciliation and acknowledgement of content writing ;) - I am preoccupied with this passion, not politics, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel that requested congratulations are as genuine as forced apologies and therefore meaningless. If you believe Andy deserves an award and noting, then do it, but I won't be. WormTT(talk) 15:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Understand, I think, noting the difference between "requested" and "forced". (Prison and freedom, as you may have seen, are featured in the center of the Passion.) I will likely have another quirky hook on the German Main page tomorrow, - this time I translated "our own" Karin Rehnqvist who inserted cattle calling in classical compositions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
It's on now, together with the bishop who was excommunicated (twice), but views will probably not compare to the Stargazy pie and Duck Attack, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the stats on the first day were not bad, 10k+. - I have a language question regarding "forced apology". A typical situation I see is: editor A is cross with something that editor B did, and expects an apology, even waits for it (as a condition before doing something else), while B acted in good faith and has no idea that there even was a problem. We had that last week. I told A not to wait but just do something else. If instead I had approached B, describing the problem and the waiting for an apology, would that be termed "forced apology"? Could you give an example for what the term means? - ps: It looks like Stargazy Pie will be mentioned in the next Signpost, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
No, that would be a requested apology. They can be useful, but if someone is waiting for an apology then I think they're the one who's not moving on, not the other. Thanks for the heads up on Stargazy Pie, I'll have a look. WormTT(talk) 09:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't even request an apology, just tell B that A sees a problem where B possibly doesn't. - I don't wait for any apology (and said so) ;) - What do you think of the other case where I was involved, where I also didn't request an apology, just wanted to know what was so difficult about it? That he went, took my wording and apologized was an unexpected result. I still don't know what a forced apology would be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd consider a forced apology to be something like "Apologise to X or I will block you". There's no way that apology should be considered sincere. WormTT(talk) 10:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, get that, but not how it compares to my idea that the person giving Andy the 25 DYK medal (nothing I "feel" should be given, but that everybody deserves who reached the threshhold) could have been you. It's done, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I try hard not to get involved in the "infobox war", really, but made one comment here. April Fool is over, but the edit summary mentioned would not have seemed appropriate even then, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

How well is trying hard working? Less than 15 hours after saying so, you're opening a new section on another editor's talk page about infoboxes being needed, apparently as part of a previous argument elsewhere about infoboxes being needed?
(For talk page stalkers, the entire conversation may have potential merit, since Pigs in popular culture has already been mentioned - does it need a Bacon Portal link?)
Always remember these thoughts about boxers:
I like to box.
How I like to box!
So, every day, I box a Gox.
In yellow socks I box my Gox.
I box in yellow Gox box socks.
(Dr Seuss) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say "infoboxes being needed", as far as I know never did. Did you read the (collapsed) tale of the ironing lady on my talk, about the "needs-infobox"-parameter in project biography, which translates to "An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information."? The "previous argument" is mentioned just above here, Talk of Chopin, where a new user, unfamiliar with certain dislikes, inserted an infobox and was reverted twice. I am more concerned about treatment of "newbies" than 'boxes, but I like your Seuss poem ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
You talked about how infoboxes benefit all articles, in your view. Did you not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I am restricted to only two comments in any given infobox debate, so need hope that an answer will not get me into trouble. I believe that a short info on topic/time/location (however it's called) is good for all articles, yes, but how is that equal to "all articles need an infobox"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you know what the word "wikilawyering" means? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you just explain it to us all? --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I could do any better than the above example as an explanation... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe that it is good for all people to sing. Did I just say that all people need to sing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe that it is good for you not to give anyone reason to imagine (rightly or wrongly) that you're skirting round a "two comment per discussion" restriction by opening variations of the same discussion in a great number of different venues. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I know that clarification doesn't mean the same thing for me and others. I also know that I used the word wikilawyer myself ;) - We have other problems now, such as the easy way to improve the women/men ratio in editors ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sad--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I started an article against the sadness. - Clarification: I don't care if Chopin has an infobox or not. I mentioned the diff above because of the treatment of a new editor who has possibly no idea that he entered a minefield, is perhaps not yet able to read an edit summary or know that there is an article talk, - reverted twice by different (admonished) people, without addressing the issue on his talk. What can we do to improve, without going to a noticeboard or official "clarification"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I read "Prepare to die" in the next sad case. I read "apology" above. Time of Lent, time to repent. I want to apologize in cases where I said something degrading to or about an editor, and where I inserted an infobox where I knew that the author didn't want one. Only, I remember no such case, can you help me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Passion today, dedication on the talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:GRA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I read that but don't get it ;) - Next question: if you (y'all) think I failed to make peace with someone, please point me at a case, I will try, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Easter music on, I just filled a red link (late, I know, too much passion before,too much missing), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worm_That_Turned/Archive_27&oldid=1143088631"