User talk:Worm That Turned

User	Talk	Articles	To Do	Toolbox	Subpages	DYK	Awards

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message!

I'm moving into a period of low activity. Do not expect a rapid response from me.

This user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers.

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

Shirt58

I apologize first of all for transcluding it, but you are right with the "edgy" thing with his RFA. Some of the old guard would cringe on this delay and wouldn't look good on the nominee at all. He needs to make a decision fast, as the further it gets delayed, the more likely issues will be bought up knowing from experience from previous people RFAs. Also on a side note, there is a list of editors I'm looking to nominate for RFA myself, and I want to discuss them with you though email or private IRC chat. I agree RFA needs to be more active, and while the "admin score" thing is extremely flawed from an experienced user perspective, I'm seeing some "diamonds in the rough" candidates as well that should be nominated. Secret ^account 19:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good choice of candidate, I'm looking forward to supporting as soon as it goes live. I have a few in the works as well. About all I have time for lately. I'm not sure the delay hurts so much, I don't remember seeing an oppose over a delay, fwiw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'm also looking forward to supporting Shirt58. He would make a great administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) The Trial by ordeal of Shirt58 has now begun. Shirt58 appears to me a robust little flower. Whatever the outcome, I think he will continue to be a good little contributor. And I should know, as I am Shirt58.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Cosmeticspecialist

Hello Dave, How are you! I am not very familiar with this sort of communication, so please forgive me. I am writing regarding concerns for an addition in Wikipedia regarding 'Juvederm', a product for medical use. There was a recent edit on the 26th of September 2012 - it stated that - 'Due to the hydrophilic nature of Juvederm it is generally not recommended for use under the eyes directly sub-orbital. Many patients have reported "bags" under the eyes which is in effect non-pitting edema due to water retention. Excessive amounts of Juvederm may also cause undesirable results. Hyaluronidase may be injected to reduce the amount of injected Juvederm to a desirable level.' Please note that there has been no scientific medical evidence for this. As a practitioner who uses the product, and one who also works with Allergan who manufactures the product, I have felt it necessary to make the proper corrections, while citing scientific evidence to support the correction. The problem goes even deeper - this entry was made a few days before a patient quoted Wikipedia as a source for bringing a lawsuit against a respected physician. We believe that this entry was deliberate and meant to be misleading. Can you please inform me as to the procedure for requesting the IP address using 'checkuser'? I am not sure whether I should provide the username in this public forum, or whether it should be done via private email. I look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmeticspecialist (talk • contribs)

Hi Cosmeticspecialist. Checkusers do not give out information in cases like this. You're welcome to contact the Wikimedia Foundation, their policy on releasing information is here, however I don't believe you're likely to have much luck on the matter. The unsourced statements were added more than six months ago, and so any information given by the IP address would have changed long ago. I should also mention that Wikipedia is a wiki, which means that anyone visiting the site can edit or add to pages. At the top of each page is an "Edit" link, clicking this allows the page to be edited. In this way, we are creating a collaborative encyclopaedia, written by visitors to the site.
Because anyone can edit, Wikipedia is open to undesirable edits but most of these are corrected by other editors within a very short time. Unfortunately, sometimes things such as this slip through. Worm^TT(talk) 11:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The username is readily apparent from the article history, so there's no problem mentioning it (but no great purpose in doing so).

There is no procedure for requesting the IP address of the username, because Worm That Turned is not permitted to provide you with that information (and nor is any other volunteer Wikipedia editor).

If your concern is to deal with problematic editing of the article, you may wish to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article; or to ask for help at, for example, the talk page of the Medicine Wikiproject, which tends to be frequented by other practitioners. A discussion may reach a consensus that edits to the article have been sufficiently problematic that it needs to be protected in some way. Or indeed (rather harder to establish) that the editor themselves is sufficiently problematic that they should be blocked from editing.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a doctor, thus can't provide advice in either area; but one piece of advice I would give is to avoid practising medicine in any jurisdiction where one can be the subject of a successful lawsuit based solely on medical evidence taken from Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And that's a very good answer too ;) Worm^TT(talk) 11:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Doncram indefinite ban

While it was tempered with an iff, do you sincerely believe that actions taken by Doncram are worth an indefinite ban rather than an indefinite block? This is an issue that Arbs have tended not to consider, and some don't appear to understand, but I hope that they will start now. Ryan Vesey 07:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit of "blocks" in arbitration. Because it is based on an ArbCom decision, it shouldn't be overturned without either Arbcom's say so or community discussion. He's therefore defacto banned. It's pretty clear to me where this lies from WP:BANBLOCKDIFF, so it's definitely a ban that I woudl be looking at. Worm^TT(talk) 12:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

RFAR Comment

I would like to make a personal comment to you about your reply but I also do not want to run afoul of fraternization with an Arb during a case where I've commented. Do you have any concerns with me leaving a comment on your talk page?--v/r - TP 14:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You're always welcome to comment here TParis, on any subject :) Worm^TT(talk) 14:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Trying to remain unbiased in my appraisal of your words, I think you did a good job finding a balance with your comments. I think one of the positive traits of NYB is his ability to see through the politics of Arbcom, and Wikipedia in general, and focus on the facts. His comments generally come out balanced, not for balance sake, in that he addresses each concern with honesty and straight forwardness. I think your reply showed a tinge of NYB-esque and I think you have what it takes to be that voice of reason when he finally gets tired and retires. Keep up the good work. Of course, I could be biased in my opinion because you threw me a bone but I hope I'm not.--v/r - TP 14:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got to say, I've always respected NYB and thought when I joined the committee that I'd end up agreeing with him more often than not... perhaps ending up in his shadow. Having said that, besides this particular instance where my views line up with his almost exactly - it hasn't worked out like that. That's by the by, I appreciate the comments, thank you. I certainly don't know if I'd like to carry on beyond him though, I don't know how he's managed as many years as he has! Worm^TT(talk) 14:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Open letter to 5 randomly selected Wikipedia big shots

If you check user me, and it is very common for curious Wikipedians to do so even though it is wrong, you will see that I used to be a frequent editor several years ago. Some of my edits were from this computer.

Wikipedia is a very hostile environment. After being attacked, the natural reaction is to leave, vandalize, or read but stop editing. I have done the latter. I hope that you will consider the following ideas.

1. It should be deemed a personal attack and a reason to ban an editor if they, lacking the ability to discuss things in a civil and convincing manner, then start to accuse another person of being a sock. This type of behavior is highly effective, showing how juvenile Wikipedia is.

Wikipedia would be far more effective if editors were not allowed to continue to edit if they cannot calmly and rationally discuss issues in the talk pages. This is a far better way to improve an article than to falsely accuse someone of being a sock.

2. Everyone should disclose conflicts of interests. There are plenty. Wikipedia is quick to block someone if their name is a corporate name but allows POV pushers all the time. The most common POV pusher is in biographies of politicians. Some will always push for inclusion of favorable material and exclusion of unfavorable material. They will use excuses such as "undue weight" or "trivia" or will call the other person a sock.

It should be automatically assumed that one is a POV pusher if all their edits are one sided or if they always support a partisan viewpoint in the talk pages. Wikipedia should be neutral.

One way to do it would be for people to disclose possible conflicts on their user page and update them as they edit articles. For example, one could disclose that they are American. Later, if they write about politics, they could disclose that they are a registered party member or a government employee. If they don't want to disclose this, they can stick with botany and animal articles. In academia, people do make disclosures when they give lectures.

3. The last point is not as critical. Wikipedia should try its utmost not to be hypocritical. There have been several cases of unfavorable information about Wikipedia removed from articles and favorable information included. Examples include reporting when entities' own articles have been edited by the entity and then reported in the news. This helps Wikipedia and is included several times. Yet when Wikipedia has egg on its face, like false deaths, even if reported in a news article, is always removed from the article by other editors acting as censors.

Finally, I disclose that I have started an account because I have not edited for so long and do not have my password or even my exact name. It's been years since I edited. VDAWP (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi VDAWP. Thanks for your note - I see you sent to 6 people... so I'll consider myself the "non-bigshot" if that's alright! I do agree that Wikipedia can be a hostile environment, though I've done as much as I can to change that, focussing on areas that I felt were more hostile. I'm glad to see that you haven't mentioned them, so perhaps I've succeeded. As to your points, I'll just play devils advocate for a moment.

1. If an editor makes an accusation of sockpuppetry without credible evidence, that is already a personal attack. With credible evidence, it should be investigated without prejudice. Sockpuppetry can be a problem on Wikipedia, in that it can be used to subvert the decision making process and therefore investigation is necessary. Accuastions should be kept to SPI though, and not thrown around to discredit individuals.
2. Conflict of interests is a difficult one. We have many types of CoI on wikipedia, ranging from those who are financially compensated for their actions to nationalist views to fans. Suggesting every possible conflict of interest is declared is impossible. What's more, the way that wikipedia works means that people will write about subjects they are interested in. I do not believe your suggestion is feasible. Take for example, the "registered party member" in the USA. As I understand it, affiliating with a party is necessary to vote in many states. It doesn't necessarily mean that there is a Conflict of Interest.
3. Perceived hypocrisy is something that is always going to happen on a project like Wikipedia, because there is no editorial board, different people will make different decisions in different situations. I cannot see a solution to this issue in general.

I hope that helps a little bit. If you wish to discuss these ideas further, you are welcome to reply - my talk page staplers and I are likely to be able to discuss matters with you. However, I'd also recommend you discuss these ideas at a higher profile forum, perhaps the village pump, where the community discusses ideas or Jimbo's talk page where debates about the fundamentals of wikipedia regularly take place. Worm^TT(talk) 10:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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 lay 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)