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.

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)

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)

  I should say that the technical evidence against Malleus is beyond substantial, it was pretty close to unquestionable. It's for that reason that many members of the committee dismissed alternate possibilities and we got ourselves into this mess. There are strong behavioural reasons that I believed that they were not the same person, but they were not persuasive to everyone.

  But that's not what you're asking. You are asking whether a CU was justified at the time. The checkuser was based on the fact that the policy had been violated (both accounts had edited the project space) and allegations were credible - it was also stated that the intention was to exonerate Malleus, as few of us believed Malleus was the sort to use sockpuppets. This was sufficient to call the actions justifiable. I personally felt that the justification was not sufficient, as did a number of my collegues, but the checkuser had been made before I was even aware of the thread. One arbitrator cross posted his opinion that a checkuser was not justified at the same time the result was given. This is an example of the reactionary nature of the committee, wanting to right wrongs quickly. It is something that we've discussed at length since and I have already seen improvement in the committee when a similar case came up recently.

  Retroactively, it was clear that if they were the same person, they had violated many inappropriate uses of alternate accounts and I think that a checkuser would have been justified after a little more investigation. Topics and style of editing was similar. George carried on editing whilst Malleus was blocked 1, George edited project space (Village pump and RfA 2), the pair appeared to tag-team edit war (which is dubious, but both did edit the same article) 3 and even arguably "Good Hand, Bad Hand" editing. There are a number of instances where mention was made by George of Malleus or vice versa which appeared to a certain reading to be evading scrutiny. When looked at these would have justified an investigation, and since SPI would not have touched it due to the subject, Arbcom was the right place to do it.

  Of course, if these were different people, the vast majority of these technical violations fell down. The accounts did not particularly attempt to influence consensus, so under a "spirit" reading of policy rather than a "letter" reading, there was less of a problem. We start having to worry about shared accounts and meatpuppetry, but they're different problems. Worm^TT(talk) 14:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  I appreciate your response. I have been pondering the situation, and thinking... I wonder if there was a discussion of whether or not to run a CU coming to a consensus, or if one of the committee acted unilaterally to run the CU before or during any debate. I am also wondering whether the controversy over the running of the CU suggests a problem with the standards that the CU group have adopted. To me, on reading WP:CHECK, I get the impression that evidence of misconduct is suppose to be integral to the evidence needed for a CU to be run - but the evidence on this point in the MF case is somewhere between weak and absent. Maybe the community view should be canvassed, to see whether the standards that are applied match those that are generally viewed as reasonable? EdChem (talk) 11:11, 22 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)

  I do like this idea, and so I'm going to talk to the rest of the committee about doing it. I don't believe that the committee did create policy by fiat, but then I would say that! I suggested an RfC myself on the motions page, but didn't really consider actually creating one. So, on this point at least, I'll have to get back to you. Worm^TT(talk) 14:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  I don't recall ever before having an arbitrator respond like that to one of my suggestions, so thank you. I will be interested to hear whether this idea is taken up. EdChem (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  It would probably be better to have an RFC on all special blocks (ie Checkuser, Oversght, OTRS, Office, ArbCom) as there's a fair amount of shared ground (material which cannot in practical terms be publicly reviewed) and they're not all covered in policy. It would also mean that the particular bit of the blocking policy could become less duplicatory.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ques's

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

Hi Alan. I'm sorry for the delay here. Real life overtook Wikipedia for a couple of days, but I've been keeping these questions in my mind. Hopefully now I'll have some answers for you.

• If there is a chasm, what is its cause?
• Does the community (whatever that is) not understand what the committee is supposed to do?
• Does the committee not understand what it is supposed to do?
• Does the committee not understand policy?
• Has the community not articulated policy?
• Is what the committee decides only "right," if it is popular with whomever shows up to protest?

6 questions, but far more answers than that. I believe the chasm has a number of factors and I don't know them all. What I do know is that we do not live in a society where we blindly trust those who make decisions, and that wikis were created to build openness and allow free access to all. That's not the model of ArbCom, where discussions are private and never released. When a decision is reached, it's crafted well and placed on a noticeboard to allow discussion after the fact, but the longer Arbcom runs then the more decisions it will make and the more people it will annoy.

So what we need to do is work out a way to minimise the annoyed people. The decisions still have to be made and Arbcom shouldn't be shying away from making them, but I've found that people can accept decisions if they understand the reasons for those decisions and are given time to prepare themselves. In other words, communication is key. It allows people to collect their thoughts and draw their own conclusions - they shouldn't be shocked by any decisions. That's where the chasm lies, the committee doesn't appear to respect the community enough which leads to the community not trusting the committee.

The worst part is that the majority of what the committee does, it does well. I wouldn't have believed how well myself until I got a chance to look behind the curtain. Discussion is robust, privacy is respected and decisions are made. Arbcom has to deal with so much, primarily because no one else will and these things need to be handled. The community often doesn't see what the committee does, things like acting as a place where you can state if your family member has started editing or child protection requests or unban requests, but they're handled. No mess, no fuss. It's where the committee doesn't get it right and the community can't understand why that we get problems.

The committee does what it needs to do, which does mean that it's remit has extended beyond the hypothetical "sorting intractable disputes" which people think of when they think of "arbitration". Is that what it is supposed to do? Yes, I think so, these are tasks that need to be done. Does the community understand that? As a whole, yes, I believe it does. There are vocal people who'd want it torn down, but in general I think that the community is happy that it does what needs to be done.

Policy is more difficult, I don't believe policy is black and white on all situations and Arbcom deals with the "edge-cases". If it was clear, Arbcom wouldn't be needed. It doesn't help that one of the founding rules is to ignore the others if it improves the encyclopedia. So yes, I think that the committee understands policy and is willing to think around policy to determine the spirit of the policy and how that would apply. The community shouldn't be getting bogged down in sorting every minute detail of every possible scenario, I think that it has articulated policy correctly.

Finally, the fact that there is a decision from the committee is often enough for the community to move forwards. Whether that decision is right or wrong is not as important as the fact that a decision has been made. Every decision that arbcom makes is destined to be the "wrong" one for someone, so there will generally be protestations, it's just a fact of life. I hope that's covered everything, but feel free to discuss further! Worm^TT(talk) 12:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:44, 18 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)

sure

No problem. Yep, I did notice that it's (wiki discussion) been rather .. ummm .. active(?) lately. I had also dropped the link on Risker's page btw. Anyway - I'll leave it alone, and my door is always open. — Ched :  ?  11:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. One thing though, just to get it clear in my mind, do you believe this new page should be on-wiki? Our agenda often includes information that cannot be disclosed on wiki, be it for reasons of privacy or just that having an item on the agenda would create controversy... especially if we decide to do nothing. I'm sure you can imagine a situation like that. Worm^TT(talk) 11:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be something on wiki; although obviously for the reasons you mention there are things that need to be said off stage (so to speak). I can only speak for myself - but I sometimes feel like the Arbitration Committee has completely lost touch with the community. Sometimes it seems like you (the collective) disappear for days and weeks on end - and then come out of left field with some stone tablets pronouncing some almighty new "rule of law" from some ivory tower that the common masses aren't even allowed to look upon. As an editor I wonder "who do these people think they are"? As an admin. I wonder "why the hell aren't you guys helping us"? We don't want to know when you put the dog out, or scratch your butt - but it would be nice to have a place to look and know what you're up to. If Arb1, Arb2, and Arb3 are busy reading through evidence on a case for a few days - then we know you're doing what we ask of you. I see a benefit in the "does the right hand know what the left hand is doing" as well. You folks in this current administration are still getting to know one another, I get that. I understand that any new group takes time to find its footing. It's just that recently it seems that instead of watching a once a year "All Star" game, we're watching some sandlot group who aren't even sure of the fundamentals yet.

Normally I'm content to have my say and let you folks know if I have a strong opinion; and then I'm happy to let you deal with it. I know it's easy for a voice to get lost in all the white-noise, but people like to at least be acknowledged and know that they are listened to. I do have a few examples too - but I'll do that later maybe. I've got some r/l things to do for a bit, but I will follow up if there's an interest. Thank you for listening Dave. Have a great day, Best always — Ched :  ?  11:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I do like the idea of something on Wiki, even if it's only one person updating it. You'd need an active arb to regularly do it though, as they're the only ones who know what's going on. The current agenda on the Arbwiki is not regularly updated, we're still getting used to having one I think. I do worry about what would happen if it wasn't updated for a couple of weeks, we'd have a bigger problem than we do now. I'll need to look into the mailing list solutions to see if there's a way of outputting "epics" - areas of discussion, which we could say we're dealing with. That way we could also give an indication of how much work is going into a specific area too looking something like "Case A: 20 emails, Case B: 40 emails, Unblock requests: 40 active - 100 emails, other privacy matters: 70 emails". That would let the community know what we're dealing with and the split of our resources too. However, I've not got my teeth into the new mailing systems so I don't know if it's possible and doing it manually to that level would be difficult.

As for the idea of saying what Arbs are doing, it doesn't really work like that, at least not for me. I don't put down everything to read through evidence, I follow it as it gets added. I'll then spend an hour or so refreshing myself and come to a decision. Having said that, it might be helpful to have an extension of the members list, but with useful additional information. For example it could state other areas an arb is working (AUSC/BASC/CUOS appointments), so that there's a centralised place for this information. Worm^TT(talk) 12:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing we have some similar thoughts on this. Speaking of "agenda" - mine is headed south in a hurry today, but I will put "agenda" on my "agenda" - It may not be tonight, but I will follow through on this rather than just dropping it. In one sentence: I think that a habitual breakdown in communications causes far more drama and problems than needed. ttys — Ched :  ?  15:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Ye 'ole Broken Tuchusref Barnstar
		For your extended efforts, and breaking yon Gluteus maximus (your backside, behind, butt, rear-end - OK "Busting Ass") to maintain the drama levels of Wikipedia, Ched would like to award you (da Worm) the Broken Tuchus Barnstar.

• real quick post tonight ... thought you might get a kick out of this - and yea, You earn it on a daily basis. We both came into the project as far as "registered user names" about the same time - and .... Desiderata. TTYS Dave. :) — Ched :  ?  22:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser?

Heyas Worm, are you available to run a CU for me? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to ask for CU stuff and am a little bit busy at the moment, sorry. Worm^TT(talk) 11:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, no worries. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

smiles

if only huh? :) — Ched :  ?  11:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's one of my favourites. Worm^TT(talk) 12:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy

Hi WTT.

Captain Occam is a site-banned editor who has been involved in repeated arbcom campaigns against me on wikipedia. When topic-banned he edited through his girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin, who inherited his topic ban. He then brought in at least two other off-wiki friends to help him bypass his topic ban. Eventually he stopped adding content and just engaged in arbcom proceedings firstly against me and then against others (MastCell, Orangemarlin). When Orangemarlin was recovering from major surgery and not editing wikipedia, Captain Occam pressed for him to be site-banned (following the Abortion case). Subsequently Risker blocked both of them. Because of issues connected with proxy-editing, Captain Occam and his girlfriend were site-banned in May 2012. Subsequently the two editors who had edited on their behalf attempted to continue arbcom proceedings against me. One of them is now indefinitely banned and the other, outside arbcom pages, had effectively stopped editing wikipedia.

Captain Occam is now using wikipediocracy as a base for continuing his campaign against me. That is all he seems to do there. In every thread he enters, his posts seem geared to some form of attack on me. Captain Occam has not been truthful in his submissions on wikipedia, so when he repeats himself off-wikipedia, the statements are even more questionable. Please do not allow you yourself to be trolled by him. If you want information about him, ask Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies, Carcharoth or Risker. I am sorry this has happened, but that is one of the perils of wikipediocracy. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mathsci. Thanks for the note. I don't consider his action's trolling at the moment - he's expressing his point of view and I specifically suggested in that thread that I was happy to hear people's points of view. I'm glad to see your response, which if true (I haven't investigated), seems reasonable. Either way, there's no point in drudging the past further on this matter, I'm trying to improve things going forward. Worm^TT(talk) 10:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Good luck with getting things back to normal :) Mathsci (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 talk page

Hi Worm. Your comment there seems to have resulted in the page being fully protected, which is not called for by any policy. There actually are many needs to post to the talk page. We have bots and editorial processes where Cla68 would receive routine notices about article or image business. Even if Cla68 is blocked, his friends watch that page and could be fixing things. Could you have a look, and try to rectify this? I had proposed a notice limiting discussion to content matters, and directing any discussion of the block to a suitable venue, with a warning that misplaced comments could be removed. Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Worm That Turned,

Do you believe that every Wikipedian (I do not mean vandals, pedophiles or criminals) should have the right to defend/explain his actions during the Arbitration Committee and/or the Wikipedia community discussions regarding himself, if that defense/explanations involves no outing, no secret information and no harm to the project ? If your answer to my question is "no", could you please provide some examples of the exceptions as you see them. Thanks. 71.198.215.196 (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)