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.

Resolution[edit]

Dear Worm That Turned, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

Et tu?[edit]

This [1] is ... odd, at best. Unless there was an RFC I missed, there's absolutely no policy reason to cease discussion with BlueSalix. We are (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, and he (was) an editor -- so any action has a non-zero probability of returning him to editing is good, and anything that impedes that is bad. And making a "request" backed by a threat is disingenuous -- and ironically exactly parallels the wording WMF employee Fabrice Florin used right before the Media Viewer debacle blew up.

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

NE Ent, I'll freely admit I've become jaded since being Arbcom. Not terribly so and I do give people the benefit of the doubt more than most, but if you spend all your time seeing the mess that is created by people on a certain trajectory then you look for ways to nip the issues in the bud.
So, let's look at this situation, which mirrors so many. User B and User C disagreed over something or other. It doesn't matter what, disagreements happen. But in the middle of that, User B accuses User C of doing something reprehensible. That destruction of someone's reputation matters, it really does - which is why we have rules against doing it. The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" jumps to mind. I'd be satisfied with any evidence at all.
It might be that you don't see the action as reprehensible - that's where my time on Arbcom has changed me. I've seen some of the emails sent to people - they've sickened me to my stomach. I've enforced and supported strong sanctions against those people who've done it. We can't just ignore claims of off-wiki harassment.
That leads us to the question of discussion on talk page. I've been watching it for a long time, and it's going round in circles. There's not been anything new brought up for a while - we're at the point where BlueSalix either retracts or substantiates. We don't need more discussion there - it's perpetuating the alleged offence. So, I'm asking for it to stop. Depending on whether it carries on and the manner in which it does, I will make it stop. I doubt I'd need to, people are generally sensible. WormTT(talk) 10:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
BlueSalix appears to be so out of touch with the insider wiki-drama stuff he doesn't know the difference between an indef block and a "lifetime ban" (which is, of course, not existent). At this point editors are trying to talk him off the ledge. [2]. No one is justifying his incorrect statement that C sent him emails, and he's stated: "I erred by making an accusation without having, and providing, the necessary evidence. I therefore retract the accusation and will not make an issue of it again." If blocking isn't punishment, why keep him blocked? And as I told Bish, Boko Harum kidnapping girls and ISIS and Eastern Europeans killing each other is reprehensible.
On Wikipedia, one's reputation is pretty much based one what one does, not what other people say about them. Any reasonably intelligent observer who's spent any time on DR boards pretty won't believe anything that's not backed by a diff.
I understand, at least at some level, that arbcom has become the hole folks keep dumping problems into (e.g. the Media Viewer case --which is Lila's problem, not (plural) yours), and clearly the workload isn't reasonable. But just because you'd had to deal with N dweebs during your term doesn't mean the N + 1th deserves anything less than our best effort to return them to the fold. If we get rid of all the imperfect humans, who is going to be left to edit the encyclopedia? As of last week, there were a quarter million unreferenced articles.
Fortunately for me, when I get fed up I can just log off -- real life being the best antidote. Part of reasoning behind have so many arbs is so that you can take a sabbatical and get unjaded. (and burnout was one reason I opposed a certain Rfb). But if you're not ready to do, here's a numerical tidbit: there are 130,101 active editors. Do you know that many? Do you see that many on AN ANI 3RR BLPN arbcom DRN et. al? I certainly haven't. You're seeing the shitty end of the bell curve by choice, it doesn't really reflect WP as a whole. Did you know back when I actually edited (circa 2008) I didn't know arbcom existed, didn't know there was a 3rr, or any of that? Ah, Innocence Lost .... NE Ent 21:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to take issue with your comment that "On Wikipedia, one's reputation is pretty much based one what one does, not what other people say about them". It's actually based on what others say you've done, not what you've actually done, or not done. Eric Corbett 22:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Eric has a good point, reputation precedes editors on Wikipedia, and often not from what they've done but what people say they've done. Let's face it - what percentage of Wikipedians fall into the group "reasonably intelligent who've spent time at DR" - surely that's a catch 22! WormTT(talk) 08:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Despite your strawman regarding killings and kidnappings - harassment is a real issue and bigger than a silly little website. As I say, I've seen the vitriol sent to some users, it's hurtful and genuinely harmful. There have been documented suicides from trolling, so it is something that needs to be taken seriously. Can you show me the diff where he's said he retracts the accusation? All I've seen is (paraphrased) "I shouldn't have mentioned it if I wasn't prepared to make a thing of it". That re-enforces the accusation.
As for myself, I don't believe I'm near burnout as yet. I've achieved so much behind the scenes - improving things that I hope you'll never have to hear about. So whilst I may not stand for as much crap from people and be slightly more judgemental, I'm never going to become an "enforcer" who doesn't listen. BlueSalix has many ways back if he wants to edit, but ignoring the problem that he's made is not one of them. WormTT(talk) 08:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Freddo inflation stats now not welcome on Wikipedia![edit]

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

Gender Gap Task Force Issues RFAR[edit]

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

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

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

This group isn't getting much guidance for solving their problem. They took it to ANI, and the thing was closed only a few hours after the voting started. So the only real community comment they got was that if a female editor doesn't want to be harassed, she should hide her identity. The only advice from the closing admin is that they should grow up. [3] I don't know if that's how this guy talks to his grandmother, it sounds pretty condescending to me, but he seemed to like that bit of advice enough to say it twice, not counting the first time he closed the case and had his close challenged. I tried to have a discussion with him on his talk page about it, and he called me "very emotionally involved", "irrational", repeated his "act like an adult" mantra, then he complained about my edit history, and insinuated that I was not a "useful member of Wikipedia". I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see an admin act this way, but I thought it was rude.

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

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