This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dealing with a committee - I cannot get agreement on even the most basic points, because the committee is incapable of agreeing - and half of them are inactive.

I have laid down, I think a very tight argument:

1. Even the edits which were considered an issue when the revising motion was made, could be sanctioned under the remedies of the arb case.
2. As evidence of this, they were.
3. Consequently there is no need for additional sanctions of the revising motion.

Now if any arbitrator could give me a reason to doubt the steps, we could discuss it - but no one has. And yet, some of them continue to think that these additional sanctions are "avoiding disruption" - or so it seems.

All the best, Rich  Farmbrough, 22:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

Was there a discussion on this? Where and when was it? Nightscream ( talk) 23:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got some, too. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@ JamesBWatson: I don't seem to... could you check it's gone to worm.that.turnedgmail.com? Worm^TT( talk) 13:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can find no sign of it in my email account anywhere, either as a sent email, as a pending draft, or anywhere else. I have no idea what happened to it. That is really annoying, as I spent quite a while preparing it. I'll try and send you a re-written version of it soon. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 13:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Always the way, isn't it? Hopefully the gremlins will not bother you this time! Worm^TT( talk) 13:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have tried again. The Wikipedia email system clearly says "Your e-mail message has been sent", but this time, just in case, I am saving a copy of the email on my computer. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk)

Hmmm, zip, nada, nil and so on. I've just logged into my alt (WormTT) and managed to send myself an email without any problems. Not sure what's going on at all.. Worm^TT( talk) 14:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll try emailing you directly, instead of via Wikipedia's email service. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

And I've got it. Thanks, JamesBWatson, I'll read it now. Worm^TT( talk) 14:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would welcome enlightenment.

"Rich Farmbrough is warned that the committee is likely to take a severe view of further violations, and may consider replacing his automation restriction with a site ban"

Is not enlightening, it is a simple threat.

Let me reveal that I have violated the restrictions by, for example, pasting the quote above.

Again no-one has said "Yes well, that's fine, obviously we don't mean that." I take it on myself to assume that this is quite legitimate, even though it is technically not "typing in the box". And no one has said "No, absolutely you cannot cut and paste an ISBN number."

So I am left feeling in the dark, around a sanction that is no more clear than "I don't know what it is , but I know it when I see it".

And all over the "edit by typing in the box" which, as I believe I have convincingly shown, is completely beside the point.

Furthermore this pettifogging over the "edit in the box" prevents me from effectively editing manually, and provides a smokescreen over the more substantive issues of the Arb Case, which are far more worrying, and deserve to be dealt with properly.

I await enlightenment.

All the best, Rich  Farmbrough, 22:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

• I don't speak for the committee on this, because I don't know what the general position is - but in my personal opinion, simple copy and paste does not fall within this restriction. Copy and paste of data manipulated off wiki does. Simple find and replace, with each item manually checked does not. Find and replace all does. Regex does. Bot editing does. Javascript automation does.
  Effectively, what I'd like to see is you becoming a computer simpleton, who understands basic wiki-markup and wants to write articles or work in that matter. That's where the line should be. Does that help? Worm^TT( talk) 06:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course it helps, it is a more precise definition. It would (if everyone agreed) at least provide more clarity as to the what.
  • It doesn't however address the "Why".
  • The "edit in the box" motion was passed at a time when feelings ran high, which I understand, - and in the discussion I got accused of many things as if they were established fact that were never in the original Findings, and some new things, most of which were technically well nigh impossible.
  • Nonetheless I was blocked for a month, which I accepted with, what I thought was good grace on the basis that I had broken Remedy 2.
  • The additional restriction, can, therefore, only be punitive. It certainly is not needed to prevent me doing "what the committee didn't like", however one chooses to interpret that. Should some kind individual point out to me how the "Type in the box" motion supports the implementation of the original remedies, (other than providing a carte blanc for captious editors) I would be delighted.

All the best, Rich  Farmbrough, 19:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC).

Why? Because you annoyed people enough to reach arbitration. You were the focus of an "intractable dispute". An arbitration case is the final point of dispute resolution, with no where else for the community go, so the solutions are often broader than otherwise. In your case, the underlying issue was the mistakes made due to lack of attention - those are shown clearly through similar changes of multiple pages, but the same risk appears when looking at multiple similar changes on the same page.

Finally, punitive vs preventative is related to the admin policy on blocks - this is a ban and in arbitration. Neither of the two areas are restricted by the punitive vs preventative argument. Arbitration is a final, binding decision, you are going to need to accept it or leave. Worm^TT( talk) 07:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok, there is logic in extending to "multiple similar changes" on the same page, that's good thinking ion your part!

This argument was never made, prior to today, as far as I know.

Specifically it was never part of original case, nor of the events leading to the "type in the box" motion.

Thus it seems to me an arbitrary ex post facto extension of the original remedies, no doubt my fault for annoying so many Arbitrators, but still...

Very likely I am completely wrong about this, and you can point me to the flaw in my thinking.

Many thanks, as ever, Rich  Farmbrough,09:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't part of the committee for the case, nor for the motion extending it, so I can't really help you that much on that. Having taken a vague interest in your case and other automated editing cases in the past, the idea that "multiple similar changes on one page" is a natural extension of "multiple similar changes on multiple pages" seemed obvious to me. You will likely find the other arbitrators felt the same, to such an extent that it wasn't mentioned. Not helpful, perhaps, but nor is the medium we work in.

Reading back, it appears the reason the remedy was extended was simply that the original hadn't stopped the "disruption". Had I been part of the committee at the time, I'd have likely suggested a motion similar to the one that was passed. Worm^TT( talk) 09:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I might have suggested such a motion myself! I do have every sympathy, with the committee at that point in time, and indeed with most of them, most of the time. It doesn't mean that it was a good decision. I also encouraged the committee to accept the original case, hoping it would clear the air. In hindsight I think that was a mistake on both my part and the committee's as we hadn't exhausted other remedies (and I certainly hadn't realised the amount of effort even a lacklustre performance at ArbCOm would take).

Certainly an element of "Will nobody rid me of this turbulent editor."

All the best, Rich  Farmbrough, 11:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

talk page stalker] Having ploughed through Richard's edits in this comment section, trying to figure out the reasons for the torches and pitchforks that came out in his last request to ArbCom, I have certainly gotten some idea of "will no one rid me of this turbulent editor". The edits that were brought to Arbcom's attention were not done in article space, but at Articles for Creation, and it seemed to me that while the edits were not perfect, the end result was a collaboration with many editors that eventually made the article ready to publish. This was one of my very early Arbitration Reports, but as I continued to follow the ArbCom for the rest of their year, through other cases, I came to understand it a little better. Some editors manage to "exhaust the good-will of the community" and it seems like this is what has happened here. Everyone needs a proofreader, I need one myself, but when issues are raised, never mind WP:DEADLINE, you have to respond to people's concerns, and in a timely manner. So somehow some issues did not get resolved, and there is now a very low tolerance for any issues at all.

There were a couple of things that I thought made the Arbcom look bad at the time, that I hope are not repeated this time. One was Rich's AE block, done on the say-so of one arb, which I thought cut off some valuable discussion, and perhaps contributed to preventing an earlier resolution of the situation. We saw a similar AE block with the Argentine History case; I hope ArbCom tightens this up for the future. Another was an explanation of Rich's restrictions that could not be understood by either technical or non-technical people, much less Rich himself. But it looks like that dialogue is now well underway. — Neotarf ( talk) 09:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave, I appreciate your comparatively sane note at the current RF A/R/C. I.e., you note that obviously whoever creates such a bot is responsible for it, and, while it may not be obvious why it is useful, surely RF's use of it—simply because he made a feature request for it—would have nothing more to do with his restrictions than his use of any other archiving bot would. You have always struck me as a pretty reasonable person. However, I would suggest to you that his feature requests maybe don't suggest bad faith. I like to think of myself as a reasonable person, too, and I have to say I can not make any sense of your comment It's exactly that sort of behaviour that stops people from assuming good faith with your behaviour. I literally have no idea why someone who is told not to automate himself making feature requests for someone else to build is immediately indicative of bad faith. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 21:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@ ErikHaugen: I'm sorry I didn't reply to these comments (and this one too), I've been away for a few days and it seems the request was closed in the meantime. I hope I'll be able to answer your points here. Now, I need to frame this so that you can understand the way the arbitrators are thinking. As a group, we are stretched. Our main role isn't too bad, deciding on intractable cases, making those tough decisions. But on top of that, we have all the privacy related work on Wikipedia to deal with (no mean feat!), the ban appeals by the most problematic editors and so on and so forth. There's a lot to do. So when one of our decisions, which took a lot of investigation and thoughtful discussion, is questioned over and over, the good faith applied by committee members gets shorter. That's why I mentioned the amount of time Rich has spent at ARCA since I've been on the committee - it's not sustainable and likely that continued appearances will lead to a removal of the focal point.

Rich came to us a couple of weeks ago, asking for a reduction in his restriction so he could archive his talk page. Some arbitrators were dead set against it all together, others pointed out that he could use an existing bot without issue. Rich's reaction was to go to the bot request noticeboard and ask for a new bot to be created. It's not against the letter of the restriction, but it's certainly against the spirit. The spirit, as I explained to Rich at the time in this very thread was that he should [become] a computer simpleton, who understands basic wiki-markup and wants to write articles or work in that matter. You can read the conversation above. Asking for a complex bot to be written for him is certainly nowhere near the spirit of the restriction. It appears that Rich is trying to get round his restriction, a number of people have said it. Actions like that are the reason why. Worm^TT( talk) 13:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

My point is that I don't think it is against the spirit of the restriction. You seem to think that it is obviously against it, so I am just trying to suggest that reasonable people might disagree with you on that point, hoping you'll at least question whether it is really that obvious; that's all. You (plural you) told him to use a bot, so he made a feature request—doing things like that is part of using software, even for "computer simpletons". So it is not at all clear, to me anyway, that what he did was against even the spirit of what you were telling him. My point in the other note is that while I can understand why the committee has had enough of his clarifications and might be inclined to reject any more of them out of hand, this one simply wasn't his, so it might make sense not to "take it out on him" despite having no more patience for his clarification requests. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 16:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Here is an interesting quote from Roger Davies around the time of the case closure. "You'll also be delighted to hear that the proposed remedies enable him to give you exactly the help you seek by way of planning the logisitics[sic], working up the code, liaising with bot owners and so on."

All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 22:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC).

I would welcome enlightenment.

"Rich Farmbrough is warned that the committee is likely to take a severe view of further violations, and may consider replacing his automation restriction with a site ban"

Is not enlightening, it is a simple threat.

Let me reveal that I have violated the restrictions by, for example, pasting the quote above.

Again no-one has said "Yes well, that's fine, obviously we don't mean that." I take it on myself to assume that this is quite legitimate, even though it is technically not "typing in the box". And no one has said "No, absolutely you cannot cut and paste an ISBN number."

So I am left feeling in the dark, around a sanction that is no more clear than "I don't know what it is , but I know it when I see it".

And all over the "edit by typing in the box" which, as I believe I have convincingly shown, is completely beside the point.

Furthermore this pettifogging over the "edit in the box" prevents me from effectively editing manually, and provides a smokescreen over the more substantive issues of the Arb Case, which are far more worrying, and deserve to be dealt with properly.

I await enlightenment.

All the best, Rich  Farmbrough, 22:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

• I don't speak for the committee on this, because I don't know what the general position is - but in my personal opinion, simple copy and paste does not fall within this restriction. Copy and paste of data manipulated off wiki does. Simple find and replace, with each item manually checked does not. Find and replace all does. Regex does. Bot editing does. Javascript automation does.
  Effectively, what I'd like to see is you becoming a computer simpleton, who understands basic wiki-markup and wants to write articles or work in that matter. That's where the line should be. Does that help? Worm^TT( talk) 06:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course it helps, it is a more precise definition. It would (if everyone agreed) at least provide more clarity as to the what.
  • It doesn't however address the "Why".
  • The "edit in the box" motion was passed at a time when feelings ran high, which I understand, - and in the discussion I got accused of many things as if they were established fact that were never in the original Findings, and some new things, most of which were technically well nigh impossible.
  • Nonetheless I was blocked for a month, which I accepted with, what I thought was good grace on the basis that I had broken Remedy 2.
  • The additional restriction, can, therefore, only be punitive. It certainly is not needed to prevent me doing "what the committee didn't like", however one chooses to interpret that. Should some kind individual point out to me how the "Type in the box" motion supports the implementation of the original remedies, (other than providing a carte blanc for captious editors) I would be delighted.

All the best, Rich  Farmbrough, 19:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC).

Why? Because you annoyed people enough to reach arbitration. You were the focus of an "intractable dispute". An arbitration case is the final point of dispute resolution, with no where else for the community go, so the solutions are often broader than otherwise. In your case, the underlying issue was the mistakes made due to lack of attention - those are shown clearly through similar changes of multiple pages, but the same risk appears when looking at multiple similar changes on the same page.

Finally, punitive vs preventative is related to the admin policy on blocks - this is a ban and in arbitration. Neither of the two areas are restricted by the punitive vs preventative argument. Arbitration is a final, binding decision, you are going to need to accept it or leave. Worm^TT( talk) 07:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok, there is logic in extending to "multiple similar changes" on the same page, that's good thinking ion your part!

This argument was never made, prior to today, as far as I know.

Specifically it was never part of original case, nor of the events leading to the "type in the box" motion.

Thus it seems to me an arbitrary ex post facto extension of the original remedies, no doubt my fault for annoying so many Arbitrators, but still...

Very likely I am completely wrong about this, and you can point me to the flaw in my thinking.

Many thanks, as ever, Rich  Farmbrough,09:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't part of the committee for the case, nor for the motion extending it, so I can't really help you that much on that. Having taken a vague interest in your case and other automated editing cases in the past, the idea that "multiple similar changes on one page" is a natural extension of "multiple similar changes on multiple pages" seemed obvious to me. You will likely find the other arbitrators felt the same, to such an extent that it wasn't mentioned. Not helpful, perhaps, but nor is the medium we work in.

Reading back, it appears the reason the remedy was extended was simply that the original hadn't stopped the "disruption". Had I been part of the committee at the time, I'd have likely suggested a motion similar to the one that was passed. Worm^TT( talk) 09:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I might have suggested such a motion myself! I do have every sympathy, with the committee at that point in time, and indeed with most of them, most of the time. It doesn't mean that it was a good decision. I also encouraged the committee to accept the original case, hoping it would clear the air. In hindsight I think that was a mistake on both my part and the committee's as we hadn't exhausted other remedies (and I certainly hadn't realised the amount of effort even a lacklustre performance at ArbCOm would take).

Certainly an element of "Will nobody rid me of this turbulent editor."

All the best, Rich  Farmbrough, 11:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

talk page stalker] Having ploughed through Richard's edits in this comment section, trying to figure out the reasons for the torches and pitchforks that came out in his last request to ArbCom, I have certainly gotten some idea of "will no one rid me of this turbulent editor". The edits that were brought to Arbcom's attention were not done in article space, but at Articles for Creation, and it seemed to me that while the edits were not perfect, the end result was a collaboration with many editors that eventually made the article ready to publish. This was one of my very early Arbitration Reports, but as I continued to follow the ArbCom for the rest of their year, through other cases, I came to understand it a little better. Some editors manage to "exhaust the good-will of the community" and it seems like this is what has happened here. Everyone needs a proofreader, I need one myself, but when issues are raised, never mind WP:DEADLINE, you have to respond to people's concerns, and in a timely manner. So somehow some issues did not get resolved, and there is now a very low tolerance for any issues at all.

There were a couple of things that I thought made the Arbcom look bad at the time, that I hope are not repeated this time. One was Rich's AE block, done on the say-so of one arb, which I thought cut off some valuable discussion, and perhaps contributed to preventing an earlier resolution of the situation. We saw a similar AE block with the Argentine History case; I hope ArbCom tightens this up for the future. Another was an explanation of Rich's restrictions that could not be understood by either technical or non-technical people, much less Rich himself. But it looks like that dialogue is now well underway. — Neotarf ( talk) 09:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave, I appreciate your comparatively sane note at the current RF A/R/C. I.e., you note that obviously whoever creates such a bot is responsible for it, and, while it may not be obvious why it is useful, surely RF's use of it—simply because he made a feature request for it—would have nothing more to do with his restrictions than his use of any other archiving bot would. You have always struck me as a pretty reasonable person. However, I would suggest to you that his feature requests maybe don't suggest bad faith. I like to think of myself as a reasonable person, too, and I have to say I can not make any sense of your comment It's exactly that sort of behaviour that stops people from assuming good faith with your behaviour. I literally have no idea why someone who is told not to automate himself making feature requests for someone else to build is immediately indicative of bad faith. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 21:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@ ErikHaugen: I'm sorry I didn't reply to these comments (and this one too), I've been away for a few days and it seems the request was closed in the meantime. I hope I'll be able to answer your points here. Now, I need to frame this so that you can understand the way the arbitrators are thinking. As a group, we are stretched. Our main role isn't too bad, deciding on intractable cases, making those tough decisions. But on top of that, we have all the privacy related work on Wikipedia to deal with (no mean feat!), the ban appeals by the most problematic editors and so on and so forth. There's a lot to do. So when one of our decisions, which took a lot of investigation and thoughtful discussion, is questioned over and over, the good faith applied by committee members gets shorter. That's why I mentioned the amount of time Rich has spent at ARCA since I've been on the committee - it's not sustainable and likely that continued appearances will lead to a removal of the focal point.

Rich came to us a couple of weeks ago, asking for a reduction in his restriction so he could archive his talk page. Some arbitrators were dead set against it all together, others pointed out that he could use an existing bot without issue. Rich's reaction was to go to the bot request noticeboard and ask for a new bot to be created. It's not against the letter of the restriction, but it's certainly against the spirit. The spirit, as I explained to Rich at the time in this very thread was that he should [become] a computer simpleton, who understands basic wiki-markup and wants to write articles or work in that matter. You can read the conversation above. Asking for a complex bot to be written for him is certainly nowhere near the spirit of the restriction. It appears that Rich is trying to get round his restriction, a number of people have said it. Actions like that are the reason why. Worm^TT( talk) 13:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

My point is that I don't think it is against the spirit of the restriction. You seem to think that it is obviously against it, so I am just trying to suggest that reasonable people might disagree with you on that point, hoping you'll at least question whether it is really that obvious; that's all. You (plural you) told him to use a bot, so he made a feature request—doing things like that is part of using software, even for "computer simpletons". So it is not at all clear, to me anyway, that what he did was against even the spirit of what you were telling him. My point in the other note is that while I can understand why the committee has had enough of his clarifications and might be inclined to reject any more of them out of hand, this one simply wasn't his, so it might make sense not to "take it out on him" despite having no more patience for his clarification requests. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 16:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Here is an interesting quote from Roger Davies around the time of the case closure. "You'll also be delighted to hear that the proposed remedies enable him to give you exactly the help you seek by way of planning the logisitics[sic], working up the code, liaising with bot owners and so on."

All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 22:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC).

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I have received it and understand the conditions. Although my return is temporary and editing will not be too frequent like before, I appreciate the arbitration committee's trust. Nadirali نادرالی ( talk) 18:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

One question I have, what about topics that are apolitical? Am i banned form editing those? I mean articles that have nothing to do with politics, just regular articles. Nadirali نادرالی ( talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say so for the moment, yes. Show us good editing for a while and I'm sure we'll be willing to relax that. Worm^TT( talk) 11:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is a quick note to say that I hope to get time properly to reply to your comment here later today, though it might have to defer until tomorrow. With regard to "restricted from areas that you don't appear to be", I believe my examples were based on comments such as "Category (1) probably falls within the restriction" where this explicitly included the WSPU (Suffrage), this was a comment by NYB here. I agree that I would not normally interpret sexuality as including suffrage, neither is sexual identity normally interpreted as sexuality. I am happy to admit that I may well have misunderstood the text, so I'll be careful in linking back to Arbcom member comments. It is obviously not in my interest to exaggerate the extent of the ban. I am finding it tricky not to come across as wiki-lawyering using dictionary definitions of these words and I am endeavouring to stay as focused as I can on previously expressed views from Arbcom members. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 13:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I balked at Category (1) when you suggested it, because LGBT does fit under sexuality, though Women's Rights did not. I expect that NYB may have fell into the same thought process, but you'd do rather better to ask him, not me! Worm^TT( talk) 13:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I am worried about digging into these definitions. I have been involved in, and reading about, LGBT activism for over 30 years, so my understanding of the distinction between gender identity, sexual identity, sexuality and sexual material is probably different from how most Arbcom members understand these words. For example, identifying as gay, transsexual or a woman, is not the same as understanding a person's sex life. I do not want to waste the Committee's time having an academic debate on the meaning of words relating to gender and identity, when we could probably resolve this quite happily by moving to a probation approach. Non-wiki stuff needs to be dealt with today, so I think I'll ponder how to respond overnight. If you have any informal tips on how to approach this, I would be grateful. I am sorry that including the impact the ban has been having on my projects has been interpreted as having some sort of go at Arbcom, this was not my intention.

PS, with regard to the Assyrian statue, a key part of the importance of the statue, and clear from the photographs I have taken of the original, is that the pubic hair is carefully carved on it. The academic sources are quite clear on interpretation, including the inscription, that this was more than nudity but intended to be erotic. This is the reason that I made a point of clearing the article and the use of my photographs with Arbcom. -- Fæ ( talk) 15:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Doom Bar know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 8, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite ( talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 8, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Doom Bar is a sandbar at the mouth of the estuary of the River Camel on the north coast of Cornwall, England. It is composed mainly of marine sand, more than 60 per cent of which is derived from marine shells making it an important source of agricultural lime which has been collected for hundreds of years. According to tradition, the Doom Bar formed in the reign of Henry VIII, damaging the prosperity of the port of Padstow a mile up the estuary. Until the 20th century, access to Padstow's harbour was via a narrow and difficult channel between the Doom Bar and the cliffs at Stepper Point, and many ships were wrecked on the Doom Bar, including the 12-gun schooner HMS Whiting in 1816. In the early 20th century the main channel moved away from the cliffs, and continued dredging has made it much safer for boats, but deaths have occurred on the bar as recently as 1997. A Cornish folklore legend relates that a mermaid created the bar as a dying curse on the harbour after she was shot by a local man. The Doom Bar has been used in poetry to symbolise feelings of melancholy, and it has given its name to the flagship ale from Sharp's Brewery. ( Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What a name! I thought of the other bar, ready for a Drink, well prepared, congrats! Doom bar drink, invent a recipe, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Doom Bar is indeed a drink already! It's the reason I wrote the article in the first place! Worm^TT( talk) 11:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I wrote Cantiones sacrae because we sing one of the 40 pieces ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeing it on the Main page: precious again! - Different question: I am tempted to take this discussion (second half, about the revert of my attempt to improve "my own" article) to a more open forum. What do you think? Perhaps simply say how you interpret CITEVAR, to give me a feeling of what to expect, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot more experienced article writers than me, but I'd generally say that per WP:OWN, it's not your article even if you wrote it in the first place. If someone's objecting to a change, then discuss it (which you have). If you can't work it out between you, follow WP:DR, which means the larger forum. Worm^TT( talk) 09:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

For the moment, only three comments:

By adding quotation marks to "my own", I tried to make clear that I understand that I don't own it. However, arbitration made a difference between "articles they created" and others, a difference that might be of relevance here also.

The larger forum is not DR, but CITEVAR, - if it can be misunderstood like that, it needs to change.

I wonder if we all had no more important things to do than change something (and argue about it, three places, to be four) that doesn't show to the reader. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's really not a discussion for my talk page at any rate. Worm^TT( talk) 11:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on a fine FA - I'll raise a pint in your honour next time I'm out West (though I'm more of a Honey drinker, myself...). Yunshui  ^雲 _水 09:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I do love a pint of Betty Stoggs when I can get it - or Cornish Knocker, or even Tribute... Actually, to be honest, I haven't been quite such a fan of Doom Bar for a little while - it's become a little mainstream and boring. Still better than most other mainstream bitters though. Worm^TT( talk) 09:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Cornish Knocker... responsible for so many unfortunate incidents in my mid-twenties... And thirties... Yunshui  ^雲 _水 09:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you done the Skinner's brewery tour? I did it on an rail ale trail a few years back... We started at Skinners (which included an hour pulling and drinking your own pints) and then I think... think... we hit Truro. It gets a bit hazy how we ended up in Falmouth... Worm^TT( talk) 09:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't, though on your recommendation it sounds like quite a good way to see the sights. Not that you'd remember them afterwards, of course. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 09:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has finally driven me to drink and it's all your fault. I spotted a bottle of Doom Bar on the shelves of my local Sainsburys yesterday and am now sampling it - purely for research purposes, of course. If you hadn't written the article about Doom Bar, I would never have bought it. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I certainly hope you enjoy it, Bencherlite! If you get a chance, see you can get yourself down to the actual Doom Bar and Padstow some time, it's my favourite part of the world, beautiful countryside, tasty food, interesting beers and friendly people. Worm^TT( talk) 07:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not a good idea, and not useful, to turn the discussion over AGK towards Kumioko. Any attempt in that direction should be backed by rock solid reason, and rock solid evidence. For example accusing Kumioko of gloating is a matter of interpretation. If you want to state he edited mainly from IP's you should back that up with edit numbers - certainly the promiscuous range blocks make it unlikely that he edited mainly from DoD IP's and indeed there is some suggestion that DoD IPs have not been used for a considerable period of time.

All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 12:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

I understand your point of view, but the actions of AGK in this matter are completely related to the actions of the other, including the emails and forum threads they have made. Just as I wouldn't look at an arbcom case without investigating both sides, nor block and editor without doing the same - I cannot legitimately ignore Kumioko's behaviour in this matter. Worm^TT( talk) 12:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Depends on what you call "a considerable period of time" of course, e.g. this one wsa used until 10 March 2014, and only stopped then because it was blocked for a year. this one was last used by K. on 5 march (it ha been used since, but no indication of who made those edits). But these don't really matter when you consider this one, editing late April (harassing AGK, as it turns out), clearly K. and clearly a Navy IP address. It may be that he hasn't used any navy IPs for two weeks, I haven't checked them all, but the impression that he has long abandoned these addresses is false. Fram ( talk) 13:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think the point here is that "The ends don't justify the means". No one is arguing against the fact that Kumioko has been obnoxious in his socking, but where do we draw the line in dealing with him? I think that anyone (particularly an admin who has the means to follow through) threatening someone with what they know is their occupation crosses that line, and I think our policy on threats back me on this. Overlooking it because Kumioko has been a huge pain, or because AGK is an Arb is the wrong answer, and sends the wrong message. You don't get to violate policy just because "he deserves it". That is vigilantism, and looking the other way only condones and encourages more of it. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 13:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  Dennis, do you take issue with sending abuse reports all together, or just to ISPs related to employers? Worm^TT( talk) 14:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  Employers, and specifically mentioning employment or knowingly wording so employment is part of the threat. I think that telling someone we will contact your ISP is more mundane and I would expect those kinds of warnings from admin. It would suck to lose your ISP, but that is not the same as threatening to lose your job, the money that feeds your wife and kids. That isn't a trivial threat, and we can't presume every admin knows where to draw that line. I accept that there may be times that ArbCom as a whole decides to use the "job" card (even if I don't care for it) but individual admin shouldn't, we aren't vetted for it and it is against policy. At the very least, Arb vets their own actions internally, and are granted (as a committee) powers that far exceed a lowly admin's. Really, non-admin shouldn't play that card either, but when an admin says that, it carries more weight as they are presumed to have more authority and tools. And we are held to a higher standard of accountability. When it is an individual Arb (ie: CU access), then it is even dicier, but for this instance I'm just focused on the fact that no admin should do this. AGK probably thinks I have it out for him because I'm so insistent, but I've never had a cross word with him, and just focused on the act, not the actor. If it was me, Drmies, Bish, Fram, DPanda or any other run of the mill admin that threatened a user in a way that included their livelihood, wouldn't you find that problematic? If AGK is acting solely in his capacity as an admin/editor, we have no choice but to hold him to the same standard, or else you are saying that Arb approved the message. In addressing this singular problem, it doesn't matters what Kumioko did. That is a separate issue altogether, and should be dealt with separately. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 15:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  Family and weekend commitments have overtaken me, so I'm signing off, but I did want to thank you for this thoughtful comment. Comments here, at "the other site" and by email have made me pause. I won't be available except by email for the next few days - I'm taking advantage of the weather, so will just have to come back see how this all pans out. Worm^TT( talk) 16:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  Not a problem, I understand. I appreciate you taking the time to really consider my concerns, which I feel are solidly based in policy and WP:COMMONSENSE. I think in the all the noise about K's actions, this bigger and more important point is getting lost. It may take a full Arb case, which I hate because I'm not trying to pile on AGK here, but I can't in good conscience allow a precedent to slide by that says any admin can threaten the job of any problem editor, no matter how bad a problem he is. I'm sorry, but I don't trust the judgement of a single admin to determine when that is ok and when it isn't. Policy says we must treat all admin equally, so upending our policies on threats in this instance would mean any admin could do it tomorrow. Anyway, I hope you have a great weekend. My wife is out of town, so the dogs and I are planning on a movie marathon and yard work. Call me Mr. Excitement. ;) Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 17:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  One last point to ponder: We must insure that we don't give the impression that some admin are more equal than others. If we allow that, it isn't AGK's fault, it is our own. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 17:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Dennis Brown:, It reached the stage of harmful to continue the user talk back and forth. It's frankly untenable, and highly unfair to claim as you do to ignore the context, a context that it seems cannot be fully evidenced or discussed on wiki. There is also no basis to conclude, at present, that a threat was his intent, but that cannot adjudicated by people talking on talk pages. As far as is known, there is a banned user repeatedly posting, and otherwise discussing vandalizing the wiki, and other activities that some see as harassment on wiki while banned or off-wiki e-mail trolling, and a off-wiki response to that, which some see as over a line and others are unconvinced. Either File the Arbcom case already (some of which will undoubtedly need to be in camera), if you think the past needs to be addressed (and the reason I suggest you do it is despite your view, you are more likely to avoid histrionics in the filing), or go to VPP or the talk page of the Administrator's policy and get consensus to write something specific into policy to address your concerns. As for "protecting your own", it cannot be doubted that by virtue of his office, there will be many who want to see his removal or other wiki-harm occur for all his sins real or imagined, so it's also important that reasonable protection occur (the "means" of addressing such a thing is important). -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 19:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've talked with AGK on his talk page, he didn't question my faith. The opposite, actually. I've discussed at the "forum" it was dragged into, and with Worm, who has participated previously and appears to be contemplating the perspective of myself and others. As for changing policy, I don't think that is needed as current policy sufficiently covers it. As for filing at Arb, I'm doing everything I can to not do that and instead handle it at the lowest level possible, which is what is expected before you file at Arb anyway. I haven't argued against Kumioko's ban or any other actions that have taken place, and I've even reverted him myself. I haven't asked for any sanctions against AGK, nor did I expect to, and I've tried to stop the "vote" against AGK on Jimmy's page. Your histrionics claim is unfounded. So far, my actions have been to avoid an Arb case, which is still my goal. You seem to be reading more into my comments than is actually there. My focus is singular, clarifying the power granted to admin. I don't expect to stray from that goal until this has played out. What is harmful is overlooking something that shouldn't be overlooked, regardless of culpability or blame, the two things I haven't focused on. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 19:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

First, As for your claim that policy is clear on these matters (some of which, the facts of the matter are unknown, which you should acknowledge), that's unconvincing, otherwise it would have been over by now. You say your goal is "clarifying the power" -- there cannot be a better way to do that then clarifying the Admin policy.

Second, this is the second time in our discussions, you have defended your good faith, when nothing in my posts criticize your good faith (your arguments; your assumptions; your claims of irrelevance; the necessary lack of on-wiki evidence, which you glide over, but not your good faith). It would be good to avoid taking such offense, when none is stated nor intended. Moreover, I said you would be non-histrionic, so there is no need to defend your non-histrionicness. Nonetheless, you have reached conclusions on the matter, ones that others disagree with or are unconvinced by -- the committee acts as a committee, when called upon, generally not otherwise -- and it's a bit mystifying what form you think this clarity can possibly take without policy process or committee process. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 20:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate minutia with you here on Worms talk page. I've already explained my concerns more than once over several pages. It isn't required that we agree on everything, so we can just agree to disagree here. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 21:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not asking you what your concerns are, how they are to be addressed was the topic. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 21:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be amusing to see how administrators responded if editors started reporting their misdeeds to their employers. Should the employers of our admin corps be made aware of the extensive history of socking, copyright violations, policy abuses, harassment, intimidation, dishonesty, and other abuses that so many admins and arbs have engaged in? Should there be a standardized notification process or should it be left up to individual editors to decide how the information should be communicated? Candleabracadabra ( talk) 17:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The employers of our admin corps are their electorate, i.e. the Wikipedia community. And yes, I believe any socking, copyright violations, policy abuses, harassment, intimidation, or dishonesty on the part of the admin corps should be reported to the Wikipedia community. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice try. But of course we do not "employ" the admins here nor are we able to fire them. I suspect most them aren't employed anyway, but that's besides the point. And as far as reporting them, editors who dare confront abuses by higher ups here are usually beat up and banished fairly rapidly. It's very taboo to discuss admin abuse and most of it gets swept under the rug. Perhaps Bwilkins/ Eatshootsnadleaves/ DangerousPanda's AGK's example should be followed and admins should be made more accountable for their actions with real world consequences? If it's good for the goose.. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 20:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it's not beside the point, if your proposal is to talk to their employers. (I think Dave is self-employed, so you could perhaps talk to the UK tax authorities or something, if he should be on your list of people to harass? The tax authorities in the UK are fantastic at customer service, you'll really enjoy trying to talk to them. Trust me on that... lol.)

The panda has been causing real world consequences for people? I hadn't heard that mentioned, please remind me with some diffs or somesuch.

Oh, and I do agree it would be nice for the community to be able to fire "our" employees without bothering with arbcom cases and such bureaucracy. Perhaps one day it will come to pass. If the community has consensus, though, it can still have a significant impact on admin behaviour. I seem to remember being involved in giving some pause to the panda you mention, for example. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh my. That's a pretty big apology you need to make there, isn't it, Candleabracadabra?

It looks like NYB has been very forthcoming in apologising when he made a mistake over this.

I guess you're a bit more special than that? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 00:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A big apology? For what? Mixing up two admins? I made the correction as soon as it was brought to my attention. Was there any harm done? I'm not familiar with NYB's apology or the issues where he was involved. Did he make the same mistake? Doesn't seem like a big deal, I'm articulating principles here, and I certianly take responsibility for confusing the names. Maybe if they didn't keep changing and there weren't so many admin alternate accounts it would be easier for us lowly editors? Candleabracadabra ( talk) 01:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Articulating principles is a fine thing to do, and I encourage you to do so. (Is this a high school civics thing, or something you are doing on your own?) If you articulate something thoughtful rather than vindictive, them I'm sure Worm will be very receptive to your thoughts when he finishes with this sunlight event that the Lord seems to have decided to visit upon north-west England for some part of the weekend. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 01:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Accountability and doing to others as you want done to you is simply basic enough that we should expect it to be understood in high school or earlier. So why is it so difficult a concept for so many admins here to grasp? Candleabracadabra ( talk) 02:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly they seem all too often to be reflecting the community that elected them. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 03:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You may think you can go away for the weekend, but do you realise the impact that your actions have on the international scene? Oh dear... "it has come to epitomise British cuisine in Chinese eyes." -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 01:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Worm That Turned. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

Malke 2010 ( talk) 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dave, it's sure been a while

A few days ago, I ran into content removal on the Moorabbin Airport article [1] by user Goodmoor – so I proceeded with reverting the removal and notifying them about the removal on their talk. Anyway today they removed the same content again, and left a note on their talk explaining that "this matter is currently going through a legal process and therefore cannot be commented on". Prior to reading this message, I reverted the edit again. Once I read the message, I responded explaining why I believe their content removal was innapropriate [2].

However, seeing as there is a legal matter, should they contact the Foundation, and request this content be removed for said legal reasons? or should this content be simply removed, end of? regards, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 07:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a couple of issues here. Firstly, yes, any requests from a legal standpoint should go through the Foundation and come through as an WP:OFFICE action if necessary. However, looking at the content there - that's quite clearly WP:COATRACKing - I see absolutely no reason that the bullet points are required in the article. I don't really see the point in adding details of a refused draft plan either. His full title doesn't need to be included either - and Anthony Albanese should be wiki linked. Worm^TT( talk) 07:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I didn't add the said content into the article, I do believe that the refusal of the plan is significant. The proposal recieved coverage (I actually remember reading about it in the newspaper quite some time ago) and considering there's a new government (and apparant legal proceedings) it would be beneficial for the readers to know what has been proposed and or rejected. With that said, I do agree that the latter bullet points are redundant, and hence I'll remove them. I'll make those changes now; if you still disagree, by all means remove the whole content and I'll completely drop it. If the user wants to seek a view from a legal standpoint, I'll point them to the right direction. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 08:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There's always that line isn't there - what's news and what's coverage. Some of it certainly falls into news - and not particularly notable in the grand scheme of things. Worm^TT( talk) 08:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The development of large retail outlets on the airport, irrespective if they were built or not, is notable in the grand scheme of things – for the airport aka the topic of the article. Also, for the reason that it's a proposal within the airport's master plan; that, along with the fact it's recieved some coverage, a minister's stamp of no-approval is significant. That's what I see, at least and you know me, I've got tunnel vision when it comes to me editing articles haha — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 08:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, do you mind taking a look at User_talk:Fæ#Suggestion for editing and Talk:Warren_Cup#Promoting_to_Good_Article? I would enjoy helping to get the article to GA. Based on the British Museum's dating and numerous authoritative papers, the artefact has been identified as from the 1st century AD, however there have been challenges to this dating, as you can read in the current article (which I worked on in 2010). As I don't intend to introduce any new images to the current article (I'll leave that to other editors), but help with prose, format and improving sources in order to propose a GA review, I think this is not an issue under the topic ban as currently stated. I would appreciate your viewpoint. -- Fæ ( talk) 13:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're not introducing images, then I can't see any problems with you working on the article. Even with the images, I'd not really see an issue as it's believed to be a classical piece, though I understand your reluctance to do so if there has been a question over the age. Good luck, I look forward to reading the final article. Worm^TT( talk) 13:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems I have been negatively over-interpreting the ban for a long time. It can be hard to read these things afresh, rather than reading into them what you think they say. There are quite few sources to review, so this will tick over slowly, but hopefully can be counted in June. -- Fæ ( talk) 13:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wishing Worm That Turned a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Anastasia ( talk) 21:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's really not a big deal ;) Worm^TT( talk) 07:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am also sending this message to David

Hello Worm and David! I hope this message finds you at a good time. I was searching through the arbcom list of active arbitrators and found that only three of you remain active from the Argentine History case (how incredible that a year has already passed?). I wanted to thank you both for having believed in me (even if one of you, ehem...David...ehem, was a bit harsh by mentioning a certain rope). I have indeed fulfilled my promise to bring the article Falkland Islands to featured status, in order to demonstrate that the sanctions applied against me were far too harsh and misled by misinformation (or perhaps disinformation). During this past year I have also led two articles to featured status, the Peru national football team and Pisco Sour.

Before appealing the sanction, I would first like to continue demonstrating my quality as a serious editor by taking the article of the United States to featured status (my current sandbox plan is here, including planned pictures and a new introduction). However, since part of US history overlaps with the history of Latin America, my question to you both is if me working on this tangential topic within the US article would would be an issue? Regards.-- MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Mimi: bin ich hier richtig? Ich weis es nicht. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urheber- Mimi Lyrik 07.07.2014 ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake ( Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Dave—

I've noticed you've been dipping your toe in the pond at Wil's site. I doubt much will come of that but there is some talk about something else. Please drop me an email off-list at your convenience: ShoeHutch@gmail.com best regards, —Tim //// Carrite ( talk) 02:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

High quality assimilation and accurate re-presentation of reliable sources was dinned into me years ago in my day job; the tricky bit is remembering (and making due allowance for) the likelihood that other editors haven't had that indoctrination and can be possessively proud about quite ropey stuff and agressively antipathetic about good stuff that doesn't fit their preconceptions. (Present company excepted of course)

As a small token of appreciation I have added a bit on Parsley Peel and descendents to Oswaldtwistle, if only because Hyndburn Council are convinced that the future PM was born at Oswaldtwistle too - sooner or later somebody will import that (suitably referenced) into Wikipedia, after which it will be regarded as semi-official....After that, I'm off back to the Factory Acts before they get filled up with factoids from 'life in olden times' websites .... Rjccumbria ( talk) 21:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tentative invite to Lancaster; it's a 4-hour round trip from chez moi to downtown Lancaster, so it's unlikely I'll go, but if you let me know the details, I can at least decide against on a better-informed basis. (But not wiser: I am currently kicking myself because when doing the 1847 Act I remembered I had a paperback reprint of the Hammond's The Town Labourer 1760-1832 and correctly spotted it was out-of-period: when I went back to the 1802 Act to work forwards, I clean forgot about them/it. On investigation they give quite a long account.) Rjccumbria ( talk) 11:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have filed an enforcement request for possible I-ban violations by John Carter as we discussed. Ignocrates ( talk) 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Already commented there. Worm^TT( talk) 15:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If a repeat violation occurs (first time, blocked for two weeks), should I bring it to ArbCom's attention or can I proceed directly to AE? Ignocrates ( talk) 19:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, Ignocrates. I'd say you should take fresh violations directly to AE. It would be good to take a little advice on the best way to present them - I think that it was given at the last AE. The problem comes if you start forum shopping or asking for multiple sanctions for the same offence. Worm^TT( talk) 07:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Next time, I will delete the unused sections, and I will look at some old incident reports for the best way to present findings of fact. Ignocrates ( talk) 13:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

support
Thank you for your generous support wherever it's needed, adopting mentees, proposing candidates, supporting them ("a knack for saying the right thing and getting stuff done"), helping fellow editors to get out of WP:Great Dismal Swamp, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 203rd recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize. Today see also, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Two years ago ;) Cheers for the reminder Gerda. Worm^TT( talk) 08:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You are so right ;) - You share the day with MLauba now, remembered also for this, right below another bitter Precious, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that my plea for peace - ... that Geistliche Chormusik, a collection of 29 motets by Heinrich Schütz (pictured) containing a "plea for peace", appeared in 1648, when the Thirty Years' War ended? - is currently on the German Main page (in other words, this was the 14 July wording in English), following the Stargazy pie? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me where you see the slightest bit of grey in an edit that simply improved an article, commented " no foul. play on."? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A topic ban is enacted when the community (or in this case ArbCom) see that a person's actions in an were so disruptive that the best solution would be to remove them from the area all together. Andy has been banned from adding infoboxes for precisely that reason. In that edit, he added an infobox template, where there was none - it was clearly boundary testing, to see if making edits like that would lead to a block. I ask you, why did it have to be Andy who added that template? That's where the grey comes in. Worm^TT( talk) 08:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

As for "No foul. Play on" - a referee's decision was needed. If we didn't get close to the border, it wouldn't be. Worm^TT( talk) 08:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A topic ban should prevent disruption, no? To format a new user's malformed attempt is no disruption, to my understanding. Should Andy, when he saw it, have requested someone else's help, instead of fixing himself what needed fixing? Sad, per Boing! said Zebedee, and missing him, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

in blue mood -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans aren't given lightly - so the purpose is to keep the subject away from the topic. That includes keeping them away from productive edits, because they have proven themselves unable to only edit productively. Andy could have left it or could have asked for help. He chose to make the edit - which is fine, as it was agreed that he didn't cross the boundary - but it wasn't his only option. Worm^TT( talk) 09:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to go over the case again, waste of time. Andy's restriction makes good contacts, after all, - but also takes time. What is "the topic", if I may ask? A few specific editors disliking infoboxes for specific topics, while they are accepted for most types of articles, including the ones Andy proposed now? Look for the names of Voceditenore, Smerus, Brianboulton, Tim riley, and see if there are signs of war on my talk, - actually you might look for the same names in my archives and see if there ever was one, - I think it's a myth ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Did I say anything about a war? The topic is infoboxes - a meta topic, rather than a base content topic. I'm not looking to go over the case again either, you were the one who asked the question. Worm^TT( talk) 09:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the topic was infoboxes, but this is your talk. I was admonished because of battleground, don't remember a single battle, but so be it. - I see people collaborating, no need for restrictions, no need for the saddening arguments mentioned ("What have we come to when pursuing personal vendettas and pedantically enforcing the letter of Arb sanctions against those who clearly only desire to improve the encyclopedia?"). My user's infobox told me that I entered a new year ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

HI Dave (Worm), I appreciate your reaching out. Not sure there is anything more for me to do, but I sure have learned a lot about Wikipedia in the last day, enough to be really fascinated. It seems like it is an entire world of virtual people scuffling, shifting, debating, working against each other sometimes, with each other at others to keep a kind of, hmm, ever mutating hive of human data going. It's pretty cool, but also scary and daunting. Scary because of the parts of human beings that are ugly are revealed, and cool because the parts of human beings that are really great are revealed, and daunting due to both. As for the page on me, that will play out and be whatever it is. Thank you. Lmccullough ( talk) 14:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you, but I believe this needs to be looked into. I've recently observed a situation where a blocking admin extended the block of a person he blocked before the blocked user's appeal for unblock could be reviewed, therefore effectively denying that user his/her right to appeal the block.

I've read the lengthy appeal of that user and I believe the administrator's actions all along the way were unreasonably abusive towards that user and that the administrator failed to assume good faith from the very start.

Please go to /info/en/?search=User_talk:I_really_need_that_username and take a look.

You'll notice that the user was forced by the edit filter to use pastebin to publish his appeal and asked for an admin's help in transferring the text of the appeal from there to his talk page, but even that was denied and so to read the appeal where the user presents his take on the situation, you will have to follow that link which is part of his denied appeal.

As far as I can see, the user's intentions were genuinely good, and his creation of another account was in the spirit of Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. I honestly believe that this user's case deserves to be looked into by someone impartial, and if it's determined the user was indeed treated inappropriately, it would probably be a good idea to take a look at other actions performed by the admin that blocked him.

Thank you for your time. 201.167.11.68 ( talk) 21:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Hopefully that's sorted out now. Worm^TT( talk) 11:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Rlevse is mentioned as a party in a requested arb case. As - I thought - everybody knows he has not edited under that user name from 2010, and not under PumpkinSky from 2013. (There was this infoboxes case and other events he considered unfair.) - I am - as everybody knows - pretty unfamiliar with correct proceedings. Please, you do what needs to be done. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware - though I'm really not sure what should be done... I hate the bureaucracy of Arbcom! I'll look into it. Worm^TT( talk) 13:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Love your answer ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ps: on the Main page, I have a hook about Siegfried, related to my memories. Did you know that there's an infobox discussion on the talk? While some arbitrators may have thought that was a battle, I believe that we participants simply enjoyed a literary play with words. Please have a look, - it's short, and I love the last entry particularly (2014), -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You'd think an Arb could just say "bureaucracy/schmureaucracy" and quietly remove an obviously unnecessary name from the list of involved parties, but I'm confident if WTT tried that it would stir up at least one person. The same way that you would think a request that's taken down by the OP before anyone - involved party, kibitzer, or arb - has commented on it could just, you know, remain taken down. But the path of least resistance here is to just hope no arb votes to accept in the next 17 hours, at which time the whole thing can be round-filed. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Floq, would you think that? Really? If there's one terrible and useful thing about Arbcom it's the bureaucracy. Although it has the usual problems associated with bureaucracy - it also has some benefits. For example, it slows things down so cooler heads can prevail, it stops people from doing quite such stupid things and ... well, quite honestly, it makes Arbcom seem more important. We'll see what happens - hopefully this will disappear into nothingness. Worm^TT( talk) 06:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Today: DYK ... that the Inkpot Madonna is a woman for early unbureaucratic education? - As for arbcom, I believe that Wikipedia could exist without it, easily, perhaps even better. This is of course only my highly personal view as Fräulein Kriminelle (not to repeat "incredibly toxic personality") who has to better conduct herself ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced Gerda, though I wish it could. Worm^TT( talk) 07:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Convinced of what? That a woman stands with an inkpot for early education? That "incredibly toxic personality" should not be a term used in the name of kindness? - I didn't try to convince, just see my experience. Go to arbcom because your friends have trouble to get a new template, developed by the project, actually to articles, and after months of writing your friends are almost banned or admonished to better conduct themselves, and your other friends leave the project, temporarily or permanently, - that's what I saw. Ched practically left, - I take the liberty to stay ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That Wikipedia could manage without Arbcom. Arbcom does a lot for Wikipedia, even if only to be a group to blame. As for the infoboxes case, that's not exactly what I saw - but there's always differences in sight. Worm^TT( talk) 09:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Love that answer also, only, it doesn't help me, because I didn't feel any need for blaming ;) (Seriously: If you find an edit where I blame someone let me know that I can fix it.) - Today, I think of learning ( pictured, DYK). It's one thing to look at the same thing from different viewpoints, another to look at different things. Small example: the recent clarification. Some saw that Andy added an infobox, others that he formatted one that was there before. Learning is often to realize that a view was wrong. - Do we agree that {{ infobox opera}} was developed in collaboration of Andy and Voceditenore between 18 March 2013 and 31 May 2013, with examples, - I like #4 best ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I also like this honourable mention, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Gentle reminder (phrase found below) that the above question was not answered. May I assume that we agree? Then how would any infobox for an opera be regarded as a disruption? I believe(d) that every infobox replacing a redundant side navbox is an improvement of Wikipedia. (I am not surprised that the creators of the side navboxes disagree, but how would such a normal disagreement be a battle? - (Just last night, I showed my criminal sanctions to friends, to our amusement.) --- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the best answer is that I've rather had enough of infoboxes. Worm^TT( talk) 11:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You said there's "difference in sight", I would say that if one person sees a thing green that another on sees yellow an exchange of thoughts and viewpoints might be a good idea. Here, some people see disruption, where others don't even see a bold edit. I would like to know how that comes, but don't want to torture you. Again, it's not about infoboxes. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

For the differences, I invite you to re-read the case. It wasn't about the content, it was about the behaviour. Worm^TT( talk) 07:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I talk about the behaviour. If I add an infobox to an opera in the good faith that the project made the template for the purpose and it replaces redundant information, so I improve Wikipedia, and others think that's disruptive, we arrive at a difference. I don't regret these additions, their time will come, and I can live with my reputation damaged in the process ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, although it's a little worrying that just being nice is a criteria for getting one these days! Was good to meet yourself too :) Number 5 7 10:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please. I have done so many violations on it that I need help fixing my mistakes. People are kinda worried because I'm not suppose to create categories. Maybe you could speak on my behalf. I'm wondering if you what categories are suitable to create and not suitable to create. I'm not banned yet you see; I just can't create categories I do have some mental health issues. Please Venustar84 ( talk) 14:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Worm, I've taken this one on and gotten a couple of others helping. We've got a page going at User:Venustar84/mentorship and hopefully we can turn the situation round. - Sitush ( talk) 12:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheers Sitush I saw she'd asked quite a few people, so wasn't in a rush to sort it out! I'll watchlist the page in case there's anything I can do to help out. Worm^TT( talk) 12:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Oooh, having you watching is definitely a bonus. Thanks for that. - Sitush ( talk) 13:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's so nice to see all these good-faith-assuming people falling over themselves to help. Wikipedia at its best. But do you realize this is not a new user, Sitush ? They were indefinitely banned from creating categories in 2011 (as a last chance in place of being blocked), and indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts in May 2014. See this section on their talkpage, and the block message here. They created the Venustar account two days later. I'm frankly not sure why that hasn't been blocked yet. What do you say, Dave? Bishonen | talk 13:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

  What say I? Well, if she isn't currently blocked, she's probably not doing anything too bad. The topic ban is one of those "do this or someone might block you" ones, not an official one by any means. I'd say that mentorship may well be sufficient to move along to a happy place. I'll have an in depth look at it next week - I'd rather not on a sunny Friday afternoon. Worm^TT( talk) 14:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll let you two sort that out. I've not gone back through all of their history, although I'm aware of this year's topic ban and the cat creation thing. I wasn't aware of the block and I rather thought that the socking issue mentioned on their talk page had been resolved by the "use this account only since it is your main one". There have been big problems, sure. - Sitush ( talk) 14:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Neptunekh/Archive. It does look like I was right: the deal was that she edits only from the one account, seeks mentorship etc. - Sitush ( talk) 14:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the images are by the banned editor, and are not very good at all. I plan to remove any by the banned editor, and add some of my own as soon as I take them. I also intend to remove some of the history and the inline citations with them. After looking them over, I think I can improve both text and images. Some are harder than others, but I can do them. I will tell you when to look them over, but I doubt I will struggle with them at all. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 20:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi worm that turned. You came to the Queen Street Mill Wikipedia event last year, and helped a number of people get started. I was wondering whether you would be willing to come along and do the same for on event we are holding at Judges Lodgings on 20th September? Would be great to see you again. User:jhayward001 — Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jhayward001, I'm hoping to come along, yes. As is User:Staceydolxx. Worm^TT( talk) 07:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:worm that turned, Great news. I look forward to seeing you and User:Staceydolxx on 20th September. Did you get the information I sent by e-mail? User: jhayward001 — Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I did, and I've passed it on to another user, I hope that's all right. I should be able to contact the email address in question soon, though I'd appreciate it if you could mark us as coming! Worm^TT( talk) 11:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a gentile reminder is in order. Your call. Ignocrates ( talk) 20:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I had asked EdJohnston who regularly works AE about my concerns regarding the ANI discussion and my concerns regarding possible stalking/harassment here. John Carter ( talk) 22:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sure Ignocrates, here's a gentle reminder. Leave John Carter alone. Your posting at ANI there was a violation of your interaction ban. It's not a topic you've been working on, yet you return from a 2 week break, specifically to make comments about John Carter. As an arb, I don't do Arbcom Enforcement - but if I did, I would be blocking you right now.

  John Carter, I'm not happy with the edit that Ignocrates points out either, nor your posting here as a response to him - the correct place to complain about violations of the IBan is AE and bringing it up at ANI is again an issue - less so this time as Ignocrates had just violated his, but problematic because you've just come off a block for the same. Again, I would be blocking if I did Arbcom Enforcement. Worm^TT( talk) 07:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I was acting on the impression that WP:BANEX might apply as asking a question on an admin noticeboard which is supposed to be frequented by admins seems to me to be effectively equivalent of asking an admin individually, particularly considering that is where the problematic conduct took place. Posting here only happened because I got the impression possibly mistakenly that action prompted here might take place before any response from Ed who still hasn't responded. I only post this here now as it seems that action may possibly take place while I am away and I didn't want to not have a chance to comment and this page has for whatever reason seemed to become a central discussion point and my apologies to you for my limited role in making it such. John Carter ( talk) 19:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And that's a reasonable point of view - the "grey area" if you will. It's more that you were bouncing into the grey area, just after coming off a block for stepping over the line. If you want to complain about an arbcom remedy being violated - go to AE. Worm^TT( talk) 07:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood, Dave. However, I adhered to the wording of my I-ban and interacted only with Fearofreprisal. I was very careful about that. If you review other I-bans, they often contain wording which explicitly forbids indirect as well as direct interactions. Mine doesn't say that. I followed the wording as I understand it, and I refrained from saying anything directly to or about other parties to the I-ban. Ignocrates ( talk) 16:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The default of an IBAN explicitly forbids indirect. See WP:IBAN, especially the sentence "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly" the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if that's the case Bwilkins, I didn't "make reference to or comment on" anyone other than FoR. I said ANI was not the place to take a complex dispute and he should consider arbitration as a more appropriate venue. Anything beyond that is an attempt to parse my words for a meaning that isn't there. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If you turn up at an ANI thread which is about him, and make a comment to "help" the other side that's clearly interacting with him. The remedy does not mention direct or indirect, it mentions interactions. Just leave him alone. Ignore him all together, unwatch his page (if you have it watched) and don't look at his contributions. Worm^TT( talk) 07:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Will do. If there's anything more to be done re ANI, I'll take it up with AE. Ignocrates ( talk) 12:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Surely reverting is undoing an action. A suggested compromise is not a reversion. I see my change has stuck so that clearly is acceptable. Perhaps I am also one of those who are not here to build an encyclopaedia? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Spartaz, you are right, I'd define it as undoing an action. Action (hiding the link, performed by clerk User:Hahc21). Revert performed by you. NE Ent suggested the compromise - it was reverted by a clerk and the clerk was reverted by you. Just because the change has stuck does not mean your revert was acceptable - don't revert clerks on Arbcom pages. As for the "not here to build an encyclopedia comment" - I didn't make it but I do believe you'll find there a number of individuals who enjoy the "dramah" much more the content creation. As such, I don't consider it an inappropriate comment, certainly not to the level of the Jclemens "is not and has never been a wikipedian" comment, which I objected to strongly at the time. Worm^TT( talk) 07:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a quote, found following your advice to read the infoboxes case again. Please look at the latest entry on my talk which asked me to participate in the discussion about infoboxes which will not be stopped by eliminating a few people. I would like your advice - like as a mentor - how to react, after establishing my position. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm a little too indisposed to help with this at the moment Gerda. Worm^TT( talk) 12:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"indisposed"? (my limited English, will I ever learn? - I live in hope! Otherwise, I had left, - I had reason enough once a year, every year I am here but the first. Did you see the 16 names on top of my talk, of people who didn't have enough hope? I am ready to start the next line with Skookum1. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, indisposed. In other words, I've had to stop all mentorship a long time ago, due to being far too busy. I also know how much work it would take for me to give advice which I would be happy with - and I just don't have time to put that sort of work in. Worm^TT( talk) 12:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know the term other than an opera singer not able to perform at the usual level of quality (due to a cold or whatever) but willing to do it anyway to rescue a performance. - Did you know that I left project opera, but of the most recent ten opera DYK articles, I wrote six and Andy one, and two of the remaining three also have an infobox? It's a 2005 topic, nothing relevant in 2014, if you ask me. I live in hope. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In Freundschaft means "in friendship", - "especially poignant" -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Gerda, I have an idea - how about focusing on improving articles and other encyclopedia content without thinking about or discussing or alluding to infoboxes? Not even oblique references like this link. Please let me know what you think of my idea. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 23:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You follow "in friendship", please. It's what I did, in friendship. Die Gedanken sind frei. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

See also. I mentioned strike a year ago, but decided to dance. Ich denke, was ich will ... -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I discuss this issue with your further, or will you ban? If I cannot speak with you, what is my escalation? I see there's a contact for your legal department. Is that where we're at? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the best way to grab the email of a Wikipedian you're talking with (you in this case, hehe). JaysonSunshine ( talk) 03:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't his userpage be deleted and then the last revision restored? I think that's more appropriate, given what he's been blocked for. Just a thought (that'd be a lot of oversighting to do) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. Worm^TT( talk) 07:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

After all that effort, apparently WP:NOPRICES says we may not detail Freddo inflation! Incidentally, I had not previously noticed the existence of /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Freddo_inflation whom I now guess is an experienced editor (perhaps an admin or steward or founder) who needed to create a separate account because they preferred their enthusiasm for Freddos not to become public. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This [3] is ... odd, at best. Unless there was an RFC I missed, there's absolutely no policy reason to cease discussion with BlueSalix. We are (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, and he (was) an editor -- so any action has a non-zero probability of returning him to editing is good, and anything that impedes that is bad. And making a "request" backed by a threat is disingenuous -- and ironically exactly parallels the wording WMF employee Fabrice Florin used right before the Media Viewer debacle blew up.

You used to be better than this, and you're not the first arbitrator I've noted that on ... there seems to be something seriously wrong with the structure of arbcom that degrades some of our better editors into individuals whose actions -- while not technically violating any Wikipedia policies, are less helpful than they could be, and less in gestalt with the Five Pillars. NE Ent 09:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, I'll freely admit I've become jaded since being Arbcom. Not terribly so and I do give people the benefit of the doubt more than most, but if you spend all your time seeing the mess that is created by people on a certain trajectory then you look for ways to nip the issues in the bud.

So, let's look at this situation, which mirrors so many. User B and User C disagreed over something or other. It doesn't matter what, disagreements happen. But in the middle of that, User B accuses User C of doing something reprehensible. That destruction of someone's reputation matters, it really does - which is why we have rules against doing it. The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" jumps to mind. I'd be satisfied with any evidence at all.

It might be that you don't see the action as reprehensible - that's where my time on Arbcom has changed me. I've seen some of the emails sent to people - they've sickened me to my stomach. I've enforced and supported strong sanctions against those people who've done it. We can't just ignore claims of off-wiki harassment.

That leads us to the question of discussion on talk page. I've been watching it for a long time, and it's going round in circles. There's not been anything new brought up for a while - we're at the point where BlueSalix either retracts or substantiates. We don't need more discussion there - it's perpetuating the alleged offence. So, I'm asking for it to stop. Depending on whether it carries on and the manner in which it does, I will make it stop. I doubt I'd need to, people are generally sensible. Worm^TT( talk) 10:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix appears to be so out of touch with the insider wiki-drama stuff he doesn't know the difference between an indef block and a "lifetime ban" (which is, of course, not existent). At this point editors are trying to talk him off the ledge. [4]. No one is justifying his incorrect statement that C sent him emails, and he's stated: "I erred by making an accusation without having, and providing, the necessary evidence. I therefore retract the accusation and will not make an issue of it again." If blocking isn't punishment, why keep him blocked? And as I told Bish, Boko Harum kidnapping girls and ISIS and Eastern Europeans killing each other is reprehensible.

On Wikipedia, one's reputation is pretty much based one what one does, not what other people say about them. Any reasonably intelligent observer who's spent any time on DR boards pretty won't believe anything that's not backed by a diff.

I understand, at least at some level, that arbcom has become the hole folks keep dumping problems into (e.g. the Media Viewer case --which is Lila's problem, not (plural) yours), and clearly the workload isn't reasonable. But just because you'd had to deal with N dweebs during your term doesn't mean the N + 1th deserves anything less than our best effort to return them to the fold. If we get rid of all the imperfect humans, who is going to be left to edit the encyclopedia? As of last week, there were a quarter million unreferenced articles.

Fortunately for me, when I get fed up I can just log off -- real life being the best antidote. Part of reasoning behind have so many arbs is so that you can take a sabbatical and get unjaded. (and burnout was one reason I opposed a certain Rfb). But if you're not ready to do, here's a numerical tidbit: there are 122,676 active editors. Do you know that many? Do you see that many on AN ANI 3RR BLPN arbcom DRN et. al? I certainly haven't. You're seeing the shitty end of the bell curve by choice, it doesn't really reflect WP as a whole. Did you know back when I actually edited (circa 2008) I didn't know arbcom existed, didn't know there was a 3rr, or any of that? Ah, Innocence Lost .... NE Ent 21:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to take issue with your comment that "On Wikipedia, one's reputation is pretty much based one what one does, not what other people say about them". It's actually based on what others say you've done, not what you've actually done, or not done. Eric Corbett 22:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric has a good point, reputation precedes editors on Wikipedia, and often not from what they've done but what people say they've done. Let's face it - what percentage of Wikipedians fall into the group "reasonably intelligent who've spent time at DR" - surely that's a catch 22! Worm^TT( talk) 08:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Despite your strawman regarding killings and kidnappings - harassment is a real issue and bigger than a silly little website. As I say, I've seen the vitriol sent to some users, it's hurtful and genuinely harmful. There have been documented suicides from trolling, so it is something that needs to be taken seriously. Can you show me the diff where he's said he retracts the accusation? All I've seen is (paraphrased) "I shouldn't have mentioned it if I wasn't prepared to make a thing of it". That re-enforces the accusation.

As for myself, I don't believe I'm near burnout as yet. I've achieved so much behind the scenes - improving things that I hope you'll never have to hear about. So whilst I may not stand for as much crap from people and be slightly more judgemental, I'm never going to become an "enforcer" who doesn't listen. BlueSalix has many ways back if he wants to edit, but ignoring the problem that he's made is not one of them. Worm^TT( talk) 08:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: your statement "Overall, I don't believe this issues is ripe for arbitration, but I do think it's getting close. I'm leaning decline, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise."

Can you give a little more detail about why you don't believe it is ripe, and the criteria for determining ripeness. What kind of persuasion would you need and what would make this an arbcom issue?

Mind you, I have just been named as a party to the case, by a clerk acting as a proxy for an anonymous arbitrator. I have no idea who had me added as a party to the case, or why, but it is pretty obvious to me that if I say anything that might have the effect of getting the thing accepted as a case, I stand a pretty good chance of being stomped on by the arbcom. I can't offhand think of anything more intimidating, unless it's the last week that I spent observing this gender gap group that somehow got on my watchlist.

This group isn't getting much guidance for solving their problem. They took it to ANI, and the thing was closed only a few hours after the voting started. So the only real community comment they got was that if a female editor doesn't want to be harassed, she should hide her identity. The only advice from the closing admin is that they should grow up. [5] I don't know if that's how this guy talks to his grandmother, it sounds pretty condescending to me, but he seemed to like that bit of advice enough to say it twice, not counting the first time he closed the case and had his close challenged. I tried to have a discussion with him on his talk page about it, and he called me "very emotionally involved", "irrational", repeated his "act like an adult" mantra, then he complained about my edit history, and insinuated that I was not a "useful member of Wikipedia". I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see an admin act this way, but I thought it was rude.

This group has been posting links to studies about governance and systemic bias, which I found interesting to skim, and it was pretty clear the group had a fairly knowlegable following, but since the ANI closed, TKOP reverted SlimVirgin's archiving of the off-topic and disruptive material, so it looks like from here on out, it's going to be the Eric Corbett, SPECIFICO, and Two Kinds of Pork show. Frankly, I've had enough of Corbett calling me a liar.

Is there any info I can provide to the committee that would help them in their deliberations about this matter? Otherwise I will be quite relieved to take this mess off my watchlist. Regards, — Neotarf ( talk) 22:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neotarf. Sorry about the delay in replying, I've been rather busy of late. I generally accept arbitration cases when I'm convinced that the community cannot handle the issue and at the moment I've not been convinced of that. So far, I've seen a complaint at ANI, which is never going to work out - ANI is not proper dispute resolution. Administrators have authority over clearcut issues, but in cases like this a proper community consultation should happen. I'd recommend an RfC on the Gender Gap task force - with the primary question of "what are we trying to achieve". Criticism isn't necessarily disruptive and with a bit of effort it can be used as a constructive mechanism. I hope that helps. Worm^TT( talk) 11:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Worm That Turned, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

As a follow-up to your posting calm, level-headed posting awhile back: Do you mind checking in on a recent comment on the User talk:BlueSalix page? I'm not sure that bygones are allowed to be bygones - not that I haven't had some frustration with the user myself. There's no need to respond to me. Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 06:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Carole, I'd love to be able to do something there, but that's another unhelpful comment from User:BlueSalix. If he had used the wording that User:NE Ent had provided, I'd be considering unblocking. At the moment, I'm considering removing talk page access for more double talk, as I suspect this user is acting this way intentionally, leaving it to BASC to listen to an appeal. I think I'm going to leave things at the status quo. Discussion of the block and commentary should be kept to a minimum there, preferably zero. BlueSalix himself can comment - and make an unblock request. Worm^TT( talk) 07:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Cool, time for me to unplug. Thanks.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 07:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, could you please look at this issue [ [6]]? Thank you. DocumentError ( talk) 19:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, disregard (or regard, if you like). I meant to leave this message for someone else. DocumentError ( talk) 19:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Worm! I'm interested in the WP:AAU program. It seems like you're a very experienced user, so I'd appreciate it if you could mentor me some time. I know all your slots are full at the moment, but when there's an open one, please let me know. Thanks! Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 01:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Worm,

Remember I asked you once, if you're discussing our private email exchanges and me with demiurge1000? So, looks like it is proven now that you do. You were the one who offered me WP:RTV, which I declined not because I do not like to vanish (I do, it is my greatest wish), but because this option does not work, and it takes less than a second to locate a so-called vanished user. The communications were private, but somehow demiurge1000 found out about your offer and my decline of it. You're the only person who could have released the content of our private communications to the one of the worst wiki bullies demiurge1000. I am ready to apologize if I'm getting it wrong. 50.150.100.229 ( talk) 05:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever Worm may or may not have proposed or offered elsewhere, I was the one who suggested an offer of WP:RTV, as well as an unblock, in this edit. And that is what I was referring to. As I recall, you didn't like the idea, though I can't remember any good reason why.

I'm not sure under what authority Worm would be able to offer you RTV while you were still community banned, but either way, any such offer made by him had nothing to do with me, and it seems unlikely he would have discussed it with me. (Not that it would have been impossible for him to do so, but I have no memory of it happening.) If Worm did make such an offer, I have no idea whether it came before or after the diff I link above; perhaps you could enlighten us on that point.

So, yes, you're wrong on two points here, although I imagine we will only see an apology for one. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 05:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If it is really the case I of course would heart-fully apologize to Worm, but could you please tell me where you got the idea I declined "your offer" to unblock my account, remove me from the sick list and then to vanish it. Do you have a diff to prove I declined it? How could I have declined it, if it is the best and only thing I'd like to get from Wikipedia, and if it what I asked for myself? There's also another inconsistency in your edit summary. You write: "an offer was already made to WP:RTV this individual's account, the offer was declined". (my bolding) Why do you call that AN thread that you started "an offer"? 50.150.100.229 ( talk) 05:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Also you write: "it seems unlikely he would have discussed it with me. (Not that it would have been impossible for him to do so, but I have no memory of it happening.)" I wonder what that "Not that it would have been impossible for him to do so" suppose to mean? Don't you see anything wrong with a sitting arbitrator sharing content of private emails, no, not with another arbitrator, no, not even with another administrator, but with a user who repeatedly harassed me over the months?

Also this statement "but I have no memory of it happening." makes me to believe Worm probably has discussed with you off-wiki some private communications that he received in his capacity of an arbitrator . I mean, if there have never been any off-wiki communications between you and Worm in regards to some private communications that he received in his capacity of an arbitrator you should have remembered it,should you have not? And honestly IMO it should be all but impossible for a sitting or even a retired arbitrator to do something like that. 50.150.100.229 ( talk) 16:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

And one more point I'd like to make. I was not "community banned" I was banned by you, demiurge10000, and a few more very anonymous, very involved bullies, banned with no single evidence of an alleged harassment, banned, while I was not allowed to say a single word in my deference. If I were banned by the community, I would have accepted it, no questions asked, but this simply could not have ever happened, and I am still waiting for a diff or two I declined "your offer". 50.150.100.229 ( talk) 06:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to state this very clearly, here and now.

1. I do not share confidential information without the express permission of the individual.
2. I consider all emails sent to me confidential.
3. The only exceptions to this rule are below:
   1. If I believe genuine that not sharing would put someone danger - I would escalate to the authorities
   2. If the express permission is implicit. For example, if I contact a user "on behalf of the Arbitration Committee", copying the committee in and they reply only to me. I will generally double check, but in those circumstances, especially if time pressing, I will forward the email on.

So, no. I have not, nor have I ever, discussed your "RTV" with Demiurge1000. I find this especially difficult as I have never discussed a RTV with you (to my recollection). I discussed renaming, not vanishing. Worm^TT( talk) 09:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Worm, first as promised may I please ask you to accept my apology in doubting your decency in this situation? I'd like you to know that I am very happy to be wrong, and apologize than to be right in this case. It is hard to justify my post, but although I have known for a long time that user demiurge1000 is a jerk engages in inappropriate communications with female editors bordering sexual harassment, and a liar ( accused me in the edit summary that I declined an offer, which I have never even received), and so on, I have not known that sometimes he has no idea what he's talking about ( "Not that it would have been impossible for him to do so"). I am happy it is impossible for you to do so! 73.170.113.179 ( talk) 23:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, you did offer the renaming of my account, but another user who was involved in our discussion explained to me there is no difference between renaming and RTV. I'd like you to understand that I declined the offer not because I am a difficult person, but only because it does not work for anybody, and for me with those hundreds of featured pictures I was silly enough to upload here, it would be even worse. If it worked, I would have jumped on the offer because my only wish is not to be associated with Wikipedia anywhere, neither in the sick banned users list nor via my photography, nor via articles I wrote, nowhere at all... 73.170.113.179 ( talk) 23:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

So, here is the thing. First edit by Bluesalix after his unblock [7], is a delete !vote on an AFD of an article I created last week. Granted, he is now unblocked and he can do whatever he wants, but I find it hard to believe that this is coincidental. After all he has gone through, and the substantial feedback he has gotten through that process, his first edit related to an article and subject that he has never edited before, is basically a silly taunt. See what he has replaced his user page with [8]. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(#1) It wasn't my "first edit," (#2) thirty-six percent (36%) of my previous edits have been contributions to AfD discussions and, (#3) I have a proved history of contributing to discussion regarding police organization, police brutality, etc. (I created the articles Andres Valdez, David Correia, police uniforms of the United States, and so on and so forth, etc. etc.) So the chances I'd happen to register on that AfD - a subject that is current and active in the news and relates to police brutality - were statistically pretty high and definitely not out of thin air. If you would like to ask for an WP:IBAN I most certainly won't object; I'm at my wits end and would ask for it myself if it weren't for the WP:DRAMA involved. In the meantime, if you are going to be block shopping me with these kind of notes to admins and bureaucrats, could you give me a heads-up by pinging me as per WP:NOTIFY? You've been a little lax in doing that across the vast spectrum of user space on which you've been initiating discussions about me. I AGF that it was a long series of unintentional oversights ... BlueSalix ( talk) 05:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I will let others judge your behavior which in my opinion is FUBAR. In the meantime, stay away from me, there are thousands of articles out there. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't obfuscate. It was your first edit after your block (not counting edits to your own user page) and highly suspicious, as the only way you could have arrived to that page was by following my edits around when you were blocked. Just leave me alone, will you? I have no patience for games. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh lord. Here we go again. I arrived at the page because I've occasionally followed User:Gaijin42 since I invited him to participate ( [9]) in the long and tortuous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Wire Radio; he also posted in the Thomas Jackson AfD ( [10]). I didn't even know you were the one who started the article until you announced it here. Please just ask for a WP:IBAN. I didn't come here for this. BlueSalix ( talk) 16:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to ask for an IBAN. Just stay away, and I'll do the same. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If I haven't made it clear by now, interacting with you is the last thing I have a desire to do. And while I will make every effort to avoid repeating this poisonous experience, there's no way I can promise there might not be inadvertent edits in "your" articles, as per above. If you genuinely want no interaction between us you might have heeded my three previous requests that go back 2 months to you to that effect ( [11]). Between continuing to contact me despite those, and starting four different WP:NOTIFY-free conversations about me on various user Talk pages where you repeat the kind-of evidence-free accusations you just did here, it seems your show of yelling "leave me alone!" is just that - a show. And I'm pretty sure there's only so much longer this 4Chan game of yours will keep fooling people. In the unlikely event I'm wrong about you, and this is a misunderstanding, then let's agree to make this the last post in this thread, as well as the various other ones you're participating in about me. Thanks. BlueSalix ( talk) 23:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Your last suggestion of making this the last post is a good one, BS. Have you both forgotten this is Worm That Turned's talkpage? What a thread for him to find upon logging in. Please shut up both of you until Worm is at leisure to comment here. At least until then. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC).

• For goodness sake, why on earth are we here? BlueSalix, if you want an IBAN - act as if there's one in place. Stop interacting with Cwobeel. That includes voting on pages he substantially worked on. I don't believe your explanation of how you got there, the times just don't add up. Leave Cwobeel alone. Cwobeel, leave BlueSalix alone. Forget each other even exist. If you can't do it without an interaction ban, we'll go to AN and bloody well get one. Please, just get on and do something useful. Worm^TT( talk) 10:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• See also User:NE Ent/Unilateral interaction ban. NE Ent 00:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

WTT, thanks for avoiding temptation to full protect the Blue Salix talk page. NE Ent 00:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for stopping discussion on there when asked, thereby negating the need for me to do so. Worm^TT( talk) 07:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Your response to my comment is appreciated, although I see it has already archived. There is much here to be considered. Regards, — Neotarf ( talk) 15:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Re the username discussion here: I always thought your name ought to be "Wyrm That Turned". A lot more fearsome. A wyrm could engage on (almost) equal terms with Bishzilla; a worm is lucky if it gets as much as pocketed. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC).

RRRRROOOAAAARRRR! I may not reach Bishzilla heights but I get my own poem! Wyrm That Turned ( talk) 10:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, my name has nothing to do with the Two Ronnies (I only saw the sketch years later), nor Shakespeare, the gardenening website, the band, nor any of the other suggestions. I was looking for an unusual email address years ago as I didn't want one of the form [NAME][ARBITRARY STRING OF NUMBERS]@[FREE EMAIL HOSTING] - My friends and I had just been laughing about a superior who called people "horrible worms" and suddenly, I was "Worm That Turned". It kinda stuck. Worm^TT( talk) 10:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Worm TT, at the Manchester meetup you said that you might be able to grant me Template Editor rights so that I can edit the geonotice without being an Admin. However, I don't think it's a template, it's a javascript gadget - see MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js. So Template Editor probably wouldn't work. Do you know if there is another way? (However, having Template Editor rights might still be useful to me - see Template talk:Welcome to Wikipedia#Edit request.) Cheers, Bazonka ( talk) 19:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added the user right - make sure you read WP:Template editor Worm^TT( talk) 19:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Bazonka ( talk) 19:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the time limit on draft RFCUs is, I think User:Worm That Turned/Eric Corbett exceeds. NE Ent 22:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If you leave something in the closet long enough, it will come back into style again. [12] — Neotarf ( talk) 03:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you, Dave, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been long overdue deletion - I realised in November last year (see my talk archives) that I wouldn't have time to write it in a manner that might actually have made a difference. Fram said he'd let me know if/when he was going to start an RfC, so I left his work there (and that's what it was, just in my userspace waiting for mine). I've now deleted, thanks for bringing to my attention. Worm^TT( talk) 06:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)