User talk:Worm That Turned

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nuvola apps personal unisex.png Nuvola apps filetypes.png Presa de decissions.png Crystal kdict.png Nuvola apps package editors.png Crystal package settings.png Nuvola apps bookcase.png Nuvola actions help.svg Original Barnstar Hires.png
User Talk Adoption HQ Articles To Do Toolbox Subpages DYK Awards

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message! Ledred.png I am probably offline and am unable to respond swiftly. I will respond as soon as I can.

Obscured jaguar.jpg This user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers. Swingline-stapler.jpg
Question mark.svg This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

LTA[edit]

[1] "Pointy" is actually disrupting the encyclopedia. It is not pointy to show the faulty logic that allows this list to be here over the other. To dare question the status quo. I'm not sure if by me taking it "personally" you mean that I think it was a politically-motivated joke of a close, or that I was somehow insulted as a person. I can assure you it was not the latter. Do you think there was overwhelming support to delete the list of banned users? There was not. "Pointy" my ass. Cheers... Doc talk 06:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Doc, you were clearly trying to make a point - you neither believe that page should be deleted, nor do you believe the community consensus would be for deletion. So the question, was it disruptive? The answer - unequivocally yes. You wasted community time on the discussion, which required a snow keep. A bad faith nomination can also preclude future good faith nominations. You nearly disrupted an ANI thread with the deletion. It was without a doubt disruption to the encylcopedia.
As to your question - having read the arguments, I absolutely believe there was consensus to delete the list of banned users. Wikipedia is about weight of arguments and consensus - not about numerical support. WormTT(talk) 07:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not a Supreme Court justice! It should not be down to some random closing admin to "decide" a 50/50 issue on "consensus". The "right" thing was not done here. Half the dissenters were ignored in favor of what Jimbo said to do. You are wrong, and you can alienate me as a "crank" all you want. But you were not right on consensus here. At all. Doc talk 06:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how my role has anything to do with the price of fish, but for what it's worth, I agree - I am certainly not a supreme anything, a court anything or any sort of judge. We are on Wikipedia. We work as a community through discussion and consensus. Not voting. If you were to write down the list of arguments and counter arguments, the balance is towards deletion. If you add weight to the arguments, for example by reducing the value of fallacies and unsupported statements, and increasing the weight of statements backed by evidence or other strong arguments, the consensus is overwhelming for deletion. All you are doing is counting the numbers - and missing the point. WormTT(talk) 07:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Damnit! Why do you have to be so freaking... logical about it! It's impossible to argue with that. Very well said, and I appreciate your time on this. Cheers. Doc talk 07:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It's what I do, drives most people I meet insane. Thanks for coming and chatting (or venting) rather than stewing on the matter. It's an asset to your character, come back any time. WormTT(talk) 07:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Just one more thing... Let's say we had a really bad banned user who didn't make it onto the LTA list before the banned user list was deleted, for whatever reason. A hypothetical situation, of course. Only admins can see the now deleted list of banned users. Who determines who is added to the LTA list? I've added two myself: WP:LTA/VCV and WP:Long-term abuse/Hanoi Vandal. These editors had to be put here simply because of the IP-hopping; there was no "account" to ban, yes? Is there going to be any sort of transfer of the thousands of accounts that were on the deleted list? Or is it all "forgiven and forgotten" for each and every one of the banned users that weren't added to the LTA list? Doc talk 08:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The answer to your third question here is yes, Doc, if that helps at all. Although that's assuming that "any" is implied before "of the thousands", as your last question suggests. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Doc, I'm sorry, I totally forgot about your "one more thing". I'm not nearly as familiar with the LTA pages, so I'd defer to common sense, combined with knowledge of how a wiki works. The pages you've created, therefore, seem sensible. I would expect that anyone could create a LTA page if there is evidence of long term abuse. If a new page is created, any admin can check the list of banned users and pass any useful data across. That said, the banned users who deserved an LTA page generally already had one, with the information already available. Those banned users who had disappeared / accepted their ban don't need an LTA page. Is everything "forgiven and forgotten"? Absolutely not! The editors are still banned. If they want to edit, they can try and get the ban lifted, through BASC or community consensus. Would you have said that anyone who had been forgotten on the list previously wasn't actually banned? WormTT(talk) 07:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A request[edit]

Hi Worm That Turned: I noticed that you have check user privileges on Wikipedia and that you have a userbox on your user page stating that you're willing to help people out with queries. I have a unique request. At my first RfA, some people opposed based upon the incorrect notion of previous accounts (plural), but I only had one previous (singular) account, User:Unitedstates1000, which I fully divulged in the discussion. Prior to that, I edited as an unregistered user. I am considering the potential of a new RfA, and prior to doing so I would like to have a checkuser verify that I have had only one previous account. I recently discussed this matter with User:Fram on their talk page here, since that user provided verification in the General comments section of the RfA about my edits, but a checkuser query was not performed in that analysis. At my RfA, it was disappointing to be opposed for an offense that wasn't committed.

Rather than filing a formal SPI about myself, I figured I'd ask a checkuser to perform a query. Per the instructions at WP:SPI, “Before opening an investigation, you need good reason to suspect sock puppetry”. I have no good reason, because I know for certainty that I have only had one previous account. Please respond at your convenience, and thanks for your consideration regarding this matter. NorthAmerica1000 09:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi NorthAmerica. I'm afraid that that use of CheckUser does not fall within the WP:checkuser policy - I'd be very concerned about any checkuser who did. WormTT(talk) 11:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
All right. I figured the request would be a long shot to be fulfilled. Thanks for the reply. NorthAmerica1000 18:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Breach of Arbcom ruling concerning Hell in a Bucket[edit]

Hi, Worm. Hell in a Bucket and Sowhatchawant have been edit-warring at SMH Records. I was intending to give Sowhatchawant a warning about edit-warring, and blocking Hell in a Bucket for a while, since Sowhatchawant is a fairly new editor who may not know any better, but Hell in a Bucket certainly has more than enough experience to know full well about the edit-warring policy. However, when I went to Hell in a Bucket's talk page, I saw this, which informs Hell in a Bucket of an Arbcom ruling in which "Hell in a Bucket is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions." To edit war within days of receiving that notification certainly warrants "serious sanctions", perhaps significantly more than the a short block I had in mind. Also, some of the messages that Hell in a Bucket has posted to Sowhatchawant have been rather intemperate, as for example here. Maybe the words "needlessly inflammatory rhetoric" would not exactly describe that, but it certainly seems against the spirit of that part of the Arbcom ruling. Under the circumstances I decided that it would be better to consult an arbitrator who had prior knowledge of the case than to try to decide on my own what was a suitable "serious sanction". So, who better to consult than you? What do you think? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it edit warring, I was removing information that wasn't in the actual references and trivial blurbs. I would look at the original AFD which already has an admitted history of an offer for paid editing[[2]]. I ended up deciding after it became apparent no one was actually going to step in and help [[3]] that rather then go through more useless policy directions to use the correct csd situation because it was previously deleted by AFD. An established editor came in and asked time to review it and [[4]] as you can see here. Inflammatory language, I've called them a WP:DUCK and invited admin to go "duck hunting" similar to a "ban hammer" I haven't used any other even remotely offensive wordings. I have said I believe the person is dishonest as you can see they are defintely on the promotional side from their comment "Now with research on SMH Records - I found someone who claims to be part of the company but isn't. If you want to "go after" a page here is one for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bentley_(producer)" which is their first posting to me. I'm actually surprised JamesBWatson, who is an admin I hold high regard for wouldn't actually be able to see that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd also point out that this is what I was doing [[5]] attempting to save the information and take out the spam. Consider "SMH Records is distributed though Caroline, which is part of the Capitol Music Group / Universal Music Group umbrella" The provided source [[6]] where is any of that information? It was the same thing as the last afd too and related problems if you look User talk:Pearljambandaid. Both usernames are band oriented, So Whatcha Want is beastie boys song, Pearl Jam is a 90's band as well. The foundations on the article are the same, I can't look at the old versions but hell if it's a hanging offense go for it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The above has just been readded [[7]] as important backstory but it's still not in the references. Given the level of detail on research before this I have to point out [[8]] from the last afd for [[9]] yet another gem from the last copy of this article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
[[10]] read the comment and consider the first edit to that page [[11]] and the extensive editing [[12]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hell in a Bucket, you said "I wouldn't call it edit warring" and then went on to explain why you believe that your editing was right. I am really surprised that someone with your experience can be unaware of the injunction "do not edit war even if you believe you are right." Edit warring is repeatedly reverting to the same, or substantially the same, version of a page, and it does not somehow fail to be edit warring because the editor doing it believes he or she is right; indeed, in almost all edit wars everyone involved believes that he or she is right, so if the edit warring policy said "unless you are convinced you are right" then the policy would be meaningless.
I see that you have six times been blocked with block log reasons which mention personal attacks, harassment, or incivility. After that, is it not time that you learnt to approach other editors in a civil way? You may well be right in believing that the accounts Sowhatchawant and Pearljambandaid are the same person, and if so then you may perhaps be right in believing that using two accounts was done with dishonest intent. However, there are various ways you could have dealt with your suspicions to that effect. For example, you could have posted a polite message to Sowhatchawant asking if he or she had used more than one account, and if so, why. Instead, you chose to say to a fairly new editor things such as "You don't have a clue about what you are blathering about" and "I don't have the time or patience to deal with people who are dishonest". If the string of short blocks for such things in the past has not led you to realise that such behaviour is unacceptable on Wikipedia, then it seems that the only recourse is a much longer block. Combining that with edit-warring days after the warning from ArbCom, and I really see no alternative to a long block, but rather than unilaterally impose one (which I could easily have done), I have consulted Worm That Turned to see what he thinks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
User:JamesBWatsonInputting sources that don't state what they are alleging is a serious issue, I understand why you are coming here first but I find it surprising that you didn't even do what appears to be a modicum of research. If it's block worthy block me. Those personal attacks you saw were for calling people SS and likening things to crusades, the inflammatory language is from an earlier ocmment that used the word cunt queer and nigger but when I asked for clarification as to what that meant I was ignored with no answers as to what qualifies [[13]]. When I say it appears you didn't even do a modicuym of research this was my first comment[[14]], [[15]] clearly very uncivil, [[16]] this as well was uncivil, hmmm seems like the only uncivil comment thus far was [[17]] which totally ignored everything I had done previously and now you are playing right into it. I have a serious problem with people trying to use that case as a bludgeon to manipulate the situation because they want to twist the situation in their favor. I understand that's not what you are doing of course I think it was actually a rather clever ploy to distract from the issue a Post hoc ergo propter hoc and by extension Moral high ground Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
In case you didn't realize Blathering means "talk long-windedly without making very much sense" at that point that person had made I think at least 4 comments saying the route of all their issues is the disruptive Hell in a Bucket when what they were saying made no sense what so ever. This user has been here at least 90 days how long do we not bite a newcomer, what language constitutes biting a newcomer? I'm sorry to rant like this but I have quite a bit of frustration in the last couple months here and to be bludgeoned over the head with a arb case that doesn't apply makes me pretty fucking pissy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure this likely won't make a difference but...[[18]]. I feel somewhat vindicated, you can put me in my room now and I likely won't complain as loud now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi both. I do apologise for the delay. JamesBWatson, I would say that the situation from the Arbcom case is significantly different to that of the situation here. This is over content, for one thing - something does actually matter. That said, Hell in a Bucket, there were definitely better ways to handle this than you did. Requesting page protection while discussion was ongoing would have been a start. AfD and waiting, that's another option. It doesn't have to be right immediately. Edit warring, and it was edit warring, just after you'd been severely warned for edit warring by Arbcom - does not look good. I'm not going to recommend a "severe sanction", JamesBWatson, feel free to take it over to WP:AE if you think that's the best idea, but as it's a warning I don't think it falls under AE. I'll leave the matter up to your judgement, you're an admin for a good reason. If you feel a severe sanction is the right option here, then go for it, but since the edit warring has stopped, I would say it's probably moot. Hope that helps. WormTT(talk) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that comment, Worm. Any block now would be pointless, as the edit warring is not currently continuing. Hell in a Bucket, you are substantially a constructive editor, but you could, I think, benefit from trying to handle things more calmly sometimes. On this occasion you were edit warring, and no matter how justified or unjustified your view of the issues was, edit warring was not the best way to deal with it. This is, as far as I am concerned, the end of this incident, but please do be careful to avoid anything that might be regarded as edit warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In this case I do actually owe the user an apology for one thing, I still believe they are connected to the company either through PR or a paid editor scenario but I do at least owe you an apology for one thing "The iTunes release of “Let’s Take It Naked,” a flute-infused, bubble-gum dance-floor jam, is expected soon, along with a music video and radio promotion from distributor Caroline Records (a division of the very big deal Capitol Music Group)." [19]. Both times I researched this the first afd and this I searched Universal, Umg and Capital music. I search using just cap this last time cause I was going to rip you for it here and I found Capitol. FUCK, that did make me feel like an asshole and made me look like an idiot to boot. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
one last thing I have asked some questions that I think still need answered here [[20]] regarding this editors status [[21]]. I will attempt to change my approach because I do understand at times it's not levelheaded and I really shouldn't edit when I am stressed out but I'm not here to cause problems I'm here to improve things.

Inside[edit]

You know I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.22.54 (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

A little less cryptic please. WormTT(talk) 07:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look . . .[edit]

. . . at the first line in this section, and also this comment. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)