User talk:Worm That Turned

User	Talk	Articles	To Do	Toolbox	Subpages	DYK	Awards

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message!

I am probably offline and am unable to respond swiftly. I will respond as soon as I can. Please feel free to send me an email, where I will likely respond faster.

This user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers.

This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

What's Next?

Hey Dave. Now that the Copyright is done and dusted what's up next to do? – Blue☆Stars83 14:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to be paying that much attention! Well, we've got a few options. I'm likely to be as slow as I have been for this course for all the others, and for that I really do apologise. So here's what we can do

1. Call it a day and you'd be welcome to find another adopter
2. Carry on as we are, which might take a few weeks over each course
3. I can post all the courses and tests (except the final one), and you can take them at your leisure, I'll mark them as and when I get time.
4. Something else, you're welcome to suggest.

Any thoughts? Worm^TT(talk) 14:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. I reckon we could go the 'posting all tests option' Be best i spose, don't really fancy switching adopters now, lol. Plus, i can always get Jenova20 to help me out with somethings, and once i finish a test up i'll just post here and let you know about it! – Blue☆Stars83 14:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to! And i'll be a very strict and helpful foster parent. Eventually i may even have you writing proper messages with all the letters on your keyboard =P ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

All at once it is. Worm^TT(talk) 14:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I blame karma but i got a cold around the time i posted that message and had Stevie looking after me for 3 days. I'm back though ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw that

re: this Actually I do have some thoughts on that myself. I have some work to do today, but could throw something together this evening if you're interested. I know you're busy, so I won't pester - just an offer. — Ched :  ?  13:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I welcome suggestions from everyone and anyone. Improvements gotta be a good thing, right? Obviously, I'd prefer things I can actually do, but please do let me know what you're thinking! Worm^TT(talk) 13:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Real quick where I'm going with this: As individuals I have a TON of respect for most all of you. As a collective group? To be blunt, there's times you look like a bunch of disorganized, dysfunctional chickens running around with your heads chopped off. No sense of management, no organization or coordination. Sometimes it seems like you're (the group) huffing and puffing blowing out lit matches - all the while a house fire rages all around you. You need a secretary to keep an organized agenda for the day so the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. I'll throw up something tonight or this afternoon - ty for being so accessible to us Worm, it's much more appreciated than you think. — Ched :  ?  13:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I do know what you mean, I had the same issues when I was looking at the committee. I do agree some more co-ordination would be a good thing, and there have been some attempts towards this since I started. We could probably do with a little more organisation, it's not my strongest point, but I would be interested if you had ideas on how to improve it. The other thing to remember is that half (or say, a quarter) the committee is replaced each year, and experience and common goals are lost at that time, so it takes a little while for the new committee to find it's feet. Acting in a reactionary manner is something we're automatically do as administrators, so it's not surprising that that transfers over to ArbCom. I have considered the idea of a "co-ordinator" position, which is funded by the foundation and a full time longer term role, but I'm not quite sure if it could work. Finally, I'm glad I'm coming across as accessible, it's so important that the committee and the community don't work completely in silos, and if I can bridge that gap, then I'm doing the job I wanted to do when I was elected Worm^TT(talk) 13:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(wandering passerby) I think some of this is relatively normal when you have a project that has outgrown its original organization model. Consensus collaboration works when it's a smallish number of people, but as span increases it becomes unwieldy and difficult to manage (or respond to issues). You also have a fair concentration of people who are vested (or OWN) in the current rules, policies, and structure, and many of them come off as being unwilling to listen to ideas or proposals (or possibly recognize that the project has outgrown those earlier policies and needs to adapt to its current reality). Some of the drama surrounding the role and function of Admins clearly stems from this issue, as does the lack of clearly written policies, essays confused with policy, and some of the neverending fights over what appears to many to be meaningless trivia (the infamous lame edit wars and wiki-specific formatting issues that ignore real world formatting conventions in favor of a "wiki-reality" standard). But that laxity has also allowed a stealthy bureaucracy to creep in and take hold. It's that lack of clarity combined with what can be easily perceived as a shadow structure that some may find off-putting. Simple solution? There likely isn't any, but revision and consolidation of policies is certainly a start. Apologies for the ramble.... Intothatdarkness 15:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As you say, it's relatively normal, but at the same time it's all new and different. Wikis are a different way of working, and in an ideal world, there is no bureaucracy and everything will just work. But suddenly we found that you needed a layer for administration, and then a layer for arbitration and rules just kept coming and coming. Oddly, people are so used to bureaucracy that they actually seem to think it's the only way to make progress or a proper organisation. We could revisit all our policies, it certainly won't make things worse, but the man-hours required would be enormous. Who would want to do that without being paid? Are the people who would want to do that the right people to do it? And please do ramble, I enjoy reading them! Worm^TT(talk) 15:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the work involved, but having slack in policies allows for the creation of bureaucracy (or OWNocracy) that can have unintended and negative consequences. I think it's hard to reasonably contend that there isn't a bureaucracy working here now...it may not be a transparent one, but it's certainly here. And a wide array of thinly-connected policies (and essays that seem to have become de facto policy) makes it easier for folks with agendas (or those that simply mean well but may not grasp the entire picture) to shape those policies to their own ends. And over time they get vested with those policies, making it even harder to consider changing them to meet current conditions. I tend to think that's one reason that suggesting a person work to change policy is simply a polite way of telling them to shove off...there's a fair amount of confidence that given the structure here any policy change is doomed to fail (or at least get terminally sidetracked) as those who are vested (or OWN) come out to push for and against the change. I've wandered about the edges of the civility debate most of my time here, and have seen that phenomenon in action there, along with some of the less attractive tactics used by those on both sides of the discussion. But it also comes out in smaller disputes within content creation. The civil POV pusher is at least as big an issue as someone who curses people out, but there seems to be much less willingness to take on the superficially civil POV person. I guess in the end some of it comes down to the perennial question: is Wiki a collection of football rosters and K-Pop trivia or is it wanting to be a serious academic resource (or some combination of both)? And is wiki actually capable of deciding what it wants to be? It just seems to me that the whole project is at a turning point of sorts...where it's simply become too big and diverse to continue on under the old rules but doesn't seem to want to let go of that past. Intothatdarkness 15:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• In between jobs I threw up a real quick 3 page rough draft at: User:Ched/Arb. I'll try to clarify and clean-up tonight. Input and questions welcome of course. Hey there Into - how goes it? (and TY Worm) — Ched :  ?  16:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Just doing some more rambling, Ched. I should try to stop that, I guess. Intothatdarkness 17:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

you do good Intoo. All good

Seems pointless, though. Those who want change are all too easily driven off by those who have OWNership and are comfortable with how things are. Intothatdarkness 14:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Secret Informers

Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state [1]. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions?  Giano  13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it also concerning that these actions could be seen to target people who have been vocal about their displeasure with certain aspects of Wikipedia's governance and/or operation. I'm not familiar with George (and in fact had never really heard of him until this, but Malleus is a known critic of Wikipedia's governance), but the recent flurry of ArbCom activity involving this sort of thing is concerning...if for no other reason than some might assume that the timing isn't a coincidence. Intothatdarkness 14:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I've seen no discussions regarding targetting people vocal about their displeasure, nor have I see any evidence that this is the case. If it's not coincidence, no one bothered to tell me. Worm^TT(talk) 00:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Note that I didn't accuse anyone of targeting critics, but simply said that it could appear that way given the flurry of blocks and such activity. Intothatdarkness 13:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I cannot tell you who raised the concerns, but editors regularly raise concerns with the committee and the request did not seem out of the ordinary. The reactionary attitude from that point was something I was unhappy with, but my displeasure didn't stop there. The trials you refer to were not trials at all, but rather closer to a sockpuppet investigation, which I am given to understand can happen off-wiki, followed by discussions on how best to handle the situation once we found ourselves in it. The committee disagreed on the fundamental outcome of the investigation. Diffs for the "serious crimes" differ depending on whether there is one person or two behind the accounts. How each Arb voted, you can see on the only motion that got sufficient support to pass. I will say that I voted against the other motion NW mentioned, here, and for one that dismissed this the matter all together. Worm^TT(talk) 00:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that you're correct that checks and sockpuppet investigations take place off-wiki on a routine basis. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

How often? For what reason? I think that most editors believed until now that checkusers were subject to policy. Malleus Fatuorum 05:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

They are subject to policy, Malleus. There is absolutely nothing in either this project's checkuser policy or the WMF checkuser policy that requires sockpuppet investigations to take place publicly. In fact, I suspect that only a minority of blocks for sockpuppetry are made based on SPIs (although I've never done the math). Hundreds of cross-wiki vandal/spammer checks and blocks are done every month. Sweeps are made of ranges where specific longterm vandals are known to create armies of sockpuppets to identify sleeper accounts before they become disruptive and abusive. Checkusers watch specific pages that are known to be targeted by longterm sockpuppeters and vandals. The English Wikipedia is the WMF project most regularly attacked by vandals, spammers, and disruptive SPAs who just won't go away; it may not be noticeable in the areas of the project where you work, but it's a major problem in some other areas. Risker (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

But surely the reasons for checkuser ought not to be secret, whatever the conclusions may be. So ArbCom claims to have received an email a few hours/minutes after George Ponderevo opposed an RfA candidate nominated by two ArbCom members, in an obvious attempt to try and invalidate George's vote. Was there really any such email? What did it say? When I asked Coren about a similar situation with his friend Rlevse he admitted to me that all he did was ask him if it was true, and when he said it wasn't Coren promptly forgot about it. There are many questions here, but precious few answers. Who sent the email, what did it say, was there even an email at all? Malleus Fatuorum 06:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the email pointed out a discussion on one of the village pumps that both accounts had serially commented on.[2] The RFA vote wasn't mentioned, but was identified in the review of editing activity. I have no knowledge of a discussion between Coren and Rlevse. Risker (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You may have no knowledge of a discussion between Coren and Rlevse, but I do, and I'd quite happily forward it on if thought it might make any difference. But why not post the contents of the email ArbCom claims to have received and let everyone judge whether or not it justified a checkuser? With the timestamps intact preferably. The village pump discussion you link to is no proof of anything, except that sensible people sometimes agree. Was it a vote? Did it in some way distort policy? Was it in some way disruptive? At the very least I'd like to know why Coren took a much more lenient view of Rleve's alleged sockpuppeting with PumpkinSky, also reported by email, than he did of mine. Could it possibly be because I'm not one of his friends? Malleus Fatuorum 07:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's the differing standards which were clearly applied by Coren which cause so much dissent. I cannot understand why the email's content cannot be disclosed; I am beginning to wonder what exactly it alleged about Malleus. Obviously, because of the secrecy and Arbcom reaction, it's alleging serious crime. If he's some sort of pervert or criminal we have a right to know who we are mixing with. If he's not, then the Arbcom has a duty to strenuously clear his name; that can only be really acheived by publishing the email.  Giano  09:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

benefit package

we found that you needed a lay for administration . So that's why so many editors go for Rfa! NE Ent 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but I've been waiting for my lay for ages... no luck yet :| Worm^TT(talk) 00:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please elaborate

Please do elaborate. I must be misunderstanding something there.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Coren appears to be saying that the only reason someone would behave like I do is to get re-elected. He believes this behaviour is damaging to the committee. I believe it is essential to improve the committee, and has nothing to do with me wanting to be re-elected. Worm^TT(talk) 00:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh. We all know you're here for the good of the committee. :)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sirs:

Coren should have shielded his contempt for the community and for the election of ArbCom, if he thinks that it is a problem wanting to have support in the community and doing the job of ArbCom.

WTT has previously taken unpopular or unwise (i.e., contrary to my wisdom) positions when he has thought he was doing right.

Let us hope that Coren shall reconsider his statement, and offer an apology to you and the community, more for his own good name and conscience than for any damage his complaint caused you---Coren's complaint probably raised your standing even higher.

(You should have opposed the final statement, but I understand that it is difficult to be right for weeks or months when you are surrounded by foolishness.)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm impressed

Hi... I have been watching ArbCom for years, and go through periods of editing / commenting. I wanted to tell you that I have noticed some of your recent posts / actions and that I have been impressed. I was glad to see when you noticed the prior actions of Kevin in the BLP deletions and saw that maybe that ArbCom had encouraged an unhelpful degree of BOLD-action (though I also felt the "emergency" desysop was a bad decision). You have been offering clearer and more forthright comments than are typical from Arbitrators (excluding NYB) and I think that is a positive development. I've seen you requesting comments on ArbCom, which is also encouraging to see. ArbCom have certainly made a huge mess recently but I wanted to say that you have earned at least one editor's respect for trying to handle the situations well. Regards, EdChem (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you EdChem, I do appreciate the comments. There's a chasm growing out there, and I'm just one chap. Hopefully I'm one chap, in the right place, saying the right things and I can make a difference. If you've got any advice or thoughts for improvement, I'd love to hear them. Worm^TT(talk) 00:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here are a few thoughts on current messes (I'll sign each so you can respond to each point if you wish):

• On the Malleus mess, it is clear that Committee has been deeply divided. It is also clear that the CU technical evidence is substantial. What is not clear is what evidence justified the use of CU in the first place and what abusive editing MF and GP have done. AGK posted some links at WT:ACN, which I appreciated but found unpersuasive. Would you be willing / able to post evidence in the form of diffs and on-wiki activities that would support the original use of the CU tool? Some editors appear to be of the view that CU showed a connection so its use must have been justified, but my understanding is that policy doesn't work that way. I know one of your colleagues has mentioned GP posting whilst MF was blocked... is this correct, and is there any evidence that the accounts were misused to influence consensus, double !voted, etc? Giano is not the only editor worried about these issues, so I ask if you might be able to post to provide information to reduce tension and try to avoid further drama. Revealling to original complainant is something I recognise that you cannot do, but providing the non-privacy-precluded portions of the evidence that supported the investigation being initiated seems to me to be a reasonable request. Evidence that ArbCom began the checks on a reasonable and policy-supported basis would reduce tensions, I believe. EdChem (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oversight-only blocks: ArbCom passed a motion unanimously, but it was hardly uncontroversial as it appears to impose policy by fiat. Leaving aside whether ArbCom had the power to do what it did (and the on-going discussion at WT:BLOCK shows continuing frustration), I want to suggest a way forward that might provide a win-win solution. I propose that a member of ArbCom begin an RfC at WT:BLOCK, stating that ArbCom has passed a motion but that implementation would be best by an RfC-supported consensus wording for the policy. The RfC could discuss whether adminstrators "should not" reverse or should only reverse in special circumstances or "must not" act on oversight blocks. There could be a sensible discussion (which was missing at ArbCom, in my opinion) of when the oversighted materials are known to the unblocking administrator, or when the oversighter has set forth a position on when an unblock is possible (where administrators might reasonably disagree as to whether the criteria had been met). Once these sorts of issues have been discussed, a wording can be proposed and !voted on. I think that some deliberate invitation of community views and looking for consensus might reduce some of the animosity about unilateral policy determination. I said win-win because the consensus view will be along the lines the Committee seeks, given that your view will be / is shared by former arbitrators, functionaries, many administrators and "ordinary" editors. The problem was not that ArbCom's position on oversight blocks was unreasonable, it was that its method for achieving policy change was provocative and generated resistance. ArbCom need not state that its action was wrong or unsupported by policy but taking some time to achieve wording consensus by community methods is worth it to smooth over community-committee relations. EdChem (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ques's

You suggested you wanted to address these questions here [3] Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You're #1

Hi Dave, Hope you are well. Parents have favorite children, but they don't admit it for obvious reasons. I have lived by that philosophy here at Wikipedia... until now. You are my favorite. You are the number one Wikipedian. You care deeply about the project and I am very thankful you are here supporting Wikipedia. You're doing a good job and I appreciate you efforts. I just thought you could use some support during these trying times. If I can make your wiki-life even the slightest bit more enjoyable, then I am more than happy to do so. Kind regards. 64.40.54.27 (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow you've gone from top 5 to #1 in like a week. HaugenErik (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. Thank you IP, your comments mean a lot but I can't agree with being #1. Our primary goal here is to build an encyclopedia and although I've helped out there are thousands of editors who've done far far more than me. I do care, I can see areas for improvement and I believe I can make a difference, but #1? No, I can't accept that honour. Worm^TT(talk) 10:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

	The Arbitrator's Barnstar
	I seem to be in the minority, but I still have faith in the ArbCom, and that is in no small part due to you being on it. Thank you for what you have submitted yourself to, and I hope, for the sake of you and for the sake of the encyclopedia as a whole, that things calm down and everyone can get back to building content. Thank you for your work. A grateful Go Phightins! 19:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I second the above. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say I have faith in ArbCom, but I do have hope. If there's one thing I take from recent events, it's that there's still a hardcore elitist attitude at ArbCom, with a number of members appearing to think they're better than the rest of us and are unaccountable - Worm's approach of serving rather than ruling the community, and of opposing dictatorship, makes a refreshing change. The last ArbCom elections got rid of some of the worst, but there's a lot more that needs to be done if that chasm is to be closed. (And as an aside, Coren has sadly proven himself to be as out-of-touch as I suggested during the elections). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'd agree with that, but Worm is only one against many. As am I, and as are you. Malleus Fatuorum 09:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  Good point - we need more ones. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all. I may not agree with the decisions of the committee all the time, but I'd worry if I did. However, it's a long road to a committee I could be happy with, and hopefully when recent events have died down we'll be able to make a bit more progress. Worm^TT(talk) 10:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello WormTT, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers! Arctic Kangaroo 15:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)