User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Once recused, stop influencing the discussion

With your comment,

trying to extract the question of "should this individual be an administrator" from the "should the Foundation have blocked Fram"

you are implying that there is a problem in the discussion with differentiating these two issues. That's introducing bias, and incompatible with the notion of abstaining.

Thank you.

Samsara 11:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Samsara, I'm sure you also have issue with my statement that this was a difficult decision as it's a reconfirmation RfA, or that I thought it was fly through, or Dweller's comment that he found WMF's actions appalling, but disagreed with Floquenbeams actions, or Nihonjoe's comment "stating I supported what Floquenbeam did, and that I thought the Wikimedia Foundation (and especially T&S) were acting like morons when they blocked Fram", and I'm sure you'll be reminding them in a moment. Consider me told off for introducing bias, which clearly the experienced individuals who are making the decision will not be able to look beyond. Worm^TT(talk) 11:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be ironic that this sort of lofty attitude was one of the arguments against having Floq as an admin? How does that reflect on a crat? Samsara 11:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Samsara I'm not one for a lofty attitude generally, but given that pretty much every step I take at the minute is massively criticised, and I'm currently trying to work through one of the heftiest cases Arbcom has taken on in a while at the same time as another case for which there is no good outcome, I'm rather ... testy. You didn't deserve it. Worm^TT(talk) 12:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

My supposed feelings are not of interest. Do you accept that the point is valid, as Leaky caldron reiterated, and will you respect this principle in future? Samsara 12:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Samsara, My apology was for the tone I took, which you did not deserve, feelings or not. Yes, I see where you are coming from, yet, I do not see that statement was more egregious than the other four I alluded to. Since, however, three of said statements came from myself, I will try keep your comments in mind for the future. Worm^TT(talk) 12:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You should not underestimate the weight that your personal endorsement carries. I would far rather you and other members of Arb Com., in particular OR with her onerously long support - kept completely out of matters connected to any Fram-related participant apart from the one you are directly charged with - namely the Arbcom. case. It is intermeddling of the worst kind. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, you are probably right. At the same time, I do consider myself part of the community, and feel I should be part of community discussions. It's a balance that is hard to find. Worm^TT(talk) 12:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you are embarked on the biggest, most controversial issue to hit en-WP during the 13 years I have been here. There is much at stake. For everyone's sake, including your own - it would be better to be monk-like for a month. Best. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't guarantee anything, but will do my best. Worm^TT(talk) 12:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

To Samsara: Recusing Crats are also members of the community and are as welcome as any other member of the community to help us think through decisions. You should be applauding Worm's ethical stance of recusing, rather than hitting him with it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dweller: Crat only chat is a different matter as that is closed to the "any other member of the community" group, and the issue is that he wasn't recusing himself properly (i.e. say "I recuse myself" and withhold at least any further opinions completely). I had considered the issue resolved with him confirming his understanding that there might be a problem with it. Shall we stop pouring petrol on this fire now? If it turns out that crats like yourself hold the position that regardless of recusal status, crats can continue participating in crat chat, I think we would need to bring this to wider community attention, as that weakens the important concept of recusal, and I think "we, the community" would take issue with this. Samsara 14:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand better where you were coming from now. Nonetheless, as I'm reading both pages, it wouldn't have made a difference for me. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Samsara, you're welcome to start an RFC if you think 'crats shouldn't be able to make explanatory comments when recusing themselves. My comment accurately reflects how I expressed myself in the various discussions regarding Floq and Fram. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to question it, but I also see no reason why you have any right to basically demand that WTT acknowledge your opinion and respect it in the future. Yes, your demand was phrased to appear as if it was a friendly question, but the vibes I get from it are quite different. 'Crats are very experienced at looking at all sides of a discussion and then making a decision without being unduly influenced by a single sentence from another crat that recused themselves from the decision. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think there should be a RfC. I did look at WP:CRATCHAT and the only thing I could find was "Bureaucrats who have commented on the RFA or RFB itself are expected to state this, but are not required to recuse themselves from the discussion. " ... are not required to recuse themselves from the discussion (bolding mine). (and it's not even a policy page) If requirements are going to be made of someone then it should be stated clearly somewhere. non-crat opinion? I agree with Dweller and Nihonjoe. — Ched :  ?  — 23:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Consideration for RfA nomination

Per your inclusion in the list here, I am leaving you a note to ask if you would consider nominating me for administrator. When I read the latest edition of The Signpost - specifically this item - I was left with a question of whether or not it may be in the best interest of the community that I put myself out there for consideration. While I understand that my edit count numbers, as well as several lengthy periods of inactivity, will be a detriment to my efforts, the part of The Signpost piece that stuck out to me the most was this - "Wikipedia now has 5.896 million articles and 48.247 million pages versus 496 active administrators – or nearly 100,000 pages per active administrator – and the ratio is growing for the foreseeable future." The simple fact is that the existing administrator roster has an extraordinary amount of work on their plate. I believe that I, while not as well versed in certain areas of the project as I would like to be and I would be hesitant to dive headfirst into those areas at the outset, have enough general experience on Wikipedia to be able to help out. My intentions, at first, would be to stay in the most active areas of the admin realm, such as the handling of vandalism, 3RR, user name issues, and basic dispute resolution efforts. I am on Wikipedia nearly every weekday, even if it's not while logged in, and am willing to dedicate more time to the project, moving forward.

I am happy to answer any questions that you might have and I appreciate your consideration, regardless of your decision. Strikerforce^Talk 16:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Strikerforce.

I'm always happy to entertain requests for RfA nominations, I wrote the page you point to! That said, there's a bit of misdirection in the rest of your comment - I'm well aware of the dire need that Wikipedia has for administrators, but this isn't a new idea for you - you've been considering it at least since your two optional RfA polls July 2019 and August 2018. There's nothing wrong with being interested in adminship, don't worry, but do try not to mislead the people who you are asking for help!

Now, as to your request, whether or not the community needs more admins is fairly immaterial - the "voters" haven't changed their mindset as yet, and it's getting through RfA that's the problem. At present, I'm afraid you simply wouldn't pass, you would be discounted by many for simple lack of experience. But don't worry! There's a magic formula for that! You're on the right track - glancing over the articles you've worked on most, they look to be a fairly decent standard, lots of text, lots of references. That's just a glance mind you, I'd need to do a more thorough review to look for copyvios etc. But assuming that's all good, I think you'd be perfectly capable to get some peer reviewed content under your belt. Go for a few good articles, or maybe even a featured article.

You'll need a sustained period of activity. I like to see a few hundred edits per month for 6 months to a year to show that your an active individual. In other words - keep going! You're on the right track, you just need to keep contributing to Wikipedia. Come back this time next year, and if you've done that, then I'm sure I'd nominate you. If you have any other questions, do please ask! Worm^TT(talk) 17:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I do apologize, if I misled you in any way. While it is accurate that I have been considering it for some time, the piece in The Signpost has taken what has been what I would have considered a "casual consideration" of the matter and made it a bit more... "urgent", if you will. The sheer scope of the numbers that I quoted above hadn't really crossed my mind until I saw it in print. I would have thought that the number of "active" administrators was much higher than it appears to actually be. Strikerforce^Talk 17:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Strikerforce, No worries, and it wasn't a problem for me, it's fairly clear from your contributions that you've an interest, I was trying to point out how others may see your message  :) Worm^TT(talk) 17:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Strikerforce: (by talk reader) What The Signpost did not say is that the community expectations for adminship have increased over that timeframe. Many admins given "teh bit" prior to 2011 might not be acceptable RfA candidates today. We still promote fewer admins than we have candidates applying; the fact is, we want for adminship a very specific set of qualifications that most Wikipedia editors lack. We don't simply want more hands to make light work. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Responding to direct questions

I do not want to respond to anyone that holds a ban hammer over my head.

By asking me a question about the actions of another Arbcom member, I presume you expect a reply. I am not prepared to do so while under threat or caution personally by yourself, especially when that was off-wiki by email rather than on-wiki where it can be fully and transparently referenced. Please confirm that you will effectively take on the equivalent of being WP:Involved and leave it to other sysops from here on to consider any request for action on my account.

Naturally I expect you to write whatever you want on Wikipedia, that's not the point being made here.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Fæ, You brought up the "gender warrior" comment - twice at ARCA. If pointing to a diff of is violating some remedy that you are under, then I am sure that referring to it indirectly will be violating the same remedy - otherwise it is very poorly written. That said, I'm not sure which remedy you might be referring to.

I'm also disappointed by this idea that I hold a "ban hammer" over your head. To the best of my memory, we have not communicated directly since 2015, where I warned you regarding a breach of your unban conditions, and then passed the matter to arbcom who issued that unban. That was a purely administrative action - not one I've been following up on. Indeed, I am unsure of any reason that you would consider me WP:Involved. Now it is plausible this is down to my poor memory, and I am certainly happy to hear any reason you feel I should either consider myself involved from an administrator or an arbitrator standard. Worm^TT(talk) 14:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

As your perception of events do not match mine, it seems easier for me to not respond to your question unless you are prepared to clearly waive any sysop-related assertions in your past emails to me.

My perception is that you effectively remain involved as you never withdrew your email, either privately or publicly in any clear and unambiguous fashion that can be referenced. To my reading of your open-ended words by email, there is sufficient there to cause me concern about your involvement in any Arbcom case, because you are both opining publicly as an Arbcom member, while by private correspondence remaining involved as a sysop. These are contradictory positions and a governance issue. --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Fæ, Well, hopefully I can put your concerns to rest. I have not seen any breaches of that unblock condition for over 4 years, nor have I had any concerns regarding it. Therefore, given the timescales involved, I would very likely warn you if I felt you were breaching that condition again, rather than block you outright. I would also need to check the arbcom archives to see if you have actually appealed that condition, in which case there would be no reason for even a warning.

I do not spend my time pursuing individuals, I have never done so, and therefore only act if something is highlighted to me or I spot it. I am going to choose to believe that the reason I've seen no breaches is because you haven't breached it. Therefore, in my eyes, you are not currently under any threat of a block from me.

Would you like me to clarify anything else? Worm^TT(talk) 14:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No. FYI there are no 'conditions' that apply to my account or my edits. --Fæ (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Worm^TT(talk) 14:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

ARCA

I don't know if - in what you called a mess - you saw my suggestion to permit one new exception trom the topic ban: A new DYK nomination, with a personal invitation for TRM, where no other reviewer has yet shown up (reviewer meaning someone who left a DYK-icon, not someone who fixed a link or suggested a different wording). I don't see how that could cause conflict, because further reviewers could decide to seek interaction or avoid it. The normal thing, however, would be a review just between nominator(s) and TRM. I think it's worth trying. - I am pleased with the latest helpful GA review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, that's what I had seen at the beginning, and what I was hopeful for. However, I do not see that this is a solution - you are specifically suggesting that further reviewers might feel the need to avoid it. That's not a good thing. What about those reviewers who don't avoid it, either because they don't know the history (and end up in a dispute) or do know and don't care. Until TRM is willing to focus on improving his interactions, I'm not going to support letting him go back into an area where his interactions have been seen to be problematic in the past. Worm^TT(talk) 12:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In a way, that's good for me because then he will have more time for GA reviews. - I better won't muse that whether he's been civil or not seems to depend a lot on who is talking to him, and their perspective, and that I have felt belittled on DYK but not ever by him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You know what? TRM almost never has difficulties with his interactions at FL, FAC, GA etc, because those venues are packed with people who, in the vast majority, are only interested in one thing: producing a high quality experience at Wikipedia. TRM's various problems down the years at the pages relating to Main page content have been beset by problems because they attract so many editors totally uninterested in quality, only either collecting gold stars from teacher for successful noms, or battling to constantly feed a ravenous beast, which is the DYK machine that requires so much fodder who the heck has time to slow down and ensure the noms are properly vetted? Arbcom have said on many many occasions that DYK (and to a lesser extent OTD/ITN) needs to be looked at in the round, but you have ducked the responsibility again and again. I urge you to look at the problem without focus on individuals and sort it out. Because the vested voices in the subject drown out those in favour of quality in the shop window of this encyclopedia. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Dweller, I don't know enough about TRM's history outside of DYK (and Arbcom), but I can believe that TRM hasn't had problems in those areas, and again for the reason you say. As to DYK, there's a balance to be had - it was designed as carrot, for those who wanted to create or expand articles. That little ego boost to know people were reading what you've written. It wasn't ever meant to be "the best the encyclopedia has to offer" like FA, but instead to be a bit of "what's new" and encouraging new editors to come in. There are quite a few people who believe the standard for DYK should be higher - and that's not something that Arbcom can fix. If I remember rightly one of the remedies in that very case was The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. An RfC perhaps? I personally think the encyclopedia has reached sufficient maturity that DYK should only include recent GAs, but I could be in the minority there. Worm^TT(talk) 13:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been on DYK from a few days into my career here, which will be 10 years soon, and always found it great for presenting the little article. Johann Münzberg is planned to appear on his birthday, and would never be a GA. I like the DYK process, and the first general improvement would be to speak better of it. I monitor the DYK for Opera and Germany, and both are fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I think DYK would be immensely improved by having 1 set of hooks per day. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That's what we have. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad things have changed. That must help. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding: If you click on Germany, the first thing in the table is "24 Hours", and the last time we had 12 hours was 15 March. I make you a little table of the users who commented, their number of DYK, and mentionings of their name on the current nom page

user	number of DYK credits	current nompage comments
Gatoclass	41	3
Casliber	762
Narutolovehinata5	68	133
Banedon
Gerda Arendt	1,505	83
Mendaliv	3
StudiesWorld	5	7
valereee	13	18
Purplebackpack89	4
Sandstein	36
Masem	35
Jip Orlando
Jehochman		2
Davey2010	1
Vanamonde93	77
SchroCat	6
BlueMoonset	38	23
Bilorv	12	2
Thryduulf	2
Alanscottwalker	12	1
MJL	1
SL93	170	23
Leaky caldron
Sir Joseph	1	2

You can draw from it what you like. I see someone crying the loudest who doesn't have a single DYK credit nor comment on the current nominations, so shouldn't be too afraid of alleged incivility, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, that's a cool chart. How did you make it? StudiesWorld (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

For the second column, you go to any nomination, which will have a box on the right, in which you find a link "QPQ check", supposed to give you how many DYK credits a user has (so when below five, they are exempt from a qui-pro-pro review, - but beware, the program counts both creator credit + nominator credit). Click on it, enter the user name (with exact spelling, so Casliber, not Cas Liber as he signs), and you will get a result, take the highest number. For the last column, I just entered the name in the search function on the page and took the number of matches. Disregarding if the name was just called, - it's enough of an indication if someone is active NOW. You could find out edits of a user on some page ever, but I don't think it's relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom should weight heavily the opinions of those doing the heavy lifting at DYK. Over the peanut gallery. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel the opposite: Arbcom might disregard the voices of those who have nothing or not much to do with DYK. - I presented what I think is a model review, by TRM. I was polite enough not to present an example of what makes me suffer, which is not by TRM. In about 10 years of experience, I have had reviews by many users, and taken them as they come, not asking friends to do them. At present, I am tempted to uninvite, and it's not TRM. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Gerda you didn't include me in the table, the 70+ reviews I've done which not one single person commenting at the ARCA has even noted. Indeed, remarking on my track record of reviews is considered "bragging" so it would be great if someone else could brag on my behalf. It's all about the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 23:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to show who is NOT active, and I believe even the most superficial observer of the DYK scene knows that you watch it and contribute ;) - At the arbs: how is this: instead of listening to the people who watch ARCA, ask those watching DYK? You could make a modest proposal for improvement, such as: "TRM may review "fresh" nominations when invitited", and put it on the DYK page, for those to say "good idea" or "better not" who are actually active. The normal review process requires nobody else, no interaction other than the nominator(s) and the reviewer. (It's not like FAC, where several will review, more like GAN where one reviewer is responsible.) There was a thread on WT:DYK pointing at ARCA, but archived. - Today is the centenary of a person who loved building bridges. I try ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Gerda, the system is designed to encourage participation from those less invested in a process - it's the weight of the arguments that matters. Indeed, being invested in an area custs both ways and often "fresh eyes" on a situation can find a solution. That said, I do see the point made in the table clearly, and will take it under consideration. Worm^TT(talk) 07:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand, thank you, and I'd welcome "fresh eyes". (I missed or forgot the arbcase that lead to this, as much else that year, but have the feeling that TRM has followers who may be not so "fresh". I may be wrong, but general remarks about incivility without a single recent example makes me feel uneasy, "civility" being understood so many ways.)

TRM, I think you would be much more welcome by fresh and old eyes if everything you say was strictly to a specific article and hook(s), not "the DYK process", and not about any specific user. Also, two comments in a given discussion is a good goal ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

TRM, welcome to my page. I don't remember seeing you here before. I'm not certain you need to brag about your achievements, I don't think anyone is questioning your capabilities on quality. My concern is your interactions with others, especially with others who work in an area that has lower standards than you would desire.
What's the endgame though? Is this request a first step towards something, and if so, why did you not request it yourself?
I have been thinking about it overnight and one solution which would mitigate my concerns would be to allow you to review, but not to participate in subsequent discussions after the review has been marked as complete. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that. Worm^TT(talk) 07:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you're confusing stating clear and bare facts with bragging. I have to provide evidence so people can make evidence-based decisions. All areas I review have lower standards than I desire or else my reviews would be pointless. Feel free to take a look at some of my recent GA reviews. You'll note they go into considerable detail, certainly above and beyond the bare requirements, but they cause no issues and invariably result in improved articles. Why does there need to be an "endgame"? Many people have asked me to review their nominations at the place I cannot mention, and I simply cannot, although if it were a GAN, a FAC, an FLC etc, then of course it would be no problem (clearly an absurd lop-sided situation). So the purpose of the request was to actually help those people who had requested my assistance. Why did I not request it myself? I think that's pretty clear from the way in which, even in the face of pretty stark support, many Arbs are just voting against me because I'm me. But in any case, that's just a bureaucratic note, Ritchie clearly saw the odd paradox (i.e. I can review every other nomination in every other part of Wikipedia, and have reviewed at least 67 DYKs without a problem) and called it out for what it is - plainly absurd. In any case, who brought the ARCA is somewhat irrelevant at this stage. For the avoidance of doubt, and while I fear I am repeating myself for about the fourth time, I have stated that I will interact only with the nominator throughout the review. I don't really understand how that can be misinterpreted or misunderstood. I have not requested to participate in anything else, especially "subsequent discussions after the review has been marked as complete". All I would do is reserve the right to note if the hook or article has been corrupted between my review and the main page at the existing WP:ERRORS2 page per the current arrangements (and given the tinkering that goes on, especially from some of those for whom English is not their first language, there is sadly a strong likelihood that this may occur). The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I'm not accusing you of bragging, you're welcome to toot your own horn as much as you like - it was your words, not mine, and my point was that I'm aware of the quality of your work. Many people have asked me to review their nominations - I had not realised this was an ongoing issue, I don't suppose you have a few examples from before the current ARCA?
As for the "will only interact with the nominator", whilst a noble intention, I fear that if this was codified, it would be used against you - arguing that a comment made refers to someone else. I appreciate your being open to my suggestion on subsequent discussions, and have no problems with your mentioning things at ERRORS2 Worm^TT(talk) 09:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No, as you know I'm banned from discussing the project so any mentions or requests have been long deleted. Gerda has made a few, perhaps she can dig those up. I'm not sure I follow your point about my noble intention. I will be performing a review on an article and a hook, purely content-related. I can't recall in the thousands of reviews I've made in the past ever needing to refer to a specific individual user or their behaviour. Why would this suddenly start to happen? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, Thanks for your response. My point regarding "noble intention" was that it was a good idea and were something to pass I would recommend you stuck to it, but it shouldn't be codified. I can well imagine someone joining the discussion with a point, you responding tangentially to the point and then being brought to AE for "interacting with someone other the than the nominator", which is the last thing I want to see. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is that if someone decided to join in the review, then I would have to assess the situation and be prepared to walk away and leave the nomination to someone else (all perfectly apt and commensurate with the existing process) because there are too many people watching and waiting for me to make even the slightest mistake or interpret things the way they wish to, and that simply wouldn't be worth it. I do note that the vast majority of DYK reviews are conducted solo. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, that is exactly what I hoped to hear. Thank you. Worm^TT(talk) 09:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for trying WTT, but I can see how this is heading now. I'm a bit confused by the opposition, one of which offers no rationale, and the other two which seem caught up in the idea that this makes a complex topic ban differently complex, but I see Arbcom are about to get embroiled in Framgate II so this small fry matter is probably just a noisy distraction, which is a shame as the overwhelming consensus from the community was to allow me a chance to assist when requested. I was under the impression that sanctions weren't intended to be punitive but I guess that's not in universal agreement. I guess I'll continue to focus on reviewing every other single kind of article and list, whether nominators want me to or not! Cheers again for your thoughtful input and helpful questions, I really do appreciate it. Good luck with the forthcoming mess. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, OR has said that she will not stand in the way of the motion - if she supports or recuses, then it passes. I see KrakatoaKatie has not commented either way. There's still time for it to pass.

I absolutely understand the opposition to the motion, I have flipped twice on it myself, but I believe on the whole it would be a positive outcome. Arbcom Sanctions are designed to prevent future issues - it's not about punishment. At any rate, good luck. Worm^TT(talk) 13:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, I think everything you say makes sense besides the last point. An incremental return to DYK is hardly overly complex and disallowing me from demonstrating that I can be an asset there feels nothing other than punitive. But we can agree to disagree. Hope you get some respite in the impending chaos. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks promising to me. Remember: Hope is precious and great joy is found in living (one of many helpful comments I received with thanks) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendations regarding the list. What do you think of this comment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I certainly hope it's true! Worm^TT(talk) 06:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it was true in 2018, and still is. The only "squabble" I recall in 2019 was Georg Katzer, and all my fault. This year, more than others, I notice Recent deaths withs often sad articles, which I then expand (if not create). Most have an infobox when I see them, and if not, I add one after expanding, so for Katzer. In that one case, I had failed to look up who created the article, and if I had would just have left it as it was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Loss of a fine content editor

All this is peanuts compared to the loss of a fine content editor due to unclear wording in an arb motion, signed by people I trust such as yourself, and some whom I have just "forgiven". I'd like if arbcom would speak in such notices as if they addressed their grandmothers. I remember the feeling when I was advised to better conduct myself. Defiance, plain defiance. I have not changed my conduct the slightest bit, only the circumstances changed, towards more acceptence of what I wanted: infoboxes in opera and musical compositions articles, - a small specific subset of Wikipedia. I don't know if you remember that the case was requested because there were so many reverts when they were introduced? - All that is past, and I mention it only to raise awareness for how such notices can be received. Changes to more respectful wordings welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I am as sorry as anyone to see Ritchie go, I like the chap and think he was generally a brilliant editor. Unfortunately, on this one topic, he went too far, and an interaction ban was the right solution. Could things have been handled better? Yes. But sanctioning editors is never going to go down well, and by the time it gets to public notices, the friendly words, and quiet chats, and firm comments have all been and gone. Worm^TT(talk) 17:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The question that you need to ask is Could things have been handled worse?. ∯WBG^converse 17:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I can say that quite firmly. Worm^TT(talk) 17:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Then, congratulations. ∯WBG^converse 17:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, and I came to you because I thought you are sorry to see Ritchie go. There seems to be a wide range between "not going down well" and "make someone retire", no? I think the perception of unfairness - justified or not - adds to make things worse. The notice doesn't read like a balanced mutual iban - at least to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

sad --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought of an image regarding fairness (I made several DYK about the topic), and just came across it remembering "Sanction expired". - Quote: go dream. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say I appreciate your clarification efforts at WT:AC/N. I just wish they weren't needed... Anyway, I hope you get some rest before all the Framgate craziness, and that there will be less to complain next time :) —Kusma (t·c) 18:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Kusma beat me to it. I might have some issues with the lack of communication between ARBCOM and Richie, but I wanted to specifically thank you for sticking your head above the parapet and answering some questions. You were the first Arb to do the same with the 2FA saga, so double thanks are owed. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Well thank you both, Kusma and Nosebagbear for taking the time to come over and say that. I really do appreciate it. I'm not sure there is any respite on the near horizon, but I certainly do hope there will be less to complain about! Worm^TT(talk) 12:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• +1 --valereee (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

this week's craziness

Hey, WTT! You mentioned detouring here to Mendaliv. I'm not him, but I'd love to discuss things sanely too.

We elected arbcom because we trust them, and there's zero reason to believe an entire group would suddenly become untrustworthy. I believe they are doing the best they can in a difficult and quickly-changing environment. I believe some issues do need to be considered privately. But the community clearly wants to see more transparency in the process. Because the result might not be private -- in the case sanctions are created -- the beginning needs some level of transparency also. It's unfortunate that this likely means at minimum indirectly outing a complaining party, but the complaining party is going to end up outed by any resulting sanctions anyway, so I'm not sure that's a good reason not to be at least somewhat transparent right from the start.

I'm thinking we need some sort of procedure arbcom can follow for 1. when to take discussion private and 2. how to handle communicating the decision to take a discussion private. --valereee (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, Hi Valereee! You are of course welcome here to discuss things, everyone is! I do my best to stay off Wikipedia at the weekend, and I'm going to be taking the rest of the this one to recharge my batteries. I'll definitely reply early next week though :) Worm^TT(talk) 11:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries! Enjoy your weekend! --valereee (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, turns out I'm pretty rubbish at staying away.

I will start off by saying that yes, the committee members are all trying to do their best, in a very difficult environment at the moment. I'll also say that many of the committee are pre-disposed to transparency - I know I am (even if it may not seem it at the moment). However, we do have the problem at the moment that people who speak out are being targeted. We've lost a number of community members recently due to this sort of issue.

I expect that once the Fram case has been complete, we can work out how to handle these sorts of issues going forward. We do have guidelines on what should be private, (our WP:Privacy policy). Until you see the sorts of things that are put through the committee, you can't appreciate the variety of issues we have to deal with.

What really is needed is better communication, explaining why we are doing things the way we are doing them. This is what I'm currently trying to do (as I hope you can see from my recent contributions).

That said, you're points are well taken, and are part of the bigger set of questions that need to be answered, by the community as a whole, once we get through this mess. Worm^TT(talk) 20:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to have been the cause of you feeling you needed to be here when you're supposed to be taking a short and well-deserved break. I'm not going to even respond until Monday! That'll show you! --valereee (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so it's Monday. :) Yes, I absolutely do see that you are doing your level best to communicate as much as you can, and I hope I'm being clear that this isn't intended as a criticism of you/other arbcom. This is a concern about arbcom not having policy in place that can help them manage in what represents a new environment. As you say, this is something that needs to be figured out after the current mess. I just want us to figure it out before the next mess, if you see what I mean. Thanks for listening. --valereee (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, I certainly do see what you mean, and I strongly agree with you - these sorts of things do need to be sorted out. Large parts of this was handled by the "instituational memory" of arbcom, but that's generally held within one or two people and at the moment... er... that's me. Indeed, there is only one present Arbitrator who served on an earlier committee than I... so I must bear much of the responsibility for letting things slide.

Once the current situation has died down, I'm sure that we will want to work out how to handle things going forward. However, I do hear there are community consultations going on that might change that anyway. I haven't the heart to actually go and read it yet. Worm^TT(talk) 12:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's anyone's 'fault'. We're going through a difficult and dynamic period. Best to you. And, ugh, I must be missing something I probably don't have much heart to read, either. --valereee (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for stepping up and clarifying that you haven't seen alleged off-wiki abuse from Fram, several of us were waiting for an answer to that question. starship.paint (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

+1. Thanks for all your work and your communication in the Fram-case. It must not be easy engaging as much and as clearly as you feel you can, with a community including some curious members who always want to know more. — Adhemar (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I've posted this [1], which I am quite sure is not a violation of policy. However, if you somehow disagree, I will remove it and go publish my commentary elsewhere. Keep in mind I am a named editor and any action against me that improperly casts aspersions at my character will have real world consequences for me. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, This is possibly the most hypocritcal comment I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and that's saying something. Worm^TT(talk) 17:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Great. I won't talk with you further because you don't want to fix anything. You just seem to want to flex your powers, and I just can't stand that. Jehochman ^Talk 19:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, You came to me to warn me about casting aspersions against a named editor, were I to react to your casting aspersions against two named editors. Can you not see the hypocrisy? I came to engage with you directly when you were expressing your upset yesterday, on the relative privacy of your talk page. I'm sorry to see you have misunderstood me and I hope that we will be able to resolve this some time in the future, but I'm afraid at the moment, I've got other stuff to deal with. Worm^TT(talk) 20:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to cast aspersions. If there's a better way to present the issues that concerned me, I'm all ears. In addition to my offer to remove the content, I will amend it, if appropriate. My sense of the Fram case is that we need to lay the (publicly visible) cards on the table so that all the parties can understand how their actions contributed to this highly disruptive incident and maybe learn to do better. I do not want to punish anybody or harm anybody's reputation. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

How many editors left a message of support for the two editors who were being harassed, the ones you're now concerned about? Exactly one editor. [2][3] Jehochman ^Talk 21:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, that message of support is fairly meaningless when you insist on bringing public arbcom cases about the two editors, linking them together and implying that they were part of some conspiracy with T&S to ban Fram (which is what your recent post implies). Over a dozen people complained about Fram to T&S. They looked at his behaviour across multiple areas, against editors, against Arbcom and it's members and against WMF staff. It's not about one person, not by a long shot. Worm^TT(talk) 22:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The complainants were independent or from people who knew each other or were part of the same organization? I’m not buying your explanation. Since all the evidence is public you should post diffs of the wrongdoing. Basically, prove it. I’ve not alleged a conspiracy or wrongdoing. It’s a natural consequence for friends to try to protect each other. That’s not wrong but it has to be accounted for. The appearance is that Fram got crosswise with well connected people so he got whacked with a much stiffer penalty than what would be given for the same transgressions against the hoi polloi. I wish T&S had referred complaints to arbcom initially and that they hadn’t made stupid promises of confidentiality that undermine our tradition of transparency. Jehochman ^Talk 22:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, you linked the users. Others have done the same, leading to a statement over two months ago - from Raystorm stating she had nothing to do with the action, no filing, no instruction, no oversight. Now, you can choose to believe that is a lie, but that's how we're meant to behave here. Your comments are specifically alleging that she had something to do with it, which casts aspersions on her behaviour. I'm afraid I'm as much in the dark as you as to who the initial complainants are - their emails are redacted.

On a related note, I do see it as a shame that less evidence was submitted by the community than I'd hoped. For example, your timelines regarding this case you are referring to included a comment that happened in 2018 and the statement " The fact that this has to happen should have been the point where Fram was de-sysopped. We failed LauraHale as a community." I wonder what's changed in your opinion? If it's simply that the community's evidence is lacking, there was something you could have done about that. Worm^TT(talk) 06:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, I confess to be utterly baffled by your shifting stance on this matter. You have expressed totally irreconcilable positions. What has changed since you told me - in stark terms - that I should reverse my resysop of Fram because "The ban is absolutely justified" based on your own review of the history. Absolutely justified? But now it isn't and Fram is the victim of a WMF plot? How can you possibly explain such a strange volte-face? And if your review of the history then made you conclude that a ban was justified, how can you now criticise T&S/WMF for reaching the same conclusion? WJBscribe (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

My opinion may change as more facts become known. What I don’t like is the lack of transparency. If ArbCom wants to look at the Laura Hale situation and decide to Desysop, that’s fine with me. But they have to explain it. Desysopping based on “trust us and our secret evidence” doesn’t cut it. WJB, your action was incorrect. Stand up and protest but don’t use admin tools as a means of protest. Jehochman ^Talk 10:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'l summarize my replies to the above.

1. At first glance I assume T&S was acting properly. That's always been my default assumption because I like the people there and like what they have done in the past.
2. It eventually came to my attention that T&S was operating under a conflict of interest. They were acting as judge when they should have recused. The were judging accusations made by their indirect boss's close friend, and they were causing a huge disruption.
3. WJB, I hope you decide to return, but I felt then and feel now that using sysop access to protest was an error. I hoped you'd revert yourself to avoid getting sanctioned. Ultimately you weren't, so this point is moot.
4. I looked at the Laura Hale situation and did not like the fact that she felt severely harassed. That matter should have come before ArbCom when it happened and been dealt with. Both sides have legitimate concerns.
5. T&S handed off to ArbCom, put only partially. ArbCom can't rely on the evidence because they can't reveal it, and it is redacted.
6. ArbCom's public summary is insufficient to justify anything more than time served, if that. It is just bits and pieces of non-essential evidence. They ought to focus on the main substance, which none of us but T&S know for sure.
7. ArbCom need to know the identity of accusers because that context is essential to seeing whether there are motives or conflicts of interest.
8. I believe Maria when she says she wasn't involved. Unfortunately, that doesn't clear up the conflict of interest. Her staff will inevitably have their judgement biased because they are much closer to her than to Fram.

I hope this helps. Worm, if you get tired of me monopolizing your salon, just say so and I will depart. Jehochman ^Talk 11:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

T&S was rather forced to pass it to Arbcom, and Arbcom was rather forced to accept. However, I'm not sure either is particularly qualified to handle the situation. The community hasn't sent a lot of evidence in - and I've no reason to think that would have happened earlier, or indeed for any other situation. You said before that Laura "was" harassed, yet now you seem to have dropped to "felt" harassed. If the former, then T&S was justified in their action - the issue becomes the conflict. But who else can deal with it? The community hasn't (you've stated the community has failed).Is Fram WP:UNBLOCKABLE? This is of course, based on the premise that there was harassment, which your earlier statements were crystal clear on, the community evidence is less clear on that fact. Worm^TT(talk) 11:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Same difference. If a user feels harassed, stop. Handoff. Bring it to arbitration. If it continues, the “felt” becomes “was”. I think we have here two good faith users who couldn’t understand each other and got into a deepening conflict. It’s quite sad because all sides lost. Jehochman ^Talk 20:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I come back to my old point, WTT. Harassment/Incivility/Hounding is (generally), so much more than child pornography, death threats and serial copyright violations, a two-way street. If you post a picture of a naked 10-year old performing something sexual you know that it is a legal issue, and illegal in most, if not all, jurisdictions (and at least in the relevant ones). If an editor is vandalising a page, and I revert him and check his further edits .. then that is not harassment. If I however revert good faith edits of an editor consistently and call them out for vandalism then harassment becomes more likely. If an editor is consistently making good faith mistakes and I revert and call them out then it is not harassment (though they could call it like that, and it undoubtedly may feel like that). The area is much more grey. We can safely rule out that there is something illegal here: Jimbo allowed ArbCom to overturn the ban, which is not possible otherwise.

Harassment? Hounding? you state it as '.. the community evidence is much less clear on that fact' .. my feeling is that if that was the case there would have been much more, albeit likely just as scattered, evidence than just a handful of lines (most rather weak anyway, e.g. '.. excessive length (though not due to illegitimacy of the block itself ..'). And WMF has not stated that they had a document with evidence involving more than a dozen editors which all felt that Fram was harassing them. If they would have said something like that, people would have frowned maybe, but gone their way. There was utter silence.

To me, the question is not whether Fram is WP:UNBLOCKABLE, but whether other people are WP:UNTOUCHABLE. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Beetstra, you are definitely right about the two way street, but that begs the question, what is acceptable on Wikipedia? Does that level change based on the status of the perpetrator? How about on the supposed difficulties of the target? Most importantly, is Wikipedia a walled garden that has different standards to the outside world? And on a global project, who's culture should we be looking at? Worm^TT(talk) 12:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"How about on the supposed difficulties of the target?" ... my daughter cries as if I cut off a finger when I just tell her that she can't have a chocolate again. Sometimes crying indeed works (and some people are good in it). WMF has handled this case as a 1-way street, with physical enforcement of the direction, with no appeal, and no reason given. Quite a difference. If I say to my daughter that she can't have more chocolate, she asks 'why?' If I give no answer: big hell, if I answer: smaller to no hell.

All in all, that is a discussion that needs to be had, we will indeed have to set some limits somewhere. But a trial, first by WMF and then by ArbCom, on a user who has generally been critical of both WMF and ArbCom, and who has had unfavourable interactions with high profile editors (some of them with ties into either WMF or ArbCom) is just wrong. It smells so badly of COI, first-mover advantage and dictatorship.   (and the 'no reason' makes the smell of COI, first-mover advantage and dictatorship only worse, true or not).

This has now gone so far, that this well is completely poisoned. The WMF has, I am sorry for my French, completely fucked this up. There may have been a case, but not anymore. If you leave him banned until next year the community will demand explanation (which you cannot give). If you unban him his targets will be unhappy (you already made the point that you understand why Fram was banned by T&S, and I,for one, would be willing to leave it at that then). I think Fram had enough unhappyness to make up for the remainder of his ban in any case. Wrap it up.

Gravity does not exist, the earth just sucks. Shit happens. It is time to move on. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Beetstra, crying isn't the issue - that can't be handled by the "objective observer". You can make a decision on whether harassment occurred on the basis of "all things being equal", though otherwise I do see where you're coming from. Worm^TT(talk) 18:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

But, as opposing to 'all things being equal', you seem to have to follow the one sided view presented to you by WMF (especially since parts of the evidence that was provided is totally ripped to shreds by the community at the moment). You wished you had more (I expected more, but now thinking of it, no, I should have expected nothing) ... you have 70 pages (not that I expect it to have better quality). Seen what the community does with your presented evidence, I can only expect what they will do with those 70 pages. You still want to drag this on for a couple of weeks? OK. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ched's popcorn stand - Free beer, tomorrow

• 🍿 — Ched (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm sure you're not the only one, there's a stand in the corner. Worm^TT(talk) 06:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Charge him rent. Jehochman ^Talk 11:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• I’ll take a large and a Diet Coke. Jehochman ^Talk 10:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Large for me as well, but I'd prefer a beer with it (dry here ..). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Well - since I'm a non-profit popcorn stand, I'll need to decide how to (publicly) spend that money so that the government doesn't take away my NPO tax benefits. Hmmmm - I think I'll buy one of my employees and a plus-1 an all expense paid ski trip. I'll call it .... "research." — Ched (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a deja vu. Who will it be. WTT, Jehochman and/or me? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}
• user:Ched, you supply more than just popcorn, beer and that fake coke stuff that user:Jehochman drinks? It looks like the show must go on. Maybe we should also invite user:Fram, he must be feeling lonely on meta (noone to follow around and revert crappy edits of). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Dirk Beetstra - I'd imagine I could gather up some crisps, chips, or fries; depending on who was going to show up. Admittedly there are times that I worry about Fram's hearing due to burns [4]. Judging by the continued community interest, various comments, and the glaringly obvious lack of T&S input (at least publicly) the last few weeks, I would guess that Fram will be returning before too long. Whether it is sans admin bits is likely the biggest question to resolve right now. I'd have to think that if the arbs were able to (or intended to) bend the evidence to support the sentence, they would have done so by now. I suppose my biggest guess these days would be that forcing the issue would entail too much of the Streisand effect. There seems to be plenty of available data out there to make some folks eager for it all to "just go away." But then again I am just your average peon with an overactive imagination perhaps. — Ched (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Great, Ched, I'll get some extra popcorn for the other arbs who are just sitting there watching from the sideline, Wait, I'll make some espresso, they all seem to be nodding off.

By the way, I thought that was all part of the deal: ArbCom only got the 70 page document on the promise that they would collect a simiar body of evidence through secret emails (seen what you normally get as evidence and seen how bad Fram looked in said 70 page document that should be easy), and simply confirm that WMF was correct. As a bonus, Jimbo gets to say that ArbCom can overturn WMF. That then must have been my overactive imagination then. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll catch up with you over on your page Dirk - no sense prolonging Dave's agony here any further. — Ched (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have its own standards and norms separate from the rest of the world?

is Wikipedia a walled garden that has different standards to the outside world?

Of course it is. It's a particular organization. I've worked for many organizations in my life, and each and every one had individual norms and expectations. That's true whether it's a worldwide organization like Wikimedia or a bowling league. Every company I've worked at had different expectations. In some it's totally fine to say "fuck" in a meeting; in others that'd get you canned or at least pretty carefully looked at. So of course Wikipedia has its own standards and norms, but that is true of every organization everywhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I agree, and on the workshop, I agree with the idea that it's inexorably linked up with transparency / freedom of information since it's what the entire project is based on (wiki software / sum of knowledge). But we see people quite regularly with a theme of an unpleasant environment. Perhaps this is a bigger question, but the idea of an external force resetting our standards and norms isn't one I relish. Worm^TT(talk) 06:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me understand

After Newyorkbrad posted his proposed principles and findings of fact (which I think are a very good way forward), you have posted some things which lead me to believe you're dissatisfied with his approach and are seeking to keep Fram banned for some duration. Am I interpreting this correctly? I don't want to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. 28bytes (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

28bytes, I'm still open to options. I've got a lot of information that I'm processing, as publicly as I can - to allow the community to be part of the process where possible. NYB's options are great, and should be seriously considered, given Fram cannot see the T&S document. If we resolve that way, we have a solution.

But should we ignore everything in the T&S document simply because Fram can't see it - is that the right thing to do. Arbcom does deal in private evidence sometimes, but that leaves the star chamber of a decision.

I'm simply not happy with either outcome at the moment. Worm^TT(talk) 12:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The danger here is that rather than let the (public) evidence determine what remedies are needed, we try to massage or "supplement" the (public) evidence provided in order to support a remedy more in line with what we think the remedy ought to be based on private evidence. That seems a much worse option (for lots of reasons) than acknowledging that what the community submitted "is what it is" and basing the proposed decisions on that evidence, for better or worse. And I think it's going to be a really hard sell that the public evidence supports a site ban (of any duration) as a remedy. Maybe what would make sense is to build on NYB's proposals that set aside what the T&S folks did, and get some specific reminders in place to address what specifically is expected of Fram (and all editors, really) in the future. Maybe some more meat on the bones of 4.1.1.5 and 4.1.1.6 regarding how administrators are expected to act in the situations described. The job here should be making clear to Fram what is expected of him, so that he can adjust his behavior accordingly and remain a productive administrator and editor. I think ArbCom has a chance to do that. What do you think? 28bytes (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

28bytes, I think whatever outcome we end up with, we need to be clear that there's no smelling of roses. I'm certainly thinking the outcome should be along the lines of T&S did this, an Arbcom opinion on the document, community given opportunity for case, but did not provide sufficient evidence independent of T&S to do this. Fram should be told to curtail certain behaviours. And then, this is crucial, I should be allowed to go back and hide under my rock. Worm^TT(talk) 14:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Rocks aside, I am certainly in agreement with the approach you outline. 28bytes (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, if my reading of this is correct and you're looking to punt the T&S aspect of the case, you've got the grounds to do it on jurisdiction (something I actually advocated way back in June/July). It provides a means of avoiding the procedural and ethical ugliness of addressing the merits of the T&S document, and while everyone's still unhappy, I think you get a principled way to end that aspect of the case. I'd be happy to add workshop principles and FoFs that give you that exit if that's indeed what you're looking for. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv, Something you advocated? I'd already said it twice on that page and once in the previous case about office actions. You've got no argument from me on jurisdiction - Arbcom shouldn't be handling it, but it is what it is. T&S changed their role quietly, then acted and the community was in uproar - this case was a way to move things back to civil discourse. I don't think we are likely to take that way out, but I'd certainly appreciate you putting something like that on the case page, so I can positively agree with it for the record Worm^TT(talk) 18:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Consider it done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

And what if you throw an intermediate motion out there to decide what to do with the T&S document? You'll have to decide at some point. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Beetstra, I'm not sure that's needed. We are less than a week from the end of the workshop, which had been more productive than hoped. Worm^TT(talk) 14:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No, Fram is 8 weeks banned. The glass is full, not half empty. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for you and the other Arbitrators. You're caught between a rock and a hard place, and there's probably pressure from both sides, and no matter what you end up deciding, it's going to upset some people and some people will call you the worst for it. I think though with regards to your musings about the T&S document, that ignoring it entirely would be unwise. In the end, in my perspective the best option would be to base actual enforceable sanctions on the community supplied evidence only (e.g conclude that it does not support such sanctions, and overturn the T&S sanctions in full), but to add an admonishment or reminder about the expected behavior and failings based on the T&S document. The purpose of sanctions is ultimately to affect a positive change in behavior. We all know that Fram won't take being sanctioned based on secret evidence without the opportunity to reply well. We all know that he'll feel mistreated and abused by the process, and that it'll lead to exacerbation of the problems rather then a resolution of them. And we all know that a lot of editors will share his feelings on the issue. So I think the best way forward would be to compromise on both counts.

Best of luck to all of you though, your job isn't easy and it is heartening to see you continue to engage with concerned editors and continue the process to its end so that a resolution may be had eventually. Magisch ^{talk to me} 07:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mabel Philipson

The article Mabel Philipson you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mabel Philipson for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for showing up

I appreciate you showing up to be the spokesperson. Jehochman ^Talk 18:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Mystery of 'The Doom Bar'

First of all, I would like to express my admiration for the Doom Bar article, a really excellent read. I was intrigued by the reference to the cursed play at the end of the Literature section, so I went and read John Macklin's article in the Evening Times. It's a great story, no doubt about it, but I tried digging a little deeper and sadly wasn't able to find anything that might corroborate the tale. The Olympia Theatre in Chicago, mentioned in the article's opener as having staged The Doom Bar in June 1910, appears to have only been open between 1917 and 1950, and to have been a cinema^[1]. The only other theatre named in the article, the New Babylon, does not seem to have existed at all, and I can find nothing about a fire there in the early 1910s. Information about Arthur Bush, the playwright, seems similarly scant, and searches for the other full names the article mentions lead nowhere.

The purpose of my writing to you here is not to call the veracity of the tale into question, but rather I'm hoping you might have more information about it yourself. How did you originally find the Evening Times article? Is there any written record of the play, that you know of? I hope you will be able to help. All the best, Patrick B. 194.168.148.250 (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Patrick, I'm not ignoring this question, though I really don't remember the answer. I'll do my best to dig up my history! Worm^TT(talk) 10:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

It also happened before the case was opened?

Hi David,

Can you clarify this statement in your close rationale? If you are referring to Laura Hale's vanish request, surely that was only a couple of days ago? To what aspect were you referring and will you amend to clarify if necessary? Leaky caldron (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

And considering that "quite simply" they asked for their talk page to be deleted only a day or so ago against all policy and in the middle of the case, the argument that the RTV "isn't relevant" is tenuous at best. ——SerialNumber54129 09:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I've seen no evidence that she did ask for her talk page to be deleted. As I can't see the actual request. The rest is U1, and allowed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

(watching:) She vanished a while ago. Just the incidence about deletion of that talk page and user page was recently. The deletions didn't make it more transparent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, from what I understand, the "vanishing" happened at the point of renaming, but was not done correctly, in that user pages and subpages were not deleted. The recent request was to complete the process. I'm not privy to the actual requests and who made them or where, but that's my understanding of what happened. Worm^TT(talk) 09:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(edit conflict) From my reading of it, the editor did not ask for their talk page to be deleted. The deleting admin, Yamla, said "The specific request was for content from the "userspace" to be deleted. This was clarified by the requesting user in the subsequent paragraph to preserve the user talk page." It looks like a simple mistake by the deleting admin, that's all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I maintain strongly that the close implying that the actions which led to that entire section being started 3 days ago happened over 2 months ago deserves to be clarified. Vanishing is not just a case of "not editing" it is the technical request and associated Admin. activity. That WAS only 3 days ago not "before the case was opened" Leaky caldron (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• @WTT:- Pursuant to enabling transparency and accessibility, can you kindly install Template:Courtesy blanked over the vanished user's t/p? Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 09:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  Winged Blades of Godric, I'd rather not. I don't like that template, which begs the question. Worm^TT(talk) 10:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  I won't compel you but wading into a mess and then, choosing to not abide by a policy is pathetic. Bye, ∯WBG^converse 10:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  Winged Blades of Godric, if there is a CBAN in place on the individual, it's the first I've heard of it. Worm^TT(talk) 12:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, bad link. It's WP:CBLANK. ∯WBG^converse 12:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, I'd disagree - as I explained above she has been gone since her username was renamed, but even if you were correct, the question goes to the general case and should be discussed in the general form at a different venue. I do not see Arbcom overturning the RTV. Worm^TT(talk) 10:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't request that (others might). Your close is ambiguous in regards to the relationship of 2 events - the start of the Fram case and the technical vanish - which you participated in only a couple of days ago. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, I don't know how many times I can repeat this. The vanishing request happened a while back, but missed an element. U1 is open to any user, including those who have vanished. Worm^TT(talk) 10:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

No proof at all for what you are claiming. Not one iota. The Admin. action was responded to for the user pages concerned 3 days ago. It was mishandled as you know. AFAICS, it is still not done correctly - at least regarding the Talk Page. It "looks" like another piece of mischief on behalf of T&S that we (specifically you, I'm afraid) appear to be involved in. Transparency is only transparency if people on either side of the glass can see each other. I am calling you out for obfuscation by refusing to clarify the bleeding obvious. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, I've had no request from T&S or indeed anyone else, but rather acted in a manner I felt would best achieve the intended result, allowing the individual to leave, while allowing editors to access the logs. There are plenty of editors (including admins) who archive their page in this manner. Worm^TT(talk) 12:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Mabel Philipson

Hi, In case you didn't pick up my reply, I mentioned 7 Sept as a target to complete the amendments needed. Please let me know if you know this isn't going to be lenient enough, as it really looks like you're busy at present. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Amitchell125, I really appreciate it. I will aim for the target, and let you know if there are any problems Worm^TT(talk) 17:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

arbcom rfc on private complaints

Hey, WTT! I'm so happy to see this, and to see the whole committee supporting it. Thank you (all) for your work. --valereee (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, Thanks for the comment. The case has been quite a slog, definitely glad to see the end of it. Worm^TT(talk) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being responsive to questions and generally level headed throughout this process. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, level headed, I can do. Making the right decision is that hard bit! Worm^TT(talk) 14:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mabel Philipson

The article Mabel Philipson you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mabel Philipson for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Hi, this is for saying "Fundamentally, I cannot accept a desysop for cause when Fram cannot be told fully what the cause is." ϢereSpielChequers 09:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks WSC. I know I'm in the minority and I certainly understand where the others are coming from, but given that fundamental. Worm^TT(talk) 09:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, to me this is a really important thing, and punishments for undisclosed reasons are themselves toxic behaviour. Even if the same punishment would have happened if the charges were known. though of course without Fram knowing the charge we don't know what fram's defence explanation or apology would have been. I have to say I'm very disappointed that Arbcom isn't publicly rebuking T&S for their toxic behaviour, one aspect of which is punishments meted out where even the punished individual may not know why they are to be punished. ϢereSpielChequers 13:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, given that not all arbitrators are on the same page as me and the document they provided is persuasive - I think the likelihood of a further rebuke is small. We did put forward a strong statement before this case, which is something. Worm^TT(talk) 13:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the secret case was persuasive, but that isn't my concern. Many persuasive cases fall apart when the other side is given a chance to respond, we don't know if that would have happened because Fram was not allowed to respond. Other persuasive cases result in the "guilty" party acknowledging fault and promising to reform, that isn't possible if Fram is not to know the charge; and still more result in a sanction that prevents the accused party reoffending providing they comply with the sanction. Again not possible if the charge and evidence are to be secret. There is a broader issue of wider community change resulting from the example given. If we knew what Fram was alleged to have done then hopefully others would avoid doing similar actions or even take action against people doing similar. Instead we have the reputation of T&S and its members tainted, and spammers and trolls having a new way to damage Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 14:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both, - I am in the same "party". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

curious

I was looking over the Fram PD - and noticed that section that said The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), sometimes referred to as the "Office," is the legal owner of the English Wikipedia website and infrastructure.. Doesn't Jimbo own the WMF? Granted that the more one tries to understand Wikipedia ownership, the more complicated and convoluted it becomes, but boiled down to the simplest terms - isn't he still the owner? And yes, I understand that the WMF was established to "manage" things, (financially, legally, on a day-to-day basis, etc.) and is basically the umbrella that we all operate under - still .... — Ched (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ched, I was under the impression that Jimmy gave Wikipedia to the WMF as part of its set up and was granted lifetime board membership as part of that. However, I don't believe he retains any ownership rights at all. Worm^TT(talk) 07:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

OK - well, thank you for responding. — Ched (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

History of Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 10:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I like the way that article describes Bomis as a "web-advertising company" :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

...for porn! Jehochman ^Talk 10:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ched, this might help, but I sometimes wonder whose side some people are on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your time and responses. @Kudpung:, to be honest, I often have trouble telling what one side stands for and what the other side is trying to do. I've often wished that there was an up-to-date program we could follow. I'm sure most folks have the best of intentions, .. but one does wonder at the results. — Ched (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Sometimes people aren’t on any side. They are just trying to figure things out using incomplete information. Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Ched Apologies for my brevity before, I was on a mobile. Seraphimblade has been asking similar questions on the PD talk page. Now, as I understand it, Wikipedia is owned by WMF. That obviously includes the servers, but also the name / brand. I'm not completely up to speed with american charitable organisational structure, but as I understand it ownership is not really a concept (the foundation owns itself) and overall governance is handled by the board of trustees, who set the direction - Jimmy is one of those - they appoint a CEO for day to day governance, who in turn go to the staff. At any rate - from an ownership point of view - WMF owns Wikipedia.
  Seraphimblade's point on the content of Wikipedia is well taken - the WMF do not own the content on Wikipedia (and most people would consider that to "be" wikipedia, because without the content, Wikipedia is nothing). That is licensed under CC, the ownership is retained by the original creator. As it's under CC, anyone can republish any or all of Wikipedia's content and fork the encyclopedia, but it would need to be under a different branding. Similarly, the community is not "owned" by WMF, we're volunteers here, who are working on the licensed content. Does that answer your questions? Worm^TT(talk) 13:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, and that makes more sense. I still think that saying they own "the website" if what is meant is that they own the trademarks is confusing; I would say most people would primarily think of Wikipedia's content when they think of "the website", not the name or logo. Maybe better to say that they own the Wikipedia-related trademarks? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  Seraphimblade, It's the Ship of Theseus, all over isn't it. What can you take away and still be "Wikipedia". If we were to fork, we'd have the same content - but it wouldn't be Wikipedia. You can replace the community members, you can update the content, you can fix the servers... but the only thing that has to be consistent is the name "Wikipedia"... And that's what they own. Worm^TT(talk) 14:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's an interesting thought experiment, but I don't think it's dispositive. If we're doing thought experiments, let's say WMF pissed everyone off so badly that they abandon en.wikipedia.org, and move over to someotherwikiencyclopedia.org. We mirror the content there, and 95% of the editors move over there, keeping it up to date there rather than here. Now, sure, it can't use the Wikipedia trademarks or name, but I would argue that, at that point, that site is in every essence Wikipedia, and that the old now-stagnant content here is just an old mirror of it. The things that essentially make Wikipedia are not the logo, or the URL, or the name. It is the community of editors and the content, and WMF owns neither of those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  Seraphimblade, yes and no. The Wikipedia brand includes the "reliability" which is known throughout the world - the "google juice" if you will. Assuming there was a mass exodus, imagine if it was even to the extent that Wikipedia was locked down at that point and no longer evolved - every site that previously pointed to it would still point to it. It would take a long time for it's Google ranking to fade, years even. Don't underestimate a brand. Worm^TT(talk) 13:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It doesn't matter. I've found that game theory is far better argument against free will than behaviorism is. So long as we have volunteers providing content to the reader for free, we'll have "management" engaging in rent-seeking behavior, just as barnacles collect on the hulls of ships. Even if we eliminated WMF as an entity and we put straight-shooters like Floq or Kudpung in charge, the incentive-structure would overwhelm their ability to fairly manage and they would be corrupted or be replaced by the KMaher's of the world who live for that sort of thing. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

TY for responding Dave - much appreciated. — Ched (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Late to the party

Re: your statement on the Proposed Decision on Sept. 6: "The fact is that the community had a chance to bring any evidence during this case, but declined to - largely because they just wanted to watch and see what happened. I doubt the committee would accept a replacement case in the near future regarding desysop - under a double jeopardy thinking."

Actually, given the secret nature of the official evidence, the secret manner in which evidence had to be submitted, the timely vanishing of what would have been a named party in the case and transformation of her account name into "She Who Cannot Be Named," it strikes me as completely rational that any Wikipedian with an ounce of self-preservation skill would sit this one out to "see what happens." Basically Arbcom was gonna do what Arbcom was gonna do, going the full Lewis Carroll of "Sentence First, Verdict Afterwards" with their so-called "Findings of Fact." Arbcom needed to play hardball with T&S for a public case at the very start. They chose not to do this — not because they're so afraid of the community and palsy-walsy with the helpful staff at WMF either. They took what they could get and that's fine. But you had to know you were going to get called on the result if the proceeding was conducted Star Chamber style. Nothing personal against you, Dave, I know you do your best. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Carrite, hindsight is a wonderful thing. I can name a dozen places I would have done things differently - but as you say "I did my best". You're not wrong that we've been hamstrung by the document, we felt we were playing hardball and that was how we got in the first place - in context, the community was in uproar and we found a solution to help calm things down. Yes, we could have kept pushing for more, and with hindsight that might made things better - but I'm not sure that we would have got it.

Throughout the case we've been told that we're just lackeys of the WMF and that we would just sign off the decision - in fact the WMF hasn't made any requests of the sort. I think it's clear that we're not just signing things off.

We did always know that whatever decision we took, we would be strongly criticised for - and as much as there has been a general feeling of unhappiness with the committee, its because we became the focal point for the whole issue, allowing the community to get on and carry on. It's been a very tough few months, trying to find the right solution, trying to ensure the community was involved as much as possible, trying to ensure that Fram was not disenfranchised (and, yes, I know he was), trying ... well, you get the picture. It was never going to turn out well - and I think we are in one of the least worst outcomes. Worm^TT(talk) 18:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm personally okay with the ultimate outcome, but I was never a fan. I know that a lot of people aren't. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mabel Philipson

The article Mabel Philipson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mabel Philipson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The undredacted parts

• I presume you mean "The unredacted parts" and not "The undredacted parts" in this comment? - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  SchroCat, I did, thank you. Worm^TT(talk) 09:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with you posting on WP:BN

See title. It's not like we have many active bureaucrats, and of those who are active, I think the overwhelming majority is waist-deep in it anyway. I don't know who's worse: the arb-crat or the crat who's been named as a party at WP:ARC three times over the past year over bureaucrat stuff (with varying degree of justification/involvement). Maxim_(talk) 13:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Maxim, I appreciate your thoughts. But I've been "lucky" enough to be a pretty central figure during the arb case, I ran most of it. People have heard my voice over and over and must be getting sick of it. We're a community here, of which I'm just one member. I've done my bit - people are unlikely to be happy with it, but we're out of the crisis. It's now time for some fresh eyes to clean up. Worm^TT(talk) 13:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Arb / Fram

I know I come across as a grumpy bastard (which I am, of course), but thank you for being one of the few Arbs who took the time to discuss and explain your reasons and rationales, even if I didn't agree with them all. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat, I get it. I would have had many of the same opinions as you had I sat on the other side of the page. Maybe been a little less vocal, but hey. I'm sorry to see you were blocked over the matter, but from what I hear you took it graciously and I'm glad to see you are unblocked. At any rate, thank you for your comments - I'm just glad the case is over. Worm^TT(talk) 08:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

WTT, thank you for your hard work. I can only imagine how difficult this has been for all of you, and I appreciate the time and energy you all spent on this. --valereee (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, I appreciate your comments. I can't say it's been a doddle and I'm glad it's over. Worm^TT(talk) 15:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Doddle .. I had to look that up. The fact that it tends to be more of a British term than American made me feel better though. WTT - expanding minds since 2008. :) — Ched (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Ched, I really don't write for an international audience... luckily we have a whole internet to look such things up! Worm^TT(talk) 15:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick note to thank you for being, by far, the most intelligent and trustworthy Arb I've ever had the "pleasure" to deal with. You stand out head and shoulders above your peers, and I sincerely hope you'll be doing the job for a while to come, and hopefully helping the mass of new Arbs come new year follow in your footsteps. I made a mistake when I voted in the last Arbcom election, I voted for three individuals, two of whom have let me down terribly by really not actually engaging with the community, not being open and honest. You were the only one. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, Thank you for your kind words, none of which I deserve and all of which I'm sure you'll regret one day! My term is almost up on the committee, and I haven't decided if I'll run again, but I do appreciate the sentiment, especially from yourself. Worm^TT(talk) 07:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like you to return! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. Worm^TT(talk) 08:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• All humor aside ^^ what they said ^^. IMO the 2019 iteration of AC was one of the weakest I've seen. But I suppose that's said almost every year. Still, it was a year where we required exceptional leadership, a year where an exceptional number of arbs resigned, and a year where I thought you distinguished yourself as exceptional. (even if others displayed a rather lackluster effort) There are times where experience weeds out the ineffective, but I think this year your experience has lifted you to a category of Arb that's rather sparsely populated. (NYB, Iri, Carcharoth, Casliber, Risker, and I'm sure one or two that aren't coming to mind at the moment). This is to say that, even when I most assuredly disagree with you, I do believe you've distinguished yourself as one of the better Arbs. — Ched (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well... there's not much I can say to that. Thank you Ched, for those very kind words. Worm^TT(talk) 12:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

At least there's a lot I could say to that. I concur 100% with TRM, and Ched - and they've put it in finer words than I could. I was very relieved when you came back to Arbcom, and I hope most sincerely that you will stay there for a while to come. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd include Gorilla peacefare and Opabinia regalis in the category of arbs whose reasoning I can usually follow (which is saying a lot). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

And thank you both too. I'm resisting the (British) urge to tell you all how wrong you are and just accept the compliments. It's surprisingly difficult, so I'll just keep saying thank you. Worm^TT(talk) 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Note

You are cited as saying:

"The fact is that the community had a chance to bring any evidence during this case, but declined to - largely because they just wanted to watch and see what happened. "

In my case it was largely because I couldn't get an answer as to whether open evidence was allowed. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram#Private_vs_public_evidence.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC).

Hi Rich. I first like to apologise for not getting back to you - there was an awful lot going on and while I did sit down to write you an answer a couple of times, I couldn't think how best to explain it - especially as your question was not clear, it was more asking for a considered response to a statement.

Also, my opinion on the response changed significantly as the case went on - from one end of the spectrum "The case is going to be held completely in camera as we have said on the front page" (which meant your question didn't need answering) to the other "this case should have been done in public from the start", by which time it was too late.

Open evidence was not allowed - but the why... well it's what we decided based on the options we had. For my own part, I'd hoped to release the T&S evidence along with the community evidence, so it wasn't clear what came from where. I was told by tWMF that could not happen.

I'm not happy with how the case turned out, but that doesn't surprise me - I knew going in I wasn't going to be happy with the outcome - whatever it ended up as. Worm^TT(talk) 23:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it was never going to end well for all concerned. There were always going to be people who would say of anything short of complete exoneration that ArbCom was WMF's puppet (to me this, at least, is demonstrably not true). Conversely, even though I was with the community that it is not T&S's mandate to deal with this type of behaviour, the world has moved on in the last 15 years, and it is now recognised as important to protect users from social harms - something we have failed to do in this case, at least up to the de-sysoping, and I think probably in many others.

I have never thought that the community is "toxic" as some like to describe it, but there are certainly elements that make life uncomfortable, to say the least. A few weeks ago, someone I have no recollection of disagreeing with in the past said they had "given up assuming good faith" of me "years ago". While odd occurrences of this level of "feedback" does not unsettle me they do not form part of the collegial spirit we would like to engender. I have no idea what good, practicable solutions there are to these problems, if any. We have enough trouble patrolling content without patrolling the larger part of the project.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC).

These are very good points which will hopefully be covered in the upcoming RfC. I do hope you participate there Worm^TT(talk) 12:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

Thank you for your feedback. All feedback is valuable. Some of what you said seems based on misperceptions, but I don't want to argue about it. Instead, I removed my remark (unreplied to) that you and Joe Roe had disputed, and tried my best to restate my concerns in a more constructive manner. [5] Jehochman ^Talk 12:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, Thank you. I've replied there. Worm^TT(talk) 13:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

If I ever sound like a troll, be sure to tell me, and I will try to stop. Jehochman ^Talk 13:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, I do appreciate that. I'm not one to generally criticise others, but sometimes I do feel it is necessary. Hopefully, that can be the end of it, I've no interest in pushing things further. Worm^TT(talk) 13:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Original Barnstar
		The Fram situation was a debacle from start to finish and Arbcom was dealt bad cards and did not play them perfectly. Nevertheless, you demonstrated courage and intellectual honesty in working hard at the end to make sure the verdict matched the findings of fact at hand. I'm not a Fram fan, but I am a WTT fan. Nicely done, you did well in an absolutely unwinnable situation. Beyond that, Dave, I thank you very much for your service on the committee — one of the hardest and most thankless tasks at Wikipedia. You've been a consistent, reasonable voice, and that's really all anyone can ask. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Carrite. I accept that with hindsight, the committee could have played things better - but allow me to point out that the committee could have played things a damned sight worse. I have no doubt that point will get lost in the annals of time, but I do think it's worth making. As for the final point, reasonable and consistent is actually where I generally aim, so I'm glad I've come across that way! Thank you again. Worm^TT(talk) 17:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll heartily second this. It must be extremely difficult at times to remain objective on Arbcom; Dave does this admirably.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

September

meadow saffron

... what they said --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

+1. KillerChihuahua 12:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent events

I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. If you are considering standing again this time (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Black Kite, I appreciate the note. I hadn't intended to stand, however, with 11 seats available - I'm concerned about... unsuitable candidates. We'll see. Worm^TT(talk) 07:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I share BK's sentiments and endorse their comments. I'd also be pleased to see you stand again, for the reason you suggest, and you'd have my full support. -- Begoon 07:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Begoon, Thank you too. I'm sure there are many who would be unhappy to see me (or any of the current committee stand), but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Of course, my talk page is hardly the best place to get honest feedback on how well I'd do ;) Worm^TT(talk) 08:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't need so many arbitrators. If we reduce the panel size to 3 for each case, which is typically the largest number of arbitrators ever used in real world arbitration, a committee of 7-9 could handle the work load. I think that having 9 arbitrators all read the same evidence is too many. Having one arbitrator is very valuable. Having three is a little more valuable. Having more is already of little incremental value. Jehochman ^Talk 12:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that model. How would the panel be created - I certainly wouldn't be happy with self-selection for obvious reasons. By making the panel small, you are effectively elevating individuals to a more important role on the encyclopedia. I'm not happy with that - that's why we have a committee. It needs to be reflective of the community at large. Worm^TT(talk) 12:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you can let the committee as a whole vote whether to accept the case. Among those voting to accept, you can randomly choose 3, and you can ask the parties if they object to any of the ones chosen because of past interactions. We sometimes have a bit of back and forth about recusals. This would be the same. I don't think this makes anybody more important. If there ever is a major case the Committee could have an option of hearing it en banc, but most cases, appeals and modifications could be heard by one or three arbitrators. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Randomly? Hard to see how that would work. Having things heard by one arbtirator is even more concerning. Self selected or randomly, giving one individual that much power is against the consensus model. Worm^TT(talk) 13:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't you have single arbitrators doing things like approving what mail gets through to the list and what mail goes to /dev/null? Don't you have a single arbitrator who evaluates appeals? My suggestion is that you don't need the full committee to deal with every case and every issue. Set a reasonable number for the task at hand. This will increase the amount of careful attention that can be given to each issue. We do not want the arbitrators spread too thin because they are each expected to review everything. Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, moderation of spam is largely done by the system (we get a nice big warning on spam) - so yes, individual arbs do that. Appeals are by committee vote and even back in the day we needed at least a couple of arbs to chime in. Indeed, there's little that is done individually these days. Cases are not too onerous if I'm honest - it's what arbs are expecting when they sign up. Worm^TT(talk) 16:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of 3-person panels - the concern is less workload based but more representation. Arbs have different viewpoints, and a reasonably large ARBCOM is needed to make sure the community is sufficiently well represented. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd certainly support if you stand. KillerChihuahua 12:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you KillerChihuahua - haven't actually worked out if I will yet!! Worm^TT(talk) 12:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• A tad late, but obviously I'd support you running again - that would be true anyway, but a couple of good individuals have already ruled themselves out by running as electoral commissioners - I'm distinctly unsure there are 11 good candidates willing to run atm Nosebagbear (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nosebagbear regarding disagreement over 3-person panels. We need a cross-section of the community and 3 arbs are not enough. Valid arguments were presented during Fram's case as to why some in the community supported WMF involvement. Perhaps it all depends on whether one is the prosecutor or the prosecuted. What we need is a strong, balanced arbcom, each of whom are independent thinkers, and can and will devote the time necessary to researching/fairly evaluating each case. I wouldn't oppose consideration of admins, former admins, editors who have been on both sides of a case running for arbcom. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I really don't like the idea of 3-person panels. They make sense in a true arbitration, but that's not actually what we do on Arbcom. As you say, a cross section of the community is essential, far more important than expedience. I also agree with you on the balanced arbcom, independent thinkers who are willing to speak their minds. However, we also need some willing to compromise otherwise nothing would ever get done. There are many factors that make a good candidate / committee, and leanings on subjects is not one I care about. I also strongly agree with your community groups suggested - however, the community has time and again not elected admins. It's a shame - I'd hoped running as a non-admin a couple of years back would have made a difference, but I was a non-admin in name only, so it didn't. Worm^TT(talk) 10:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I was unsure about it when I first heard the idea, but if we are going to completely fail to elect non-admins, perhaps there is something to a specific spot in ARBCOM that can only be filled by non-admins? It has its negatives, but might aid a common concern, particularly with regard to desysop cases. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, Thank you, I appreciate that. We'll have to see who stands. Worm^TT(talk) 10:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing administrators

In my opinion, all administrators should be under mandatory removal by recall. Creuzbourg (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Creuzbourg, I don't disagree. I am under recall for all my userrights (User:Worm That Turned/Recall process). However, the vote is quite WP:POINTy - individual candidates should not have to suffer because you disagree with consensus. Worm^TT(talk) 10:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom is effective at removing admin rights. If a proper case is filed and evidence presented ArbCom is usually going to remove rights. Recall is a nice idea but in practice it doesn’t work properly for those who need it most. Jehochman ^Talk 11:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Creuzbourg: What administrator has upset you, and why? PS: Mine is at User:Ritchie333/Recall. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Creuzbourg:, If that's your opinion, you only need to start a RfC to get it established in policy. Why don't you? Using it as a question or a reason to oppose on RfA is disingenous. PS: Mine is at User:Kudpung/AOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You probably included it for levity, but I doubt any of those users ‘hate your guts’. –xeno^talk 15:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Dear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waseem181 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom

For whatever it's worth, good luck. You've already secured one (positive!) vote, from me, based purely on your performance over the last few months. I've seen enough of your approach first hand to know that you're my shoo-in candidate, regardless of who else runs.... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

+1 –xeno^talk 18:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you TRM, that's very kind of you to say, especially since you give off a general, shall we say "anti-Arbcom" vibe? I'm certain that if I do pass I'll do or say something to annoy you (and many others!) while on the committee - feel free to come here and shout at me if I do, I'll happily discuss it in an infuriatingly calm manner Open offer, everyone! Worm^TT(talk) 08:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from me, too, as said in the questions. Should I remove the answer parameter in order to indicate that I don't ecpect/need an answer? The question I didn's ask was connected to obsession which I dislike even more than the idiotic name for an acessibilty feature, but I should probaly best ignore all of that. Water under some bridge. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and TRM

Hey WTT, just checking in to see if you think, like me, that Wikipedia:Editing restrictions with respect to my DYK restrictions was updated correctly after the latest ARCA? No big deal, but just wondering, in light of the recent elections, that everything was tickety-boo? Cheers, good luck. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, looks like it was overlooked - I'm not sure who normally edits that page, but I've updated it now. Worm^TT(talk) 09:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm so alone and forgotten

Just kidding. Had to razz you about this edit. Though I'm impressed that you've met two other bureaucrats - I would've guessed that Nihonjoe and I were the only two living in close enough proximity to meet. Useight (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I meant the comment more about my memory than anything else - I have to double check who the other Arbs are when I write a motion and I get emails from them every day! That said, to be fair Useight, you have been inactive for almost my entire editing career - certainly since I got involved in Wikipolitics! You are, however, in my thoughts - my other comment on the matter would have been that I knew over a 1/3 of the crats were in the last 6 letters of the alphabet - the ones that everyone forgets... and on that, I am a little annoyed that if we both get seats Xeno will be stealing my last billing spot. Grrr. Worm^TT(talk) 09:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this will land nicely: Special:GlobalRenameRequest/Yurm That Turned. –xeno^talk 09:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, Special:GlobalRenameRequest/Weno Worm^TT(talk) 09:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Or... Special:GlobalRenameRequest/Jalapeno Worm^TT(talk) 09:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I like that, nicely in the middle so random selectors won’t choose me as often. And I’ve always considered myself a little bit spicy. –xeno^talk 09:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ha, yeah, I kind of fell off the map there for a handful of years. Life got hectic, as it is prone to do. It was a lot easier to be on here every day a decade ago, but 'tis life. It is kind of funny how many bureaucrats have usernames at the back of the alphabet. What a strange coincidence. Useight (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Useight, I know the feeling, life does very much get in the way. I live on my mobile these days and can answer emails very easily, but logging on to a website is more of a pain! As for the names, well, I wonder if there is some sort of mentality for "boring" people to chose names at the end of the alphabet. Much more likely to be a complete coincidence! Worm^TT(talk) 16:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ACE2019

Dave, I'm saying this to you as a friend. I think its very poor form when a Bureaucrat and sitting Arb goes round the site telling candidates what they should and should not be doing - especially when they are absolutely not in breach of any protocol whatsoever. You are a highly respected member of the community, but whatever importance you attach to your functionary and special rights, I think you should keep your thoughts to yourself until at such times a RfC is held. That said, you still get my vote (not that you'd need it) but remember that in the unlikely event that I get elected, we're going to have to work together on that committee which traditionally has a reputation of being riddled with individuals who suffer from delusions of grandeur. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, I work with people by being open and honest with them. I say when I see a problem - I don't hold my tongue. You are free to ignore my comments, or discuss them - I'm not arguing from authority, I'm pointing out my personal opinion as I've tried to make crystal clear.

As for arguing from authority - Wikipedia is about debate and consensus. No user has more authority than others, we have tools that we work with. An arbitrator has no power individually - we work as a committee. A 'crat has the ability to flag admins and bots. These roles do not make me more important, do not make my opinion worth more and do not give me more authority over every little thing. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Worm^TT(talk) 13:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That may be and I believe you. But it is the nature of Wikipedia to see it as otherwise of anyone who holds advanced rights. People will always accuse admins and arbs as throwing their weight about. I know what I'm talking about - I may not be an arb but I've been an admin for nearly 9 years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, My comment to you, and the others was on a rather unread page, a talk page in your userspace. The only person who was meant to read it was you. I have been accused of throwing my weight around in the past and I am sure I will be accused of it in the future, I just didn't expect it from you. But this is a tough time, everyone is on edge - I could have judged the situation better, clearly. Worm^TT(talk) 14:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't actually accuse you at all. My English is near perfect - it was my job for 30 years (including the 9 years studying applied linguistics and socio-linguistics). Which proves just how much everyone is indeed on edge. I pointed out simply that making comments like that and being an admin/'crat/arb don't sit well together. Imagine if I had gone around making comments like that. In fact I just don't, whatever else crap people accuse me of. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, now would be a good time to end this conversation. Good luck in the election. Worm^TT(talk) 15:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and as for the election, frankly I'm not bothered. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

As you have edited since...

maybe you have missed it. I left a follow up question at your Q&A. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, I did indeed miss it. Thanks for highlighting it. I'll answer it now. Worm^TT(talk) 11:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Leaky caldron (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)