User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 30

Dear Sir, we have communicated on and off line regarding my unblocking (), and some months ago I requested an amendment. I'd like to respectfully request that the unblocking conditions be modified to allow editing of Marvel Comics articles. How would I proceed? Kind Regards Asgardian (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Asgardian, sorry for my late reply. This would need to go to the arbitration committee to discuss, most likely the ban appeals sub committee. Worm^TT(talk) 13:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I got a msg but all it said was you'd dropped me a message! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I generally say that to indicate that I've dropped a person an email... which in your case, I have. You may want to check it! Worm^TT(talk) 12:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me try again. All the *email* said was "Dropped you a line". Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? That's weird. My "copy of email" says exactly what I wanted it to say. I've tried again... Worm^TT(talk) 13:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah! perfido is not a personal attack but an article written with thanks for improving its composer ;) - As I sequel to Stargazy pie, I translated Dreadstar, - both on the Main page today, when we celebrate 50 years of a church and its music, which included in 2015 a joyous piece premiered in Liverpool, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Worm. You approved my request for access to the AutoWikiBrowser, but when I went to log in, it said I didn't have access. Is there a waiting period after approval for my name to make its way onto the approved list? Thanks. fds^Talk 00:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fdssdf. I do apologise, you were unlucky enough to get an idiot to action your request... I put in Fsddsf, not Fdssdf. I've rectified the mistake, it should be working now. Sorry! Worm^TT(talk) 07:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

We all, from time to time, are beset with momentary lapses of the mind. Thanks for the speedy turnaround in this matter. fds^Talk 19:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey there! The Co-op has been on a hiatus for a bit, but we are planning on opening up shop again soon. When you're able, please read over and respond to this update on our talk page. We have favorable results from our final report regarding the pilot, and we are interested in seeing who is available to mentor when we reopen our space and begin to send out invites again. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This message was sent by I JethroBT (talk · contribs) via Mass Message. (Opt-out instructions)

Unfortunately user:BlueSalix is creating drama again, here, you may wish to check in on him again to nip that in the bud. And no, my editing an article at AfD six months after my previous encounter with him is not some obscure attempt at "revenge". Artw (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What drama? It was a simple concern I raised to an admin over protection of the encyclopedia since you had made the choice to edit over things being discussed in an active RfC. You responded to my opening of a RfC to resolve our disagreement by choosing to describe it using words such as a "meltdown" which did not help to advance a WP:CIVIL dialog and edit discussion. I know we've had disagreements over Joseph P. Farrell, Boyd Bushman and some of the other WP:FRINGE articles you've been interested in which I've AfD'ed; again, all I can tell you is I didn't delete them; I nominated them for deletion. The community deleted them. Please keep that in mind. I don't think you'll find constantly WP:OTHERPARENTing me will get those articles restored.

Also, WtT's only past "checking in on me" has been at your, and other fringe topics editors, instigation and has not really gone anywhere (if you need a reminder - [] or the various ANIs you and your friends routinely file against me that end-up DOA: [], []). As per Randykitty's advice to me then, I'm going to "let others do the goading and just don't react to it." In that spirit, if you have anything further to address to me you'll need to post it to my Talk page, as I won't keep checking these pings. BlueSalix (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

For clarity the "drama" in this case would be the false claim of stalking, the false claim of vandalism, the resumption of attenpts to misrepresent my editing history to present me as some kind of fringe extremist and general incivility. Artw (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

So basically all the same stuff you've been hitting me with on your ANIs and previous complaints then? As a courtesy, I'm not going to ask you for a diff where I used the word "stalk" and/or "stalking." Just do me a favor in return - if you're going to push this as far as your previous efforts, can you just file another ANI against me? It's easiest to keep track of your various complaints against me that way. (And yes, I know and have acknowledged UFO editors don't want to be portrayed as "extremists." At [I think?] your request I have not done so since our previous conversation and have only used the term "fringe theories editors" which is simply the name of our noticeboard and should be viewed as a value-neutral term.) Thank you, ArtW. BlueSalix (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This is why I asked Worm specifically to look into your current behavior. I believe they have everything they need to do so and if they need anything else they can ask me. I will not debate you further here. WTT, apologies for crufting up your talk page. Artw (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you're asking. I know you believe it's okay to overwrite a RfC and, me alerting an admin about it constitutes my "stalking" you. I'd tell you, once again, no one - least of all me - is out to "get" you but that hasn't helped yet. You have brought up the same issues in your various and prolific previous complaints about me and ANIs [], [], [], etc., ever since our first interaction with my AfD on Joseph P. Farrell so there's really no ambiguity about what you're requesting at this point. Again - ANI is the place to do this but I know you haven't any luck there; WP:OTHERPARENTing is rarely an advisable recourse, but whatever. OUt of courtesy to WtT I'm not going to comment here anymore and I counsel you to follow my lead in that respect. BlueSalix (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Artw, BlueSalix - can't you find something a little better to do with your time? I'd recommend a voluntary interaction ban, but I doubt either of you would agree to it. If I see this at ANI, I won't be suggesting a voluntary one, I'll be suggesting an enforced one. I will make some specific comments though

• Drop the word "stalk", what happens on Wikipedia is not close to stalking and is insulting to anyone who's been though such an ordeal.
• Drop the word "vandalism", unless that's what you mean. Vandalism is the intentional harming of Wikipedia. You need to be absolutely sure of intent - if you're not, you should be assuming good faith on the intent.
• BlueSalix, looking over Drmies thread, I see you getting hung up on little details again, which looks like you trying to weasel out of something. Rather than arguing over what you meant, why didn't you just point out evidence of where such statements had been made?
• Artw, you have history with this editor, you should be making every effort to not give the impression that that history is colouring your actions. If that means going overboard with explanations of why you are doing things, so be it.

Anything else, take it elsewhere - I'm not nearly as active as I once was and it's junk like this that caused it. Worm^TT(talk) 09:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the attacks continue I'll avoid bothering you and go straight to ANI instead. I would point out that despite efforts to present a case to the contrary I have basically zero interactions with this user already outside of editing pages at AfD, and I don't feel that I should have to make special efforts to avoid AfDs and articles at AfD just in case a user takes a swing at me. Probably that would just mean giving up Wikipeida, since that's the bulk of my edits. I'm also super disappointed that by throwing up a smokescreen of words he seems to be able to present this as a "both sides" thing - I can absolutely assure you that it is not, I simply do not like being randomly attacked. Artw (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, really. Haven't you filed enough ANIs against me? BlueSalix (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Worm, I read you are willing to be asked for a nomination. So, I would like to do that with you. Am I in the right spot to contact you for that? The self nominating process doesn't seem clearly obvious enough. --Emborion 21:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC) nikpapag

Hi Emborion. Can I ask why you'd want to become an administrator? You've got a fair way to go before the community would accept you at the moment, I'm afraid - but I don't see that you really need to, you can do almost everything that administrators can do already. If you're serious about becoming an admin, have a look at my Magic Formula, which might give you some pointers. A couple of additional things you might want to look at - that you sign with a username that doesn't match you account, and that you've only made about 10 edits outside article space in the last 2 years. Worm^TT(talk) 07:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like I've got a fair way to go? Ok Worm. Thank you for the 3 tips.--Emborion 20:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm working on a project trying to bring most of the coding on Wikipedia up to the most current standards (HTML5), and I noticed that your signature is using <font>...</font> tags which were deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional, marked as invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of HTML5 at all. I'd love to help you update your signature to use newer code, and if you're interested, I suggest replacing:

[[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="color:#060;">talk</span>]])

with:

[[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="color:#060;">talk</span>]])

which will result in a 215 character long signature with an appearance of: Worm^TT(talk) compared to your existing 208 character long signature of: Worm^TT(talk) — Either way. Happy editing!(t) Josve05a (c) 23:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Or you could use:

[[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="color:#060;">talk</span>]])

which would produce: Worm^TT(talk) - using a mere 203 characters. This works because <b>...</b> is just as valid in HTML5 as <span>...</span>. --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Or even:

[[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]])

Which is what I've gone for. Thanks both for the advice. Worm^TT(talk) 08:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I have been gradually increasing my areas I have dealings with on Wikipedia and am thinking of running for adminship. I have noted that you are willing to give advice on areas that may require improvement for a candidate before they run and if you feel they are suitable nominate them for adminship. I would appreciate if you would consider tkaing some time to evaluate my work and let me know of any pointers you can provide, for claritys sake I did request this from another user a while back but due to unforseen cirucmstances they were unable to assist. Amortias (T)(C) 09:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Commented on your talk page, since there's a thread there Worm^TT(talk) 08:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(Message to all bureaucrats)

There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.

In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.

Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. –xeno^talk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dave. I noticed that you've closed infobox RfCs in the past and were involved as an arbitrator in an infobox case. Would you be willing to close this RfC? I'm hesitant to do so myself as I was the requester and expressed my opinion. Many thanks. --Albany NY (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but I doubt you're going to like it. Worm^TT(talk) 07:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(watching) Indeed I don't like it, but like and dislike should not be the question, right? What I don't like is the label "There have been some bad faith arguments" which may mean me, because "bad faith" is about what I have most problems to take. (I don't mind "infobox criminal", actually find it quite funny.) - I did not discuss below the RfC because I came late to the discussion. - Now IF deference to the wishes of those "putting a lot of effort into an article" is so important: please restore the infoboxes where my wish was ignored by the power of arbcom, starting with BWV 35, - do so please not for "aesthetics" but to inform our readers. Btw, Nikkimaria started to revert such reverts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No Gerda, I was referring to the sockpuppetry and one individual who was clearly arguing in bad faith. You'll notice that the "wishes of those putting a lot of effort into the article" were the last point I made - because it was the final factor, one that only gets taken into account if there is absolutely no consensus. As it happens, a no-consensus decision already leaned the same way. I'm not going to go back over every case you think goes against the close I just made - I made it based on the discussions at the article. Worm^TT(talk) 08:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the "no" which I assume was not for restoring the infobox on BWV 35, right? - "Bad faith" was the first argument you made, and it hit me. I assume in good faith now that you think that I made my argument to include an infobox to inform our readers about place and time of the subject (actually any subject) in good faith. - It is not clear from the close. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

ps: the infobox which was reverted is here, - technically I could re-insert it myself now - not restricted not to revert any more - but still avoid doing so which I hope you will understand, also that I am reluctant to go to the article talk because it shows my shameful state of sin restriction to a public ;) - I looked at my list again and found that the cantata is the very last of the cases where an infobox had been reverted because I had not literally "created" but only put "a lot of effort into an article", - I would like to close that chapter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dave, thanks for taking the time to close the RfC at Talk:James Joyce, but I believe you've misjudged the strength of the arguments, so I'm going to challenge your close. There's no documented mechanism for reviewing RfC closes per WP:Requests for comment #Ending RfCs (as there is for reviewing closes of AfDs), so I thought I'd raise the issue here with you first.

My principal problem with your summary is that by taking into account earlier debates (from 2010) outside the RfC itself, you fail to acknowledge that consensus can change and give undue weight to a five-year-old straw poll, which was a simple vote with (at most) references to a discredited user essay. Further, I simply cannot agree with your assertion that the majority of discussion relevant to the RfC question occurred in the section below the RfD. It didn't. I also believe you are mistaken in dismissing generic arguments both for and against inclusion. ArbCom cannot create policy, and there is no policy that dictates discounting an argument simply because it can be generalised to other articles - in fact, that makes the argument stronger.

Within the RfC, there were at least eight editors arguing for inclusion and only one arguing against. If you want to consider the broader discussions from last month that triggered the RfC (Talk:James Joyce #Infobox and Talk:James Joyce #Infobox reconsideration, you'll find that Albany NY, Pigsonthewing, RexxS, Choor monster, Littleolive oil, Gerda Arendt, Davey2010, Comatmebro and Ryecatcher773 all supplied arguments in favour of inclusion, while Modernist, Paul August, SandyGeorgia, Malik Shabazz argued against inclusion, or at least in favour of retaining the consensus from five years ago.

I'd very much like you to review your closure in the light of the above. If the sheer number of editors who commented favourably on the inclusion of an infobox isn't decisive, then I still believe that if you summarise all of the arguments pro and con, then the weight of argument still falls squarely on the pro-infobox side of the RfC. If you're unable to revise your closure, the perhaps you can suggest a suitable venue to take the dispute? Either WP:AN (as it hosts WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure) or WP:DRN (as this is primarily concerned with content) come to mind, but I'm happy enough to be guided by you per Requests for closure. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Morning RexxS. I've had another look over the debate and I stand by my decision. You are welcome to take it to any forum to discuss further, but I'd recommend the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard - as the close states there is "No consensus", the dispute is still ongoing. Unless, of course, you do not accept that I am an uninvolved editor? In that case, I would suggest that you take the matter to AN. Regarding the specific points;

• Absolutely consensus can change, but that doesn't mean that previous discussions should be discounted. There have been a number of discussions throughout Archive 2, most notably the straw poll and this one which do hold bearing on the current discussions. There is a difference between understanding consensus can change and ignoring the past - a previous strong consensus, spanning years, should only be overturned by a definite consensus for change. That is why I pointed to past discussions.
• I do believe that both sections "RfC" and "Infobox reconsideration" should be read in conjunction, as the full discussions over the past 2 months. I note in particular that the earlier discussion included both a sockpuppet and uncivil advocacy, apparently driving away those on the other side of the argument, just before the "RfC" was opened.
• Weight of editors is not a major factor in an RfC, as it is not a vote (I won't bother linking you to the policy, you know it). Far more important is weight of arguments. Of course the standard arguments are relevant, but the standard arguments counterbalance each other, if they did not we would be leaning towards a guideline that infoboxes should or shouldn't be included. Instead, as there is no guideline, it is more important to discuss an infobox's merits to a specific article. In this case, the debated utility of the infobox stands against the debated aesthetics and flow of the article. Noting, too, that an infobox removal was discussed lightly at the time of Featured Article Review.

So, in summary, I stand by my decision that there is no consensus to add the infobox based on weight of argument. I wish you luck in which ever route you choose to progress this matter, let me know if I need to take part - I have no opinion on the matter, so will only be discussing my close rather than any pros or cons of the actual infobox. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Today is Bloomsday, we should read, not debate. I was called to comment, and feel that whatever I said makes no difference because there is this heavy weight of a past of which I was no part. I arrived at the infoboxes scene in 2012, was against them then as redundant, learned within half a year that they serve some and don't harm the others. I keep dreaming, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Today we are a day wiser, - I still don't like the unspecified "bad faith" at the beginning of your close, - could you reword that? - Seemingly unrelated: I made a comment (per email) regarding this edit (saying that found it amusing) which caused me to be excluded from a talk page. Did you know who created that article - which was what amused me most? Speaking of the wishes of those who put much effort in an article. I did for another work by Beethoven, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I chose my wording carefully and am going to stick to it. Anyone reading the discussion will see very quickly who I am referring to, I've explained further below why the "bad faith" comments were so problematic. Worm^TT(talk) 12:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"Anybody" did not include me, - I felt meant and understood only after explanation that it was not. - I dislike that - at least in my limited understanding of English - it puts those being for infoboxes in the "bad faith" corner, but accept that you chose your wording carefully which I had no doubt about. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Evening Dave, I've just got back from your neck of the woods - I did a training gig at Liverpool Uni today, so am just catching up. Thanks for being so forthright and for elaborating on your thought processes in reaching your conclusion. Of course I accept you as uninvolved - I would have said so otherwise! - so I'll start to prepare something for DRN. It seems relatively lightweight and non-adversarial. Of course I'd like you to take part because it will be your weighing of the arguments that I'll have to dispute and it wouldn't be fair for others to only hear my side of the argument. I'm not going to rush and I'll consult some trusted colleagues to make sure that I'm not badly mistaken in my reading of the RfC+debate before doing anything more. Hope all's well with you and the family. Best wishes --RexxS (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep me in the loop, I'll see what I can do. Completely forgot about the Liverpool Uni training, how did it go? Worm^TT(talk) 12:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You say, it is more important to discuss an infobox's merits to a specific article. In this case, the debated utility of the infobox stands against the debated aesthetics and flow of the article. But that is a recurrent theme; indeed, it had been debated at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven#Infobox, another infobox RfC that you closed as "... there is consensus that there should be an infobox". I'd be interested to hear what factors have made the inclusion of the infobox in Beethoven's article appropriate, but not here. Alakzi (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alakzi. There were a few key differences -

• The aesthetics of the Beethoven infobox were specifically addressed.
• In the Beethoven discussion, all the opposing arguments were addressed in depth.
• The Joyce article had previous in depth discussions on the matter of the Infobox, including at Featured Article Review. The fact that the article has been through the featured article process, does mean that it has a stable state, approved by a significant portion of the community and a solid consensus should be shown to overturn that.
• The level of discourse on the Joyce article, especially from one individual, had the effect of driving off other editors, making consensus more difficult to achieve.

Finally, and most importantly, I read the arguments at both Beethoven and Joyce and for one I saw a solid consensus from the arguments and on the other, I didn't see that one had been reached. Worm^TT(talk) 07:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. It is illogical that generic aspects of infoboxes should be examined on a per article basis. The person infoboxes sport a standard look; if their aesthetics and other aspects had been addressed at another location at greater depth, it is intellectually moral that the consensus should carry to future debates. (It may - of course - be overturned via rational discourse.) The infobox was discussed cursorily at the 2006 FAR, a time when infoboxes were in their infancy. Consider, why did you choose to take the FAR into consideration, but not a more recent and more thorough RfC? We need to carry the infobox debate forward, and the way to do that is by discounting prescriptivism and prejudice - which would be perfectly in line with the purpose of building an encyclopaedia. Alakzi (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

All articles do not look alike, article length, amount of images, paragraph length, amount of lists, format of lists and many other factors make each article different. The idea is that there is consensus should be found at the specific article and the aesthetics of each are unique and relevant to the discussion. Which RfC are you suggesting I didn't take into consideration? Worm^TT(talk) 08:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Will you please reply to this request? Suggestion: "No, dear reader, the aesthetic aspects of this "beautifully crafted article" are more important than supplying readers with information at a predictable spot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Now where have I heard that before? Cassianto^Talk 22:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Odd, I don't see anybody debating the visual style of headings on a per article basis. Alakzi (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dave, would you mind looking into adding Useight to the process at WP:INACTIVE. Mkdw^talk 22:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

He's still about - making log actions and editing sporadically at Useight's Public Sock (You can check his contributions). Worm^TT(talk) 08:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm around. In some capacity, at least. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Especially for you one of the better DYK ... that Prince Nikolaus Esterházy, who commissioned Beethoven's Mass in C major for his wife's name day, found it "unbearably ridiculous and detestable"? The discussion on the talk is one of three on my parole. Today I found a new word on my talk, "ArbCommed", made me smile, but I will not use it. We - the team on the Beethoven mass - are working on merging The Creation (Haydn) (partly done) and The Creation structure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You commented on the tp of this project two years ago. The idea has not been pursued since - yet. Now that you have been both an arb and a 'crat since then, your opinion may have changed. I would welcome your up-to-date thoughts there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Apologies that I haven't got back to you sooner on this. You may have noticed that I'm currently thinking along similar lines. I do think there needs to be an alternative route for desysops. I am not sure, however, that BARC is the right way to do it. There's currently a bit of discussion around the level of trust that 'crats are given and what's the point to them, as you know renaming has been removed and there's discussions regarding the bot flag too. I'm really not too happy with the idea of more committees either. That said, I don't have a better idea as yet and would be very interested in seeing how the community reacts to it. On a personal level, the proposal would have my support. Worm^TT(talk) 13:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are one or two discussions going on in various places about the 'crats' future and also about desysoping methods. Unless somthing is done to make the crats' job more appealing and getting some more to run for office, they will all be mostly fossilised in a couple of years and it will allbe down to you and 28. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Of there 30 odd crats, there are about half a dozen active ones and I wouldn't really put me or 28 amongst their numbers. I can't say I'm keen on making desysops a carrot to encourage crats to run, but then the community standards for crats are so stupidly high, it's probably not a terrible thing. I've got to say, the iron's relatively hot at the moment with respect to this sort of proposal (given current arbcom cases and crat discussions), now would be a good time to put an RfC like this live. Don't forget the community wants something. The proof of concept confirmed that. Worm^TT(talk) 14:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Stupidly high? I dunno man, if they let me be one... I've seen the discussion of the role of 'crats in a couple places, and a thing I wonder about is this. It's quite true that 'crats don't have much to do--it's why I quit--but everyone seems to assume that that means we need to give them more stuff to do. Is there something so wrong about just letting 'crats wither away entirely? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing at all. That's sort of what I expected to happen. It shouldn't be an argument for BARC above, but at the same time, it's not an argument against BARC. Worm^TT(talk) 07:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

We need the 'crats, but we're soon going to have to justify their existence.

You probably noticed that I deliberately (with enormous difficulty) stayed away from that 'the community wants something' discussion, however important it was. I had been making a lot of noise about RfA and adminship for a long time so I wanted to see just what would happen if I kept my trap shut for once in a while. It was a good discussion though, and most of the RfA trolls left it alone. Nevertheless, the consesus is what I expected it to be and would have hoped for.

The community giveth and taketh away in more ways than one though and while they ovewhelmingly supported the proposal they stronly opposed all the suggestions for implementing it. They don't want a select committee, they don't want a new group of super users, they don't want Arbcom to continue to do it, they want community desysopping but they clearly don't want a kangaroo court populated by the pitchfork-wielding peanut gallery à la ANI (which is really just kettles and pots yelling at each other like the dead common characters across the cobbled streets of Corrie). In short, they want their cake, to eat it, and puke it up again for another day.

I'm going to take another look at BARC because I think it's probably the nearest compromise, but even during what started off as a contructive discussion with Xeno recently, concerns were raised by others which overflowed onto three very recent threads at WT:RfA. If influential editors would just get their facts right instead of blindly repeating some conjecture, we might already be getting more candidates of the right calibre without all the tralala of looking for desysoping solutionds first. 'Nuff said now - sorry for being so long winded ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I thought BARC stood for Bay Area Rescue Corps, a troupe of trained golden retrievers that rescue swimmers in San Fransisco? But maybe that's just an urban legend. As far as I know, goldens don't even bark much. Bishonen | talk 07:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC).

Well, Bishonen, if the Bureaucrats don't start finding some reasons to BARC a bit more often, they will find that they only exist as a legend. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that instead of reducing that block you have inadvertently extended it? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No? Bugger. Excuse me. Worm^TT(talk) 07:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to hang my head in shame. I swear I checked it 3 times. Worm^TT(talk) 07:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop spooking yourself... it was just a fumble :) --Epipelagic (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Good block by Keilana. I'm absolutely numbed and disgusted at the treatment she received for it. Shame I live in the completely opposite time zone. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I think this trout is in order for the repeated failed attempts at setting the block length to 72 hours. Don't take it too seriously though. I cooked it for you and am serving it with

:D I ran out of beer though. Sorry. Cheers.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 11:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that's the least I deserve, thanks for applying it so gently! Worm^TT(talk) 13:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL. You added 72 hours onto the intial block. Noticing your mistake you added 72 hours onto 72 hours resulting 2*72=144 hour block. Your final adjustment set it to 72 hours. At least 72 hours is in all three block times. :p

Hi WTT - fix that formatting error unless someone beats you to it pelase, I'm a bitamazed I had thehandeye coordination left to get here. SOrry about that. TEaches me to want to getinthe last thoughtIcurrently hae mmediately. Best, a very twilight sleepy,Kevin Gorman (talk)

Looks as if there may be an ominous trend developing here, specially concerning blocks of Corbett. First Sandstein, then GorillaWarfare, then Keilana. It's going to arrive at the point where no one is going to risk blocking him irrespective of how purely correct and procedural the block is. Perhaps Risker or Bishonen or MelanieN should do the next ones - there will be more... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What a magic place Wikipedia might become if admins focused more on facilitating content building and content builders and less on pursuing self-aggrandisement and relentless vendettas against content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Epipelagic, you would be surprised at the number of us so-called "content builders" who would prefer to work in an atmosphere without the aggression, name-calling, and generally boorish behaviour that you defend. Claiming a special right for "content builders" to indulge in it is the worst kind of self-aggrandisement. I'm now returning my head to well below the parapet. Voceditenore (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not defending aggression and boorish behaviour Voceditenore. If you looked at the history and wider issues you could not come to a conclusion anything like that. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am fully aware of both the history and the wider issues. Voceditenore (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Then don't attribute a position to me that I don't hold. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If anyone thought that Arbcom imposing sanctions would somehow make all the tensions around Eric Corbett go away they are fooling themselves. The whole Eric Corbett thing is based in personalities, decisions on what can be forgiven and swept under the carpet and what can't. Wikipedia's editor base doesn't split easily into "content creators" and "whatever you want to call the other group". What I do see is those who see "black and white" and those who see "shades of grey". One is largely populated by younger, idealistic individuals, many of whom are attracted to the protection of Wikipedia. The other is largely populated by older, more tolerant individuals, many of whom are experts in fields. Civility issues are where these two groups really collide, and Eric is the focal point for all the disagreement - but it does go a lot deeper. All that is needed is a bit of care when dealing with the cases - I've managed to help tidy up both of the last two incidents, and if they weren't done in a gung-ho manner, perhaps there wouldn't be an issue in the first place. Worm^TT(talk) 11:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your approach, Worm, given the situation. Having said that, there are many of us who are older, experts in our field, and don't see things in terms of "black and white" but who nevertheless dislike aggression and name-calling from whatever source. It's utterly puerile, and not the mark of mature individuals whatever their age. Many of us remain largely silent on the subject, just getting on with our work, avoiding individuals who act like boors, and doing our best to ignore the unproductive posturing that surrounds them on both sides of the issue. I guess that scenario qualifies as "tolerant", but in a rather negative way. Voceditenore (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Worm, I think you nailed it. I've routinely voted for admins that I see will not abuse the position nor misuse the tools, and I expect admins to exercise care even when enforcing an arbitration decision. I also expect them to be receptive to discussion about any action they take. If they decide to ignore questions about their actions then they shouldn't be admins.--MONGO 12:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• I expect admins not to contribute here when they know damn well that their capability is impaired due to medication. In Kevin's case, this is a prolonged situation and one that he has acknowledged frequently. I am aware of the nature of his health issues and I do sympathise but he (and anyone else in a similar situation) should certainly take a break at the point when even he recognises that the unintended consequences can be bizarre. If Kevin should act under the influence yet again, I'd be tempted to take it to ArbCom and request a temporary desysop. It is in part due to issues of medication that I've been editing so little of late, although in recent days I'm afraid it is primarily because I'm absolutely fed up of what is going on. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kudpung. I've supported as joint proposer. I invite all talk page stalkers to have a look. Worm^TT(talk) 06:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, WTT! Over here you said you'd be happy to check if I could get a nomination for the bit. If you're not too busy, would it be possible for you to check if you could nominate me? Thank you. APerson (talk!) 15:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi APerson. I've not forgotten you! Unfortunately, I'm never very active at weekends, check my edit count ;) I'll try and get to looking over your contributions today. Worm^TT(talk) 06:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that, sorry. Thanks again! APerson (talk!) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Really sorry about the delay, I'm rather snowed under. I'll get to this as soon as I can. Worm^TT(talk) 14:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It's not like we have a deadline or anything, after all. APerson (talk!) 11:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• You'll be pleased to know that I was actually looking at this when you just posted! Here's my thoughts:

  First and foremost, you're doing a great job on Wikipedia and are a credit to the team. It's great to have helpful people at the teahouse, and technically minded people working on scripts and bots. Based on my magic formula, you've definitely got a specialism, which will stand you in good stead. But also based on that same magic formula, there are a few areas where you may want to brush up

  Content creation. Like it or not, there is an expectation of content creation in new administrators and the only way to avoid it is to be an exceptional (not just a good) candidate. Look, for example at my recent nomination, Liz, who does so much good work and in admin areas and yet she is still subject to opposes due to lack of content creation.

  At the moment, I think your lack of peer reviewed "content creation" would significantly hamper any attempt at an RfA. I'd recommend have a go at creating a couple of good articles. Find a subject that you're interested in and put the effort in - it will significantly improve your chances at passing.

  Alternatively, keep working at the administrative areas, you're doing a great job at AfC and AfD and those will stand you in good stead. That said, I think more experience in deletions would only be a good thing. You've commented in about 130 AfDs, and nominated a handful of CSDs, try spending a little time at new page patrol, dip your hand in to deletions.

  Finally, make sure you're a noticed part of the community - participate in discussions, especially the ones listed at WP:CENT. Put your thoughts forward, and collaborate to make the best solution.

• As I said, you're doing a great job generally. If you ran for administrator now, you'd stand a fair chance of getting it, depending on who shows up. At the same time, putting a little work in for a few months and you can really improve your chances. Worm^TT(talk) 11:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback! Since you evaluated my overall chance as fair, I'm reasonably certain that the community will look at my technical contributions as well as my content ones and decide I'm a WP:NETPOSITIVE. I had been following Liz's RfA pretty closely even before you brought it up, and it doesn't look like her low number of articles created is a big issue. Would it be possible to move along with the nomination anyway? APerson (talk!) 21:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi APerson, I'm afraid I'm not willing to put a nomination in at the moment, I'd like to see you work on the areas I've suggested improvements on before I do. If do you wish to push forward, I'd recommend a self-nomination. Worm^TT(talk) 09:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you nominate me for adminship?

Ejaz92 (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ejaz92. I'm afraid you wouldn't pass a "request for adminship" at the moment. Adminship on Wikipedia is given to community members who have shown themselves to be very knowledgeable of policy and trustworthy over a significant period of time. As such, many people expect to see thousands of edits over a decent time period (a year or two) before they'd even consider someone for adminship. But don't worry, Wiki-software is very open, there's almost nothing you can't do already as a normal community member - you can edit almost every page, upload files, nominate anything for deletion - actually pressing the final button doesn't really matter that much. Just enjoy your time here, and if in a couple of years you're still interested in being an admin, come back and ask me then. Worm^TT(talk) 09:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

More dramah than media in the discussions (about, you guess right) on Rod Steiger, a Media and drama good article. I stay out. The word respect has been mentioned, probably without blushing. - As so often, I would like to know who pays respect to the interests of the readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Please see this thread on WP:ANI. A user with a long history of edit-warring and unsourced edits who you granted courtesy vanishing is continuing to edit in the same areas with the now renamed account, which I believe is against the spirit of WP:Courtesy vanishing. Thomas.W ^talk 11:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Raise it at Wp:BN if there is a rush, or I'll deal with it personally in the morning. Worm^TT(talk) 15:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Thomas.W, I have blocked the user and left a message setting out their options. WJBscribe (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that WJBscribe, I wasn't in a position to. Worm^TT(talk) 08:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is still the unsuccessful RfA with the most support comments, and this the withdrawn RfA with the most support comments. WJBscribe (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Will update my comment, I didn't go back beyond 2009, because I assumed it was much smaller turnouts. Worm^TT(talk) 09:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

WJBscribe, Not this bureaucrat ;) Worm^TT(talk) 12:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I share the concerns recently stated by you at the RfA. However, I see it in reverse also, ie: the level of support is so high as to be peculiar. There are some in that mix who have practically come out of semi-retirement. The entire thing has been a mess and I do feel sorry that Liz has had to endure what must surely be one of the most divisive RfAs of recent times.

I also never thought I'd see the day when I disagreed with so many people whom I respect, which includes you and your fellow nominators. Saying this here because I don't want to clutter the main RfA page still more. No need for a reply. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's because it's a named woman who is running. Look for example at WP:Requests for adminship/SarahStierch or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anna Frodesiak. I don't have any problem with many of the opposers, yourself included, they have the right to their opinion and in general it's been well expressed without being insulting. I just think this is a great disappointment. Worm^TT(talk) 09:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Three years ago today, remember, I found you precious, and still do. Feel free to help yourself to one of the userboxes ;) - I mused on a different talk about 80% percent of support wanted to do the cleaning job, while sitting arbs - much more influential - were elected with a much lower ratio. I disagreed with Liz several times, but that is no reason for me not to trust her to perform functions which will be well watched (and if necessary corrected) by the community. - Opabinia regalis - a woman - was successful. - Did you know that my latest label is "doctrinaire insistence" - whatever that may mean, - assuming good faith it's derived from docere = teach ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Three years ago I was an asset to the encyclopedia - today, I barely do anything, I very much doubt I still deserve such an accolade. I honestly have no idea who I've agreed with or disagreed with over the years - I only remember names when I think the opinion is so out of kilter with Wikipedia that I need to do some extra research. Worm^TT(talk) 10:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

People who've proven capable of closing XfDs are turned down, so why should we care if someone's who's never even performed an XfD closure is turned down? Perhaps you should extend your sympathy to people who deserve it. Alakzi (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your argument is that "because non admins as a group are not allowed to close XfDs as delete, we should not care about an individual who has had over 50 people detail their perceived failings"? What Liz has put up with on her RfA is just about the worst thing for an individual to put up with on Wikipedia (accepting the fact that, you know, it's just a website), you may not support her RfA, but a little sympathy is definitely reasonable. If you don't care, that's fine - you can not care elsewhere. Worm^TT(talk) 10:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've supported Liz's RfA, and I've got a good laugh out of her being referred to as an "SJW"; if people are calling you that, you're probably on the right track. And I absolutely agree - it is an ordeal to have to go through. Gerda was commenting on her being trusted with the admin bit, which I think there's plenty other people who'd put it to better use. Alakzi (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I probably came off a little grumpy there. Thanks for clarifying. Worm^TT(talk) 11:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My closing remark does sound somewhat acrimonious - I've struck it. Alakzi (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Rubbing my eyes: I supported Liz, and think I expressed that clearly by saying "no reason for me not to trust her to perform functions which will be well watched ... by the community". I also supported her as another woman with feelings, but confess that I have seen worse RfAs, PumpkinSky for example, where the integrity of the candidate was questioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, the idea that usernames that are actual women's names - real names or not - attract more participation is one of those things I believe but can't substantiate. I don't think my case is all that comparable, even aside from the numbers. People tended to read "Opabinia" as female even before I specified my gender, but it's clearly not a name, and many of the comments at my RfA were about the circumstances more than about me in particular. Even though the comments at Liz's RfA are mostly politely expressed and well-reasoned, they're also very personal in a way that is noticeably different from other recent examples. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think people can overestimate the oddity of "coming out of retirement" comments. I remember when I left Wikipedia for several months back in 2009 that I would still sign in to read wikipedia and take a look at what was going on. Seeing familiar people at RfA/RfB prompted me to participate even though I wasn't really making any other edits at the time (Jan - Mar 2009 contribs), but no one approached me to tell me the RfXs were happening. WJBscribe (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We will never know. There are all sorts of backchannels, including secretive off-wiki mailing lists such as that started by Lightbreather at systers.org, but AGF is deemed to be paramount, which kind of enables certain things (despite PACT). Maybe something will come of my recent query at WT:RFA.

FWIW, I've also been surprised that supports seem to be generally accepted by the community even when they do not give a meaningful rationale, but opposes are expected to provide such. All this said, I'm not a regular haunter of RfA stuff: I turn up when I already have a fair amount of dealings with the nominated person. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Supports are generally "per nominator / nomination" by default, but opposes are expected to give rationales. They can, of course, give a "per X's rationale" response, and those are rarely challenged. Worm^TT(talk) 12:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the main Systers list is closely moderated and nothing interesting ever happens there; I doubt the wikipedia sub-list is any different. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As you are one of the joint proposers of WP:BARC and very invested in reform, I would appreciate it if you take a look at a recent draft of an alternative proposal for de-sysopping that I've written at User:BU Rob13/RfC for Administrator Re-election. Your thoughts, whatever they might be, are very welcome on the talk page. I'm trying to determine if this is a feasible RfC to run. ~ Rob^Talk 20:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Gooday. Thanks for your deletion of an unspecifed reference. I have taken another screenshot and added to the COIN file I am preparing; to this end I had already established a dedicated email address (at a time when I am trying to finish with Wikipedia, I am having to learn 'new' stuff, involving much down-time). This sequence is connected with a recent SPI and subsequent unblock with specific instruction from the Admin/CU/Oversighter not to edit unlogged-in, with penalty of permanent block (two admins, both of whom I requested should be available in the future, due to the BF of the Master/Sock - so far, I have resisted the temptation to ping them). I have been trying to identify further socks in the draw (and will continue), hence the two IP addresses which have suddenly deleted historic content - I am unconcerned about the actual article reference itself (which is clearly BS, and the adding editor has been noted and screenshotted) but the actual details contained therein are highly-poignant. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agljones/Archive,

Already, I have identified another Master/Sock pairing and taken advice from a CU, who wants a new SPI. IMO, this is unconnected, as the sock is used for promotional purposes and is presently inactive, so just sitting on that one for a bit until I learn how to do it (further advice from CU was assured).

I really shouldn't have gone this far publicly, but I feel somewhat-justified, as I regret that you've concluded " an immense amount of bad faith" on my part, when I have always tried to be low-key and respectful of WP:OUTING where this individual is concerned. The edit summaries were intended to be firm and informative for the controlling Master (too late for politeness), trying to force a known-editor, who has failed to respond to COI-delaration request (98% single-topic area), to log-in and request a permanent visibility reduction from an admin/oversighter. Obviously, you've had a private message leading you to this Manx Pound article, so think about it - particularly if there is a subsequent oversight sequence relating to the same reference. I hope you are now less confused! I became superficially involved with this in May, 2014 note the edit summary, with more since June 2015 and obviously still ongoing. After you've digested the gist, you can reduce the visibility of this message, but - again - I would request that you be available in the future (I added a bit more to the original draft). Assume that both my talk page and contributions are being surveilled.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Feel free to email me anything further. Worm^TT(talk) 14:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Noted, thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Recently I have been thinking about running for adminship; however during the past two or three months I have been very busy in real life. Now that I have more time to edit again, I am seriously considering the idea. Please, would you review my contributions? I would definitely appreciate some advice about whether to go for it. Thank you, BethNaught (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, you probably shouldn't bother. This doesn't look good. Thanks anyway, though. BethNaught (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  Hi BethNaught, one of my basic requirements is a 6 month period of activity. As you say, you're just coming back from a break - feel free to come back to me in a few months, whilst keeping up the editing. It may help to read over my magic formula and keep in mind that you shouldn't bite the newbies! Ultimate AGF, ok :D Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)