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.

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[[1]]. I ended up deciding after it became apparent no one was actually going to step in and help [[2]] 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 [[3]] 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 [[4]] 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 [[5]] 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 [[6]] 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 [[7]] from the last afd for [[8]] yet another gem from the last copy of this article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
[[9]] read the comment and consider the first edit to that page [[10]] and the extensive editing [[11]] 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 [[12]]. When I say it appears you didn't even do a modicuym of research this was my first comment[[13]], [[14]] clearly very uncivil, [[15]] this as well was uncivil, hmmm seems like the only uncivil comment thus far was [[16]] 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...[[17]]. 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)." [18]. 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 [[19]] regarding this editors status [[20]]. 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)

Hi Writegeist, I don't particularly have a problem with it. Some arbitrators want to have as much evidence as they possibly can, and may well have looked at the historical version anyway. If he wants to waste half a dozen words and a diff linking, then that's up to him. WormTT(talk) 08:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Worm. I get it. The stipulated word limit for evidence can be totally disregarded. (Why then was the user instructed to cut their evidence down to the stated limit instead of being allowed to leave it at some 300% over? Which is what it is again now.) Likewise the stipulated time limit for submitting evidence. Surely as these limits are clearly not meant to be complied with they should be discarded? It's misleading to retain them, and they unfairly disadvantage people who comply with them when others don't. Anyway thanks for the clarification. Arbcom's MO, like most of its findings, really is a joke. Writegeist (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Word limits and dates are there for a reason, to facilitate the best outcome in the fastest possible time. That said, the priority is the best outcome - and I'd rather not miss a key piece of evidence based on a simple bureaucratic rule. I'm not a "rules are rules are rules" person, never have been, never will be. WormTT(talk) 09:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
As I said, in that case the limits are false and misleading and should be removed. I suggest this be continued, if need be, at the evidence talk page, where I have already raised a related issue. Writegeist (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As there seemed to be some dispute over the scope, on which clarification didn't seem forthcoming, I chose to retain only the evidence that seemed of direct relevance to the GGTF/misogyny. I don't think I would like to apply for an exception unless the scope is clarified, but if you could communicate to your fellow arbitrators that, if they feel the scope is broader than that, if the purpose is in any way to investigate the governance failures contributing to the hostile environment on Wikipedia (something which Mr Wales is urging strong leadership on, and something which is cited as a direct cause of the gender gap), then there is definitely one other section in my removed evidence that I consider to be of utmost importance. I'm fine with leaving others to decide for themselves if "Carrite engages in the same behaviour he seeks to condemn in others" and "J3Mrs has the same issues she seeks to criticizes in others" are sections they would have any interest in reading, in the context of this case. Patrol forty (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Asking for help[edit]

Hello. I'm new to English Wikipedia and I think you can put me in the right direction about what to make in a situation I've detected. Excuse me if this isn't the right way to ask for help. Short version: There's an user on the list of highest paved roads of Europe article/list that seems to act unilaterally and ignoring other users' comments. Long version: The cut-off of the list was 1000 meters. On Feb. 6th (at 16:36), user Zacharie_Grossen, unilaterally rised it to 1200 meters (no mention about it on the talk page, I had to look at the history of the article/list). On May 12th, the same user asked on the talk page to rise the cut-off to 2000 meters. Nobody answered on the talk page but on Sep. 7th user Chienlit deleted the unilateral change made by Zacharie_Grossen on Feb. 6th at 16:36 because it was an 'unilateral deletion of sourced material that conforms to the stated context of the article'. On Oct. 2nd, user Zacharie_Grossen, ignoring Chienlit's deletion, rised the cut-off to 2000 meters (as far as I know, without the explicit support of any other user) and deleted, if I'm not wrong, more than 100 roads that had less altitude (What will think the users that made those contributions because the cut-off was 1000 meters?). The cut-off isn't the only change this user made unilaterally. On Oct. 6th, he decided (unilaterally) to make on the same page a separate chart for highways (in that case with a 1000 meters cut-off). On May 13, ignoring the comments made by some users on the talk page and the pictures available on some of the links provided, he decided to provide an 'accurate height and high point coordinates' of the Veleta road being the height wrong (I don't know if the coordinates too). User Bizkaino corrected it on his second edition on Aug. 13th but the wrong remarks on the comments area remain. I've made a comment about it all in the talk page of that article/list (you can take a look at it) and let him know in his talk page about the comment on the talk page of the list of highest paved roads in Europe article/list. My question for you is: What (else) should be done in this situation bearing in mind that an agreement doesn't seem too likely if we consider how this user ignored other users' comments? Aguarda (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic[edit]

Quick question - as you know, he's running a discussion on Meta. What's the easiest way to get ArbCom to confirm for the purposes of an unban discussion, it has to be held on en.wp and not Meta or elsewhere ? Is there a case it could be added to for clarification or is it something the committee could clarify directly ? Cheers. Nick (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

There's been no Arbcom case on Colton Cosmic - just a BASC appeal which was turned down in May last year. Everything has happened on wiki since then. He's community banned, not Arbcom banned, so Arbcom does not have the authority to state that any unban has to happen on en.wp. WormTT(talk) 12:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the discussion on-wiki, as I was responsible for the most recent AN discussion in July of this year [21]. You cannot seriously be suggesting that community banned editors can appeal their ban on Meta or elsewhere and have their ban overturned on that basis, that's opening up an almighty can of worms which really needs ArbCom guidance. Nick (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Certainly not. Every time I've seen it attempted, it's been shot down very quickly - I said as much to Colton Cosmic there. In my opinion, Snowolf's block on Meta is a clear sign that it's still the case. What I'm suggesting is that Arbcom has no jurisdiction to make that statement. WormTT(talk) 13:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha, wrong end of stick and all that. I'll write a few lines at the banning policy talk page and see what the appetite is for explicitly codifying the current arrangements. Nick (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Too many nots[edit]

Were it not for the fact that Gamaliel had not explained himself... don't think you meant to say that. Bishonen | talk 13:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC).

... bugger. WormTT(talk) 13:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Shakespeare does it all the time. Bishonen | talk 14:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC).

User:Patrol forty[edit]

I'm concerned about this user with 13 article space edits - total - and 35% of their total edits to Jimbo's talk page is doing on Wikipedia. 58% of their edits are to user talk pages. 14 of their edits, more than their article edits, are to Arbitration. I'm concerned twofols: 1) That there is more noise than anything else from this users, and 2) that there are all of the signs of a previous account with this user. Their primary contributions are to pursue disputes with DangerousPanda and Eric Corbett. Any thoughts?--v/r - TP 18:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Saw the thread title on my watchlist and thought I'd comment. For what it's worth, I came very close to blocking this user as an obvious returning blocked/banned user, or (at best) as an illegitimate CLEANSTART. I am 100% certain of it (I don't know who's sock it is, but I know it's a sock), but was not convinced I could justify it to the ANI crew (which is where I am sure it would go if I had made the block). In theory, a "does everyone agree this is a sock" thread could be started at ANI, but in practice, that would just result in more EC bashing and drama and ridiculousness. Also, I think I'm probably (inaccurately, but oh well) viewed by the ANI crew as an "EC enabler". The only other solution I can think of is, on the count of three, everybody ignore them, but that seems unlikely. See also RationalObserver... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm certainly not an EC-enabler. I'm an ANI-drama-fighter (I hope). But I don't want to block someone who has taken an opposite position as I have in an Arbcom case. That could be seen poorly.--v/r - TP 19:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I block rarely, less so as an arb. I've a few theories on who this user is, from a bad hand of a current user to a returning blocked / banned user. I've seen nothing conclusive but I'm satisfied that he's not a new user WormTT(talk) 21:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)