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. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 |
What view do you have on lifting the page move restriction, in whole or part? At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 107#Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal (January 2019) it was suggested by SilkTork if only 5% of my RMs were unsuccessful they would be happy to remove the restriction, I then pointed out that that standard RM (as opposed to RMT) is for moves that need discussion rather than uncontroversial moves, SilkTork then suggested using RMT and if 95% of the time the page mover agrees that would be good evidence. In 2022 I've probably made hundreds or RMT requests and while a few have ended up being discussed I can't think of any that were closed as "not moved" or even "no consensus". There was 1 Dent, Cumbria that was later reverted and County Borough of Southend on Sea that ended up being moved back to a similar title (though the move was previously discussed) apparently because the user didn't understand the difference between a district and a district council. I asked Amakuru about lifting the restriction only for allowing me to close RM discussions which they didn't think was a good idea, see User talk:Amakuru#Page move restriction which should be taken into account if this is suggested. Do you support lifting the restriction in whole or part perhaps with 1RR or 0RR? I'm not going to push for this but do you think its a good idea especially given it doesn't appear based on RMT that there are problems with my page moves. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Primefac has recently deleted all of my blockquotes from 23 articles — claiming copyright violation. I suggest that this allegation of copyright violation is nonsense. My blockquotes might be style failures — but I suggest that the blockquotes are definitely not copyright violations. Do you agree with Primefac? Suslindisambiguator ( talk)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 20:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I hereby request you to evaluate me and my chances of becoming a Wikipedia admin. I mostly use my mobile phone to make edits since i usually make them while on the go. If you find my edits and request okay, please nominate me. Thanks Alvinategyeka ( talk) 03:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I had been mentally composing a reply to the comment of yours that you were waiting on ANI but haven't had a chance to read all of the statements which I'd want to make so I could make a single statement myself. Since you've now acknowledged that this wait I figured I'd come here. I think the idea that ArbCom needed to wait for ANI in this situation is too cautious to the point of being wrong. The community has clearly decided time and time again that it wants ArbCom and Arbcom alone to decide whether someone is a sysop. This means any community discussion at ANI about the block and other sanctions should run in parallel to an ArbCom decision on the matter of sysop. Personally it's my opinion that the block should be fairly easily reversible. That is Athaenara could say "While I don't apologize for the idea or the concerns I expressed, I was wrong to direct this at another editor and was doubly wrong for doing so at RfA. I apologize for both those actions and will not do it again". In that case she should be unblockable. But even in that scenario it wouldn't mean she is fit to remain a sysop. I think your note that you want to wait for her to make a statement - and encouraging Ritchie not to revoke TPA so that can happen - is an entirely different matter and quite the appropriate thing to wait for. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes and acted in a way you thought was out of line. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Commenting here so as not to increase the temperature further—regarding " I have never seen a check for "collusion" in the past", there are (rare) precedents; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Llywelyn2000/Archive for an example. I've never seen one outside the very specific circumstances of "there's reason to believe these people got together in the flesh to coordinate tag-teaming"; nor, outside that very specific circumstance, can I see how a CU could possibly be of any use. ‑ Iridescent 16:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Clovermoss. Kudpung mentioned you as one of the most experienced adopters on the project here [1] so I was wondering if maybe you had some thoughts about the process in general? I had a good experience with Nick Moyes a few years ago but I got the impression even then that the project was kind of... close to inactive? Looking at the talk page, that still seems to be the case. xtools indicates that you've been here since 2008 which is a really long time, so I was wondering if maybe you had a more long-term perspective on what it used to be like? If you don't mind, I'm a bit curious. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
June article Blofield Heath, July Hunger Hill, Greater Manchester, August Charlton Abbots, September Menethorpe, October Oldbury, Warwickshire.
Something I have recently learnt is that prior to 1974 there were urban parishes and rural parishes.
Rural parishes functioned much like all parishes do today, they tended to correspond to "natural" boundaries, the boundaries were generally stable and they had their own parish council or at least parish meeting and thus would be inherently notable.
Urban parishes were more arbitrary and sometimes included tracts from what was part of a rural parish when an urban district was formed for example Sandridge Urban being a small part of St Albans district, most ended up being merged so that there was a single urban parish concurrent with the urban district but a few like in Woking still had 4 namely Byfleet, Horsell, Pyrford and Woking. Though the Woking parishes would likely be notable anyway as they are settlements it may be argued that those that were only ever urban parishes without ever having been rural parishes (or also being settlements) maybe shouldn't be treated as inherently notable though they did still exist for electron purposes and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 10#Proposed deletion of all articles on local government subdivisions wards, divisions etc. there appeared to be consensus wards are notable.
While there isn't a legal definition of urban and rural parishes the term can still be used for parishes that are formed in pre 1974 unparished areas like Letchworth Garden City and Offerton Park, such parishes are often controversial for tax reasons and end up being abolished, see Offerton Park#Attempts at abolition and Letchworth#Letchworth Garden City Council (2005–2013) but such parishes do have their own councils and would thus be inherently notable.
If we do at some point move my restrictions only creating former parishes we could only allow pre-1974 rural parishes. See User:Crouch, Swale/Warwickshire ( [2] original version) and User:Crouch, Swale/Hertfordshire ( [3] original version) for example, in the category 1 parishes in the Warwickshire one they are OS settlements and standalone settlements, category 2 is OS settlements that are OS settlements but not standalone settlements, 3rd is rural parishes that aren't OS settlements and the 4th is urban parishes that aren't OS settlements and thus maybe shouldn't exist. In the future this distinction may well be helpful to ensure I'm creating notable topics. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 22:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Since I have got on with editing for a significant amount of time without any significant problems what do you make of just removing the restrictions as suggested? As long as I have an editing plan and a probation period it should be OK? I think we could try this and it would save the need for anymore appeals. I think in 2022 I can be trusted to follow what's asked of me without restrictions but if not I strongly suggest easing the restrictions by article topic namely things like allowing only parishes. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for the userscript that reminds editors to sign their comments, as mentioned by you at User:WormTT/Adopt/Wikiquette. –– FormalDude (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 ( talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} |
Donner60 ( talk) 01:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello Worm That Turned: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 18:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
From my family to yours: Merry Christmas, Dave! I hope that you have a wonderful holiday season. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 20:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
ygm TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Even if you don't support removing the restrictions completely (something I think could be done with an editing plan to discourage me from mass creating short stubs) at least could you please support allowing a number of parishes to be created either as well as or instead of my 1 a month on anything, see User:Crouch, Swale/Motions. Please can I have 1 chance. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 22:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 20:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The RfA for MB has gone to a bureaucrat chat. Please join in the discussion. Primefac ( talk) 15:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Who does a victim turn too 2001:5B0:4ED0:1968:74CE:44D9:B8E4:10D3 ( talk) 11:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the complete removal per User:SilkTork in 2024 and the topics I'm interested in.
I think as long as I mainly stick to presumed notable/likely notable topics and don't create many topics that may well not be notable I should be fine. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey Worm (yay I'm back again :) )
I had a quick question, so figured I'll just ask here instead of making a full statement just to get a clarification.
If I'm reading correctly, here you stated that Black Kite and @ Floquenbeam: suggested indef-blocking DBachmann (with caveats/until they reply/etc etc). But best I can tell, Floq did not make such a suggestion at the case request. Am I being confused, or is there another discussion on this I missed? Thanks.
Soni ( talk) 12:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Am quite tempted to write up a potential community desysop process...
Worm, while I am (currently) opposing the proposal, I appreciate the thought that went behind it, esp. the exact way you instituted the 28-day period between the block and the desysop, which eliminates two potential flaws (need for a cooling off/appeal period; issue with blocks that are overturned or shortened) that a less thought-out procedure would have had. Kudos. Abecedare ( talk) 15:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Had i known you were in town, i'd've offered a pint! Those three initials always draw you to mind Happy days, ~ Lindsay H ello 19:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Red Dwarf concepts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 20:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm currently adding population data, when abolished, coordinates/infoboxes and location information for former parishes, see User:Crouch, Swale/Former civil parishes to articles that already exist. Unfortunately very few of the articles have this kind of information already. If my restrictions get modified next year after I've created all the current ones I should then work on creating the category 1, 2 and 3 former parishes but as noted probably not category 4 ones. I got a bit behind with adding the data to former parishes due to checking listed buildings Commons categories but that's not largely done so I should be back on track. For my January article I requested Upton, Huntingdonshire history split with Peterborough one, February Prestwood, East Staffordshire, March Woolstone, Gloucestershire and April Hunton, Hampshire which are on my former parish lists as category 1 (top priority). I have also started an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirklees, Calderdale for a village that doesn't appear to ever have existed under that name. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi WTT,
I hope you are doing well. A long time ago you kindly adopted me as a user when I was much more active on Wikipedia. Shortly after we started briefly collaborating however, I took a job with long hours and life curtailed my Wiki editing to a low level. I still use the site regularly though.
As I see you are still very active here, I wanted to ask your advice on a question I have. I'm a member of WikiProject Gastropods, and I have access to a large number of top quality marine life photos that a good friend of mine took. He wants to donate them to the Commons, so that many people can enjoy his photos freely online. However, he's not tech savvy at all and has asked me to do the upload them to the Commons and handle the Wikipedia editing side for him.
How should I go about doing this? Is it possible for me to upload them and then just attribute them to him? If not, I think there is no way these photos will ever see the light of day unfortunately if he has to do it himself. If you have any ideas on protocol in this situation, I'd love to hear! Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ Worm That Turned, Please can you assist me with an IPBE for the following user. They will like to contribute to the African Day Campaign. Please do create accounts for the other users who have accounts on other wikis but do not have an account on this wiki.
Please do update pertaining to any issues associated to any of the accounts.
Thank you and hope to read from you soon. JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie ( talk) 19:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Wishing Worm That Turned a very That Turned happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Heart (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Worm That Turned! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 20:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Worm That Turned! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
my story today |
While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. - Looking around ( Mozart, Wagner, Mendelssohn), I believe that infoboxes are no longer a contentious topic. People debate, but without weapons, it seems. I have better things to do than participate, see? What do you think? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Listening to Siegfried from the 2023 Bayreuth Festival, third act, Andreas Schager as Siegfried waking up Brünnhilde. Which reminds me of this discussion. Was there anything in it demanding arbitration? - A few weeks later, three participants were admonished, - for what still remains a mystery to me? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi WTT, I am sorry to read that you are disappointed by me for not doing something publicly. I am willing to disclose the other accounts I was editing in the past if it is this what you suggest. On the grumble on the CU tool, I also believe the CU process can be improved and the discussion was motivated by this at least in part, but I am not sure if my experience is actually wanted.
I'd also give the participants of the discussion an apology for causing concern, but I do not feel so much comfortable in adding text to a page where I was advised to drop the stick. If the discussion is going on, I'd prefer that it would take place elsewhere so I can defend myself a bit more comfortable. If there is anything else I can do to calm down the situation, thanks for letting me know Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 10:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat and join the discussion when you have an opportunity. Maxim ( talk) 18:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I've been working on making sure, current parish, district, county, infobox, coordinates, most recent population and when abolished are included in the existing articles on former parishes, see User:Crouch, Swale/Former civil parishes. I'm about 3/4 of the way done and should be done well before I can appeal. In terms of evidence for lifting the restrictions this surely is good evidence for this? The fact that I have made these kind of improvements to thousands of former parishes over the years with no known problems seems that its unlikely for the few category 1 and even category 2 parishes that are still missing there will be problems with me creating them. In other words if in addition to the consensus that they are notable the fact that I have improved existing articles with no known problems suggests I can be trusted to create the remaining ones. Do you agree that this is good evidence?
June, Borough of Hove, July, Braintree and Bocking. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, you page protected User:Mbz1 per their block in 2012. Wondered if the full protection was still needed, or if the protection level could be lowered to allow for WP:LINT syntax error corrections. I have extended confirmed level. Thank you for considering. Zinnober9 ( talk) 02:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I have replied. Cullen328 ( talk) 19:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi WTT, long time no speak. Just flicked you an email, not in any way urgent. -- Euryalus ( talk) 11:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the Arbitration Committee. I'm sorry to read that you're stepping down, but I understand that life outside Wikipedia sometimes doesn't leave room for that demanding position. Hope to see you back soon editing and enjoying your time here. All the best, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 16:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Worm That Turned, Thanks very much for all that you've done. Any time I've seen comments from you on a Talk page, or a Request for Admin status, I've always paid close attention, because it's always worth listening to your comments. I have only the vaguest idea of what goes on behind the scenes to keep Wikipedia working, but I do know how much we depend on people like you. Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 19:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
As you noted, being an arbitrator tends to be a thankless job. And deals with a whole host of responsibilities and issues.
What you agreed with or didn't is immaterial at this point. It's that you stepped up to serve and did so earnestly, offering your sincere opinion in good faith.
So, whatever it's worth from one Wikipedian - Thank you. - jc37 17:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
The Teamwork Barnstar - For generously donating your time in service of the Wikipedia community by serving on the Arbitration Committee. - jc37 17:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
May I be a sysop? I have read many policies and have no record of vandalizing. D o o t e d . ( talk) 19:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. The editor retention project was created back in July of 2012 and is still considered active. The lights are on and the rent is paid for the foreseeable future. Stop by for a chat. Start a thread. Nominate a fellow editor to be Editor of the Week. It's still a good idea. ― Buster7 ☎
Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you and Stacey a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Soon I'm going to start my appeal which is drafted at User:Crouch, Swale/Appeal. Do you have any advice about it before I start? thanks. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Job Done | ||
For good services as an admin, a Crat, an Arb, an editor, and a significant member of the community who gave help and assistance to many. SilkTork ( talk) 14:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
Hi WormThatTurned. I saw your post at BN a few days ago and wish you well. I don't think we've interacted much, if at all, but I've definitely seen your username around.
Um... I want to ask if you'd like to chip in at User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections? I hope this doesn't come across as a selfish request, so please feel free to ignore it if you just wish to just enjoy your retirement. The reason I'm asking is because there's a forseeable future editing question and given that I'm asking a bunch of active editors about this, most people have said yes. I think it'd valuable to have the perspective of a few nos. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I wish you nothing but the best wherever life takes you next. I know I wasn't the best student; but I definitely had the best mentor. Barts1a / Talk to me 00:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Mentorship and learning from you has been a real pleasure. I don't think I told you, but of everyone I used to know onwiki, I was proudest to know you. Institution or not, you were just a solid presence that made people stick around and like the Wiki just a bit more. Thank you for being kind and welcoming :) Soni ( talk) 08:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see you go. Thank you for the years of time, dedication, and care that you've given to this project. I refuse to say that this is "goodbye forever"; instead, I'll simply say it to you this way... "until we meet again". I wish you nothing but happiness, joy, good health, and good luck with whatever future lies before you. Goodbye, my friend. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 |
What view do you have on lifting the page move restriction, in whole or part? At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 107#Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal (January 2019) it was suggested by SilkTork if only 5% of my RMs were unsuccessful they would be happy to remove the restriction, I then pointed out that that standard RM (as opposed to RMT) is for moves that need discussion rather than uncontroversial moves, SilkTork then suggested using RMT and if 95% of the time the page mover agrees that would be good evidence. In 2022 I've probably made hundreds or RMT requests and while a few have ended up being discussed I can't think of any that were closed as "not moved" or even "no consensus". There was 1 Dent, Cumbria that was later reverted and County Borough of Southend on Sea that ended up being moved back to a similar title (though the move was previously discussed) apparently because the user didn't understand the difference between a district and a district council. I asked Amakuru about lifting the restriction only for allowing me to close RM discussions which they didn't think was a good idea, see User talk:Amakuru#Page move restriction which should be taken into account if this is suggested. Do you support lifting the restriction in whole or part perhaps with 1RR or 0RR? I'm not going to push for this but do you think its a good idea especially given it doesn't appear based on RMT that there are problems with my page moves. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Primefac has recently deleted all of my blockquotes from 23 articles — claiming copyright violation. I suggest that this allegation of copyright violation is nonsense. My blockquotes might be style failures — but I suggest that the blockquotes are definitely not copyright violations. Do you agree with Primefac? Suslindisambiguator ( talk)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 20:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I hereby request you to evaluate me and my chances of becoming a Wikipedia admin. I mostly use my mobile phone to make edits since i usually make them while on the go. If you find my edits and request okay, please nominate me. Thanks Alvinategyeka ( talk) 03:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I had been mentally composing a reply to the comment of yours that you were waiting on ANI but haven't had a chance to read all of the statements which I'd want to make so I could make a single statement myself. Since you've now acknowledged that this wait I figured I'd come here. I think the idea that ArbCom needed to wait for ANI in this situation is too cautious to the point of being wrong. The community has clearly decided time and time again that it wants ArbCom and Arbcom alone to decide whether someone is a sysop. This means any community discussion at ANI about the block and other sanctions should run in parallel to an ArbCom decision on the matter of sysop. Personally it's my opinion that the block should be fairly easily reversible. That is Athaenara could say "While I don't apologize for the idea or the concerns I expressed, I was wrong to direct this at another editor and was doubly wrong for doing so at RfA. I apologize for both those actions and will not do it again". In that case she should be unblockable. But even in that scenario it wouldn't mean she is fit to remain a sysop. I think your note that you want to wait for her to make a statement - and encouraging Ritchie not to revoke TPA so that can happen - is an entirely different matter and quite the appropriate thing to wait for. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes and acted in a way you thought was out of line. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Commenting here so as not to increase the temperature further—regarding " I have never seen a check for "collusion" in the past", there are (rare) precedents; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Llywelyn2000/Archive for an example. I've never seen one outside the very specific circumstances of "there's reason to believe these people got together in the flesh to coordinate tag-teaming"; nor, outside that very specific circumstance, can I see how a CU could possibly be of any use. ‑ Iridescent 16:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Clovermoss. Kudpung mentioned you as one of the most experienced adopters on the project here [1] so I was wondering if maybe you had some thoughts about the process in general? I had a good experience with Nick Moyes a few years ago but I got the impression even then that the project was kind of... close to inactive? Looking at the talk page, that still seems to be the case. xtools indicates that you've been here since 2008 which is a really long time, so I was wondering if maybe you had a more long-term perspective on what it used to be like? If you don't mind, I'm a bit curious. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
June article Blofield Heath, July Hunger Hill, Greater Manchester, August Charlton Abbots, September Menethorpe, October Oldbury, Warwickshire.
Something I have recently learnt is that prior to 1974 there were urban parishes and rural parishes.
Rural parishes functioned much like all parishes do today, they tended to correspond to "natural" boundaries, the boundaries were generally stable and they had their own parish council or at least parish meeting and thus would be inherently notable.
Urban parishes were more arbitrary and sometimes included tracts from what was part of a rural parish when an urban district was formed for example Sandridge Urban being a small part of St Albans district, most ended up being merged so that there was a single urban parish concurrent with the urban district but a few like in Woking still had 4 namely Byfleet, Horsell, Pyrford and Woking. Though the Woking parishes would likely be notable anyway as they are settlements it may be argued that those that were only ever urban parishes without ever having been rural parishes (or also being settlements) maybe shouldn't be treated as inherently notable though they did still exist for electron purposes and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 10#Proposed deletion of all articles on local government subdivisions wards, divisions etc. there appeared to be consensus wards are notable.
While there isn't a legal definition of urban and rural parishes the term can still be used for parishes that are formed in pre 1974 unparished areas like Letchworth Garden City and Offerton Park, such parishes are often controversial for tax reasons and end up being abolished, see Offerton Park#Attempts at abolition and Letchworth#Letchworth Garden City Council (2005–2013) but such parishes do have their own councils and would thus be inherently notable.
If we do at some point move my restrictions only creating former parishes we could only allow pre-1974 rural parishes. See User:Crouch, Swale/Warwickshire ( [2] original version) and User:Crouch, Swale/Hertfordshire ( [3] original version) for example, in the category 1 parishes in the Warwickshire one they are OS settlements and standalone settlements, category 2 is OS settlements that are OS settlements but not standalone settlements, 3rd is rural parishes that aren't OS settlements and the 4th is urban parishes that aren't OS settlements and thus maybe shouldn't exist. In the future this distinction may well be helpful to ensure I'm creating notable topics. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 22:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Since I have got on with editing for a significant amount of time without any significant problems what do you make of just removing the restrictions as suggested? As long as I have an editing plan and a probation period it should be OK? I think we could try this and it would save the need for anymore appeals. I think in 2022 I can be trusted to follow what's asked of me without restrictions but if not I strongly suggest easing the restrictions by article topic namely things like allowing only parishes. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for the userscript that reminds editors to sign their comments, as mentioned by you at User:WormTT/Adopt/Wikiquette. –– FormalDude (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 ( talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} |
Donner60 ( talk) 01:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello Worm That Turned: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 18:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
From my family to yours: Merry Christmas, Dave! I hope that you have a wonderful holiday season. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 20:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
ygm TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Even if you don't support removing the restrictions completely (something I think could be done with an editing plan to discourage me from mass creating short stubs) at least could you please support allowing a number of parishes to be created either as well as or instead of my 1 a month on anything, see User:Crouch, Swale/Motions. Please can I have 1 chance. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 22:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 20:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The RfA for MB has gone to a bureaucrat chat. Please join in the discussion. Primefac ( talk) 15:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Who does a victim turn too 2001:5B0:4ED0:1968:74CE:44D9:B8E4:10D3 ( talk) 11:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the complete removal per User:SilkTork in 2024 and the topics I'm interested in.
I think as long as I mainly stick to presumed notable/likely notable topics and don't create many topics that may well not be notable I should be fine. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey Worm (yay I'm back again :) )
I had a quick question, so figured I'll just ask here instead of making a full statement just to get a clarification.
If I'm reading correctly, here you stated that Black Kite and @ Floquenbeam: suggested indef-blocking DBachmann (with caveats/until they reply/etc etc). But best I can tell, Floq did not make such a suggestion at the case request. Am I being confused, or is there another discussion on this I missed? Thanks.
Soni ( talk) 12:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Am quite tempted to write up a potential community desysop process...
Worm, while I am (currently) opposing the proposal, I appreciate the thought that went behind it, esp. the exact way you instituted the 28-day period between the block and the desysop, which eliminates two potential flaws (need for a cooling off/appeal period; issue with blocks that are overturned or shortened) that a less thought-out procedure would have had. Kudos. Abecedare ( talk) 15:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Had i known you were in town, i'd've offered a pint! Those three initials always draw you to mind Happy days, ~ Lindsay H ello 19:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Red Dwarf concepts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 20:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm currently adding population data, when abolished, coordinates/infoboxes and location information for former parishes, see User:Crouch, Swale/Former civil parishes to articles that already exist. Unfortunately very few of the articles have this kind of information already. If my restrictions get modified next year after I've created all the current ones I should then work on creating the category 1, 2 and 3 former parishes but as noted probably not category 4 ones. I got a bit behind with adding the data to former parishes due to checking listed buildings Commons categories but that's not largely done so I should be back on track. For my January article I requested Upton, Huntingdonshire history split with Peterborough one, February Prestwood, East Staffordshire, March Woolstone, Gloucestershire and April Hunton, Hampshire which are on my former parish lists as category 1 (top priority). I have also started an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirklees, Calderdale for a village that doesn't appear to ever have existed under that name. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi WTT,
I hope you are doing well. A long time ago you kindly adopted me as a user when I was much more active on Wikipedia. Shortly after we started briefly collaborating however, I took a job with long hours and life curtailed my Wiki editing to a low level. I still use the site regularly though.
As I see you are still very active here, I wanted to ask your advice on a question I have. I'm a member of WikiProject Gastropods, and I have access to a large number of top quality marine life photos that a good friend of mine took. He wants to donate them to the Commons, so that many people can enjoy his photos freely online. However, he's not tech savvy at all and has asked me to do the upload them to the Commons and handle the Wikipedia editing side for him.
How should I go about doing this? Is it possible for me to upload them and then just attribute them to him? If not, I think there is no way these photos will ever see the light of day unfortunately if he has to do it himself. If you have any ideas on protocol in this situation, I'd love to hear! Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ Worm That Turned, Please can you assist me with an IPBE for the following user. They will like to contribute to the African Day Campaign. Please do create accounts for the other users who have accounts on other wikis but do not have an account on this wiki.
Please do update pertaining to any issues associated to any of the accounts.
Thank you and hope to read from you soon. JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie ( talk) 19:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Wishing Worm That Turned a very That Turned happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Heart (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Worm That Turned! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 20:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Worm That Turned! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
my story today |
While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. - Looking around ( Mozart, Wagner, Mendelssohn), I believe that infoboxes are no longer a contentious topic. People debate, but without weapons, it seems. I have better things to do than participate, see? What do you think? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Listening to Siegfried from the 2023 Bayreuth Festival, third act, Andreas Schager as Siegfried waking up Brünnhilde. Which reminds me of this discussion. Was there anything in it demanding arbitration? - A few weeks later, three participants were admonished, - for what still remains a mystery to me? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi WTT, I am sorry to read that you are disappointed by me for not doing something publicly. I am willing to disclose the other accounts I was editing in the past if it is this what you suggest. On the grumble on the CU tool, I also believe the CU process can be improved and the discussion was motivated by this at least in part, but I am not sure if my experience is actually wanted.
I'd also give the participants of the discussion an apology for causing concern, but I do not feel so much comfortable in adding text to a page where I was advised to drop the stick. If the discussion is going on, I'd prefer that it would take place elsewhere so I can defend myself a bit more comfortable. If there is anything else I can do to calm down the situation, thanks for letting me know Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 10:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat and join the discussion when you have an opportunity. Maxim ( talk) 18:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I've been working on making sure, current parish, district, county, infobox, coordinates, most recent population and when abolished are included in the existing articles on former parishes, see User:Crouch, Swale/Former civil parishes. I'm about 3/4 of the way done and should be done well before I can appeal. In terms of evidence for lifting the restrictions this surely is good evidence for this? The fact that I have made these kind of improvements to thousands of former parishes over the years with no known problems seems that its unlikely for the few category 1 and even category 2 parishes that are still missing there will be problems with me creating them. In other words if in addition to the consensus that they are notable the fact that I have improved existing articles with no known problems suggests I can be trusted to create the remaining ones. Do you agree that this is good evidence?
June, Borough of Hove, July, Braintree and Bocking. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, you page protected User:Mbz1 per their block in 2012. Wondered if the full protection was still needed, or if the protection level could be lowered to allow for WP:LINT syntax error corrections. I have extended confirmed level. Thank you for considering. Zinnober9 ( talk) 02:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, Worm That Turned. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I have replied. Cullen328 ( talk) 19:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi WTT, long time no speak. Just flicked you an email, not in any way urgent. -- Euryalus ( talk) 11:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the Arbitration Committee. I'm sorry to read that you're stepping down, but I understand that life outside Wikipedia sometimes doesn't leave room for that demanding position. Hope to see you back soon editing and enjoying your time here. All the best, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 16:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Worm That Turned, Thanks very much for all that you've done. Any time I've seen comments from you on a Talk page, or a Request for Admin status, I've always paid close attention, because it's always worth listening to your comments. I have only the vaguest idea of what goes on behind the scenes to keep Wikipedia working, but I do know how much we depend on people like you. Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 19:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
As you noted, being an arbitrator tends to be a thankless job. And deals with a whole host of responsibilities and issues.
What you agreed with or didn't is immaterial at this point. It's that you stepped up to serve and did so earnestly, offering your sincere opinion in good faith.
So, whatever it's worth from one Wikipedian - Thank you. - jc37 17:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
The Teamwork Barnstar - For generously donating your time in service of the Wikipedia community by serving on the Arbitration Committee. - jc37 17:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
May I be a sysop? I have read many policies and have no record of vandalizing. D o o t e d . ( talk) 19:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. The editor retention project was created back in July of 2012 and is still considered active. The lights are on and the rent is paid for the foreseeable future. Stop by for a chat. Start a thread. Nominate a fellow editor to be Editor of the Week. It's still a good idea. ― Buster7 ☎
Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you and Stacey a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Soon I'm going to start my appeal which is drafted at User:Crouch, Swale/Appeal. Do you have any advice about it before I start? thanks. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Job Done | ||
For good services as an admin, a Crat, an Arb, an editor, and a significant member of the community who gave help and assistance to many. SilkTork ( talk) 14:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
Hi WormThatTurned. I saw your post at BN a few days ago and wish you well. I don't think we've interacted much, if at all, but I've definitely seen your username around.
Um... I want to ask if you'd like to chip in at User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections? I hope this doesn't come across as a selfish request, so please feel free to ignore it if you just wish to just enjoy your retirement. The reason I'm asking is because there's a forseeable future editing question and given that I'm asking a bunch of active editors about this, most people have said yes. I think it'd valuable to have the perspective of a few nos. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I wish you nothing but the best wherever life takes you next. I know I wasn't the best student; but I definitely had the best mentor. Barts1a / Talk to me 00:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Mentorship and learning from you has been a real pleasure. I don't think I told you, but of everyone I used to know onwiki, I was proudest to know you. Institution or not, you were just a solid presence that made people stick around and like the Wiki just a bit more. Thank you for being kind and welcoming :) Soni ( talk) 08:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see you go. Thank you for the years of time, dedication, and care that you've given to this project. I refuse to say that this is "goodbye forever"; instead, I'll simply say it to you this way... "until we meet again". I wish you nothing but happiness, joy, good health, and good luck with whatever future lies before you. Goodbye, my friend. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)