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.

Ludwig van Beethoven

The talk page at Ludwig van Beethoven is about to be the focus of an edit war. There has been a debate on having an infobox for some time and I believe the strength of the arguments are clearly in favour of having an infobox. This partisan closure suggests there is no consensus and therefore no infobox. I have reverted that closure and I'm going to ask you to either review the debate and close it, please, or suggest a neutral admin who might perform the task. Thanks in advance --RexxS (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't really this weekend, not sure who to suggest either... If its still to do on Monday, I'll look. Worm^TT(talk) 20:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no rush, but I think it's now important to have a neutral closure at some point. This is the second time the infobox-opposers have closed a debate themselves in a partisan manner, making a supervote in the process. I didn't make a fuss about the one at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Infobox 3 in an effort to keep the peace, but there needs to be a limit to the subversion of proper process. --RexxS (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's Wednesday, did you look? The latest entry (of just now) said: "All these issues were gone into at vast length in the arb case, & I am sorry to see you apparently joining the ranks of those who simply ignore that case and its decision." - I confess that I doubt that. The case shapes my work every day, but obviously the decision was no solution. Infoboxes will come without Andy and me, I can do something else with my time, so I was helped, but what with the others? Imagine the discussion on Laurence Olivier with everybody sticking to 2 comments, and no revert! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked. The drama instigated fresh discussion, so I'm leaving it a few more days to die down before considering a close. Worm^TT(talk) 09:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought that you looked ;) - I wonder why infobox opponents remember and quote the wording about deciding on article level often, but not so often #6 of the formal decision: "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes , and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." - If you ignore comments violating that (Beethoven or elsewhere), you are done fast. - Look - remember de:Stargazy Pie? - at something more pleasant but not without bitterness, de:Emma Ayres, translated in fond memory from an article by GFHandel who left us over the Bach discussion (not willing to tolerate many things, including "Inconsistencies across articles which are largely due to the bizarre "first major contributor wins" philosophy"), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ps: today is a birthday, look for "peace" in my thanks, dated May 2013, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

more ps: It was in memory of this birthday that I gave Precious to GFHandel three years ago. I wonder if he knows that Handel has an infobox now, and Carmen, Rigoletto, The Rite of Spring and even Victor Bruns, - I miss him, see ibox on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree with letting the debate reach a natural end. If more voices are heard, it can only strengthen the resulting decision. In passing I should note that I feel ArbCom got it wrong again in the way that #6 was phrased. A reminder to observe decorum and to avoid re-litigating entire general debates has been used by one side in an attempt to ignore arguments in favour of an infobox at a particular article, simply because those factors could be generalised to other articles. I'm pretty certain that ArbCom never intended to disqualify reasoned debate just because similar arguments could also be made elsewhere. Or did they? --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Occultzone C E (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I left a talk message on OZ's page. Add or not add to the evidence page as you see fit. I only glanced at the evidence page once, just after you added your first round of material... trying to have as stress free week as I can. Bgwhite (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Question

Do you think OccultZone should be indefinitely blocked once the Arbitration case is over? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No. But if he is unable to accept the result, whatever it is, he may have to be. Worm^TT(talk) 06:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)