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.

ARCA

I don't know if - in what you called a mess - you saw my suggestion to permit one new exception trom the topic ban: A new DYK nomination, with a personal invitation for TRM, where no other reviewer has yet shown up (reviewer meaning someone who left a DYK-icon, not someone who fixed a link or suggested a different wording). I don't see how that could cause conflict, because further reviewers could decide to seek interaction or avoid it. The normal thing, however, would be a review just between nominator(s) and TRM. I think it's worth trying. - I am pleased with the latest helpful GA review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, that's what I had seen at the beginning, and what I was hopeful for. However, I do not see that this is a solution - you are specifically suggesting that further reviewers might feel the need to avoid it. That's not a good thing. What about those reviewers who don't avoid it, either because they don't know the history (and end up in a dispute) or do know and don't care. Until TRM is willing to focus on improving his interactions, I'm not going to support letting him go back into an area where his interactions have been seen to be problematic in the past. Worm^TT(talk) 12:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In a way, that's good for me because then he will have more time for GA reviews. - I better won't muse that whether he's been civil or not seems to depend a lot on who is talking to him, and their perspective, and that I have felt belittled on DYK but not ever by him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You know what? TRM almost never has difficulties with his interactions at FL, FAC, GA etc, because those venues are packed with people who, in the vast majority, are only interested in one thing: producing a high quality experience at Wikipedia. TRM's various problems down the years at the pages relating to Main page content have been beset by problems because they attract so many editors totally uninterested in quality, only either collecting gold stars from teacher for successful noms, or battling to constantly feed a ravenous beast, which is the DYK machine that requires so much fodder who the heck has time to slow down and ensure the noms are properly vetted? Arbcom have said on many many occasions that DYK (and to a lesser extent OTD/ITN) needs to be looked at in the round, but you have ducked the responsibility again and again. I urge you to look at the problem without focus on individuals and sort it out. Because the vested voices in the subject drown out those in favour of quality in the shop window of this encyclopedia. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Dweller, I don't know enough about TRM's history outside of DYK (and Arbcom), but I can believe that TRM hasn't had problems in those areas, and again for the reason you say. As to DYK, there's a balance to be had - it was designed as carrot, for those who wanted to create or expand articles. That little ego boost to know people were reading what you've written. It wasn't ever meant to be "the best the encyclopedia has to offer" like FA, but instead to be a bit of "what's new" and encouraging new editors to come in. There are quite a few people who believe the standard for DYK should be higher - and that's not something that Arbcom can fix. If I remember rightly one of the remedies in that very case was The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. An RfC perhaps? I personally think the encyclopedia has reached sufficient maturity that DYK should only include recent GAs, but I could be in the minority there. Worm^TT(talk) 13:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been on DYK from a few days into my career here, which will be 10 years soon, and always found it great for presenting the little article. Johann Münzberg is planned to appear on his birthday, and would never be a GA. I like the DYK process, and the first general improvement would be to speak better of it. I monitor the DYK for Opera and Germany, and both are fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I think DYK would be immensely improved by having 1 set of hooks per day. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That's what we have. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad things have changed. That must help. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding: If you click on Germany, the first thing in the table is "24 Hours", and the last time we had 12 hours was 15 March. I make you a little table of the users who commented, their number of DYK, and mentionings of their name on the current nom page

user	number of DYK credits	current nompage comments
Gatoclass	41	3
Casliber	762
Narutolovehinata5	68	133
Banedon
Gerda Arendt	1,505	83
Mendaliv	3
StudiesWorld	5	7
valereee	13	18
Purplebackpack89	4
Sandstein	36
Masem	35
Jip Orlando
Jehochman		2
Davey2010	1
Vanamonde93	77
SchroCat	6
BlueMoonset	38	23
Bilorv	12	2
Thryduulf	2
Alanscottwalker	12	1
MJL	1
SL93	170	23
Leaky caldron
Sir Joseph	1	2

You can draw from it what you like. I see someone crying the loudest who doesn't have a single DYK credit nor comment on the current nominations, so shouldn't be too afraid of alleged incivility, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, that's a cool chart. How did you make it? StudiesWorld (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

For the second column, you go to any nomination, which will have a box on the right, in which you find a link "QPQ check", supposed to give you how many DYK credits a user has (so when below five, they are exempt from a qui-pro-pro review, - but beware, the program counts both creator credit + nominator credit). Click on it, enter the user name (with exact spelling, so Casliber, not Cas Liber as he signs), and you will get a result, take the highest number. For the last column, I just entered the name in the search function on the page and took the number of matches. Disregarding if the name was just called, - it's enough of an indication if someone is active NOW. You could find out edits of a user on some page ever, but I don't think it's relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom should weight heavily the opinions of those doing the heavy lifting at DYK. Over the peanut gallery. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel the opposite: Arbcom might disregard the voices of those who have nothing or not much to do with DYK. - I presented what I think is a model review, by TRM. I was polite enough not to present an example of what makes me suffer, which is not by TRM. In about 10 years of experience, I have had reviews by many users, and taken them as they come, not asking friends to do them. At present, I am tempted to uninvite, and it's not TRM. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Gerda you didn't include me in the table, the 70+ reviews I've done which not one single person commenting at the ARCA has even noted. Indeed, remarking on my track record of reviews is considered "bragging" so it would be great if someone else could brag on my behalf. It's all about the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 23:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to show who is NOT active, and I believe even the most superficial observer of the DYK scene knows that you watch it and contribute ;) - At the arbs: how is this: instead of listening to the people who watch ARCA, ask those watching DYK? You could make a modest proposal for improvement, such as: "TRM may review "fresh" nominations when invitited", and put it on the DYK page, for those to say "good idea" or "better not" who are actually active. The normal review process requires nobody else, no interaction other than the nominator(s) and the reviewer. (It's not like FAC, where several will review, more like GAN where one reviewer is responsible.) There was a thread on WT:DYK pointing at ARCA, but archived. - Today is the centenary of a person who loved building bridges. I try ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Gerda, the system is designed to encourage participation from those less invested in a process - it's the weight of the arguments that matters. Indeed, being invested in an area custs both ways and often "fresh eyes" on a situation can find a solution. That said, I do see the point made in the table clearly, and will take it under consideration. Worm^TT(talk) 07:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand, thank you, and I'd welcome "fresh eyes". (I missed or forgot the arbcase that lead to this, as much else that year, but have the feeling that TRM has followers who may be not so "fresh". I may be wrong, but general remarks about incivility without a single recent example makes me feel uneasy, "civility" being understood so many ways.)

TRM, I think you would be much more welcome by fresh and old eyes if everything you say was strictly to a specific article and hook(s), not "the DYK process", and not about any specific user. Also, two comments in a given discussion is a good goal ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

TRM, welcome to my page. I don't remember seeing you here before. I'm not certain you need to brag about your achievements, I don't think anyone is questioning your capabilities on quality. My concern is your interactions with others, especially with others who work in an area that has lower standards than you would desire.
What's the endgame though? Is this request a first step towards something, and if so, why did you not request it yourself?
I have been thinking about it overnight and one solution which would mitigate my concerns would be to allow you to review, but not to participate in subsequent discussions after the review has been marked as complete. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that. Worm^TT(talk) 07:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you're confusing stating clear and bare facts with bragging. I have to provide evidence so people can make evidence-based decisions. All areas I review have lower standards than I desire or else my reviews would be pointless. Feel free to take a look at some of my recent GA reviews. You'll note they go into considerable detail, certainly above and beyond the bare requirements, but they cause no issues and invariably result in improved articles. Why does there need to be an "endgame"? Many people have asked me to review their nominations at the place I cannot mention, and I simply cannot, although if it were a GAN, a FAC, an FLC etc, then of course it would be no problem (clearly an absurd lop-sided situation). So the purpose of the request was to actually help those people who had requested my assistance. Why did I not request it myself? I think that's pretty clear from the way in which, even in the face of pretty stark support, many Arbs are just voting against me because I'm me. But in any case, that's just a bureaucratic note, Ritchie clearly saw the odd paradox (i.e. I can review every other nomination in every other part of Wikipedia, and have reviewed at least 67 DYKs without a problem) and called it out for what it is - plainly absurd. In any case, who brought the ARCA is somewhat irrelevant at this stage. For the avoidance of doubt, and while I fear I am repeating myself for about the fourth time, I have stated that I will interact only with the nominator throughout the review. I don't really understand how that can be misinterpreted or misunderstood. I have not requested to participate in anything else, especially "subsequent discussions after the review has been marked as complete". All I would do is reserve the right to note if the hook or article has been corrupted between my review and the main page at the existing WP:ERRORS2 page per the current arrangements (and given the tinkering that goes on, especially from some of those for whom English is not their first language, there is sadly a strong likelihood that this may occur). The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I'm not accusing you of bragging, you're welcome to toot your own horn as much as you like - it was your words, not mine, and my point was that I'm aware of the quality of your work. Many people have asked me to review their nominations - I had not realised this was an ongoing issue, I don't suppose you have a few examples from before the current ARCA?
As for the "will only interact with the nominator", whilst a noble intention, I fear that if this was codified, it would be used against you - arguing that a comment made refers to someone else. I appreciate your being open to my suggestion on subsequent discussions, and have no problems with your mentioning things at ERRORS2 Worm^TT(talk) 09:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No, as you know I'm banned from discussing the project so any mentions or requests have been long deleted. Gerda has made a few, perhaps she can dig those up. I'm not sure I follow your point about my noble intention. I will be performing a review on an article and a hook, purely content-related. I can't recall in the thousands of reviews I've made in the past ever needing to refer to a specific individual user or their behaviour. Why would this suddenly start to happen? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, Thanks for your response. My point regarding "noble intention" was that it was a good idea and were something to pass I would recommend you stuck to it, but it shouldn't be codified. I can well imagine someone joining the discussion with a point, you responding tangentially to the point and then being brought to AE for "interacting with someone other the than the nominator", which is the last thing I want to see. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is that if someone decided to join in the review, then I would have to assess the situation and be prepared to walk away and leave the nomination to someone else (all perfectly apt and commensurate with the existing process) because there are too many people watching and waiting for me to make even the slightest mistake or interpret things the way they wish to, and that simply wouldn't be worth it. I do note that the vast majority of DYK reviews are conducted solo. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, that is exactly what I hoped to hear. Thank you. Worm^TT(talk) 09:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"Perhaps I'll go and nominate another one"

[1] I can always hand in my tools if you like? I never did, nor, with a fine disregard for logic and equal treatment, did the Foundation desysop me. But we can remedy that, and then you can nominate me. IMO that'll be a better RFA than that Floquenbeam's. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, I meant nominating an admin to be a crat. Now, I have my eye on one, but I'm sure I could nominate you for 'cratship if you'd like! Worm^TT(talk) 09:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, I see what you were saying now. I thought you meant you wanted to see another fun RFA just like Floq's! No, don't nominate me for 'crat, please, that would be a bloodbath. Don't you know I reverted a WMF action? Bishonen | talk 09:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, Pfft. I'm sure it will be fine. No one ever questions my judgement, and everyone loves you. Worm^TT(talk) 09:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Pie in the sky! Bishonen | talk 10:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC).

Once recused, stop influencing the discussion

With your comment,

trying to extract the question of "should this individual be an administrator" from the "should the Foundation have blocked Fram"

you are implying that there is a problem in the discussion with differentiating these two issues. That's introducing bias, and incompatible with the notion of abstaining.

Thank you.

Samsara 11:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Samsara, I'm sure you also have issue with my statement that this was a difficult decision as it's a reconfirmation RfA, or that I thought it was fly through, or Dweller's comment that he found WMF's actions appalling, but disagreed with Floquenbeams actions, or Nihonjoe's comment "stating I supported what Floquenbeam did, and that I thought the Wikimedia Foundation (and especially T&S) were acting like morons when they blocked Fram", and I'm sure you'll be reminding them in a moment. Consider me told off for introducing bias, which clearly the experienced individuals who are making the decision will not be able to look beyond. Worm^TT(talk) 11:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be ironic that this sort of lofty attitude was one of the arguments against having Floq as an admin? How does that reflect on a crat? Samsara 11:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Samsara I'm not one for a lofty attitude generally, but given that pretty much every step I take at the minute is massively criticised, and I'm currently trying to work through one of the heftiest cases Arbcom has taken on in a while at the same time as another case for which there is no good outcome, I'm rather ... testy. You didn't deserve it. Worm^TT(talk) 12:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

My supposed feelings are not of interest. Do you accept that the point is valid, as Leaky caldron reiterated, and will you respect this principle in future? Samsara 12:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Samsara, My apology was for the tone I took, which you did not deserve, feelings or not. Yes, I see where you are coming from, yet, I do not see that statement was more egregious than the other four I alluded to. Since, however, three of said statements came from myself, I will try keep your comments in mind for the future. Worm^TT(talk) 12:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You should not underestimate the weight that your personal endorsement carries. I would far rather you and other members of Arb Com., in particular OR with her onerously long support - kept completely out of matters connected to any Fram-related participant apart from the one you are directly charged with - namely the Arbcom. case. It is intermeddling of the worst kind. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, you are probably right. At the same time, I do consider myself part of the community, and feel I should be part of community discussions. It's a balance that is hard to find. Worm^TT(talk) 12:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you are embarked on the biggest, most controversial issue to hit en-WP during the 13 years I have been here. There is much at stake. For everyone's sake, including your own - it would be better to be monk-like for a month. Best. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't guarantee anything, but will do my best. Worm^TT(talk) 12:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

To Samsara: Recusing Crats are also members of the community and are as welcome as any other member of the community to help us think through decisions. You should be applauding Worm's ethical stance of recusing, rather than hitting him with it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dweller: Crat only chat is a different matter as that is closed to the "any other member of the community" group, and the issue is that he wasn't recusing himself properly (i.e. say "I recuse myself" and withhold at least any further opinions completely). I had considered the issue resolved with him confirming his understanding that there might be a problem with it. Shall we stop pouring petrol on this fire now? If it turns out that crats like yourself hold the position that regardless of recusal status, crats can continue participating in crat chat, I think we would need to bring this to wider community attention, as that weakens the important concept of recusal, and I think "we, the community" would take issue with this. Samsara 14:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand better where you were coming from now. Nonetheless, as I'm reading both pages, it wouldn't have made a difference for me. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Samsara, you're welcome to start an RFC if you think 'crats shouldn't be able to make explanatory comments when recusing themselves. My comment accurately reflects how I expressed myself in the various discussions regarding Floq and Fram. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to question it, but I also see no reason why you have any right to basically demand that WTT acknowledge your opinion and respect it in the future. Yes, your demand was phrased to appear as if it was a friendly question, but the vibes I get from it are quite different. 'Crats are very experienced at looking at all sides of a discussion and then making a decision without being unduly influenced by a single sentence from another crat that recused themselves from the decision. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think there should be a RfC. I did look at WP:CRATCHAT and the only thing I could find was "Bureaucrats who have commented on the RFA or RFB itself are expected to state this, but are not required to recuse themselves from the discussion. " ... are not required to recuse themselves from the discussion (bolding mine). (and it's not even a policy page) If requirements are going to be made of someone then it should be stated clearly somewhere. non-crat opinion? I agree with Dweller and Nihonjoe. — Ched :  ?  — 23:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

"Climbing the Reichstag with or without my Spider-Man costume"

Please copy the undermentioned to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. The reference will be found at bullet point 2 (struck) of Proposed Finding of Fact No. 9 in the evidence link "Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the following proposed statement of facts."

CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise

Initiated by Stevepeterson (talk) at 16:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Stevepeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification Future Perfect at Sunrise]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_Personal_Attacks_with_disgracing_insults_by_Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise

• Link 2

Statement by Stevepeterson

In a discussion in Talk:North_Macedonia I expressed my opinion that wikipedia should adhere to the recently signed Prespa agreement between North Macedonia and Greece in favour of peace in wikipedia. Specifically I shared my opinion that wikipedia could adopt term "North Macedonia's" as an adjective to the State's name: North Macedonia. This (along with "of North Macedonia") is the adjective recommended by "the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia". Admin User User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise has expressed that this would lead to poor English grammar and he is an advocate of the term Macedonian as the adjective of North Macedonia. As the discussion with other users went on he started to personally attack me using disgracing words and insults such as:

you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884714936&oldid=884700282

And: you really need to shut up and learn some English and some proper grammatical terminology before you expose your incompetence further here. It's getting quite embarrassing to watch.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884848956&oldid=884848841

Later, he offended all participants in the discussion by trying to collapse the whole conversation claiming "Embarrassing display of linguistic incompetence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884847688&oldid=884847206

I tried to explain that I feel insulted and disgraced so he should stop this behaviour by posting on his talk page:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=884730558&oldid=884559635

I would like to inform you that I consider your "you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears." a Derogatory comment and personal attack to me. .

His response had no regret or apology: You don't need to inform me of that. What you do need to do, however, is to learn how to use talk pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=884735657&oldid=884730558

I brought to to ANI but I received so many personal insults there by Administrators biased towards USER:Future Perfect at Sunrise. There not only did he make the reported comments, he doubled down by linking to an article discussing people of low ability [who] have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize this basic lack of ability.. I have not been rude neither at the ANI nor at the initial discussion page so there should be no action to be taken against me. USER:Future Perfect at Sunrise on the other hand, has selected a telling link (against himself). He says There's never a nice way of telling an incompetent person that they are incompetent which is extremely inappropriate. FP@S has hidden a discussion on my talk page and I believe that his action (WP:INVOLVED is a misuse of the revision deletion tool. The insults I received made lose control of the ANI and instead of a resolution of the conflict with USER:Future Perfect at Sunrise, I am now proposed for Site Ban.

Statement by Floquenbeam

Dude...

Statement by Khajidha

While Future Perfect's wording was extreme, the fact remains that you demonstrate a lack of proficiency in the use of the English language. Especially considering that the argument is about proper English usage. You have been told numerous times, by numerous people, that the phrasing you wish to use is not proper English. You continue to argue based on your mistaken definitions (possessive nouns are NOT adjectives) and seem to refuse to learn from the grammar lessons that everyone is trying to give you. You even engaged in emotional blackmail (see this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevepeterson&oldid=885173108), insinuating that you were contemplating suicide based on your treatment here and that others in similar situations in the future may also contemplate such actions. The proposed ban is MORE than earned. --Khajidha (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac

The filer is about to be CBAN'd at ANi so nothing needs to be done on this request except close it for they will not be able to participate. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by 92.19.174.217

There is a procedural error here by the clerk. While it is true that he acted correctly at 19:22, 26 February, removing a case which the Committee had declined, that decline was without prejudice to a further filing should the alternative dispute resolution mechanism fail. See judgments:

An Arbitration case should be the last resort if other dispute resolution attempts have failed. ...

-GorillaWarfare 18:40, 24 February 2019

It looks like on occasion it would be justified to shove a sock into FutPerf's mouth ...

- AGK 07:12, 25 February 2019

The second opinion shows that a second case would very likely have been accepted. The second filing was appropriate because by 16:46 on 26 February it was apparent that there would be no action against FP@S (see Legacypac's statement). His reasoning is flawed - the recent case brought by Twitbookspacetube against Winhunter continued after the filer was banned, and Winhunter went on to be de-sysopped. The only way the second case can be disposed of is by the Arbitrators giving their opinions in the usual manner - the clerk's removal of it at 19:25, 26 February, with an entry in the log that Arbitrators had declined it that day was out of process. Most, if not all Arbitrators, would have been unaware of the case because it was removed 1 1/2 hours after filing.

Turning to Khajidha's statement, an inquest yesterday was discussing the deaths of four teenage soldiers at Deepcut training barracks between 1995 and 2002 from gunshot wounds amid allegations of bullying and abuse. The allegations against FP@S have been confirmed by Committee judgments spanning ten years. In the present climate, if social media platforms are not seen to be taking effective action against this it is likely that governments will do it for them.

My comments at the ANI were removed by that interfering busybody Fortuna Imperatrix Tuesday, who claimed to have taken a break from editing when he was actually socking aggressively as an IP on pages he had previously posted comment on. If he starts playing up here I recommend an immediate block. What I said there was this:

*Oppose The Foundation has never banned an editor for making sockpuppet allegations. SPI reports are turned down every day but the filers don't get indefinitely blocked. Anyways, Steve didn't make a sockpuppetry allegation, he just drew attention to those who did. So let's turn attention to the real issue here - FP@AS has accused an editor of alleging that he (FPAS) is "a self-declared sex worker" Special:Permalink/885051895#Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the following proposed statement of facts:. The Foundation has banned editors who have made comparable allegations and failed to provide supporting evidence despite having had years to do so. I have no particular interest in FP@S's sex life, other than to note that while other editors discuss their family life FP@S doesn't appear to have one - in which case it is legitimate to ask why not? Pinging @:Stevepeterson as I expect Serial Number 54129 or someone of his ilk to be along shortly to remove this !vote. Fun fact:Beyond My Ken is regularly proposed at ANI for siteban for edit warring, incivility, sockpuppetry etc. Special:Permalink/866661947#Going forward. 11:47, 26 February 2019.

92.19.246.23 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a confession to make - last night I dreamt of FP@S. It's never happened before and I hope it never happens again. He has now been given a formal notice not to meddle with Arbitration pages, so when he gets blocked he can't say he wasn't warned.

From the London Daily Telegraph of 23 February [2]:

I am a cynical old hack who has been taught to question everything. I had first heard about the Bridge Retreat last summer, after I burst into tears on a magazine editor when she asked me how I was. "I'm...fine," I wept, but of course I wasn’t. I was having another one of my depressions, one so furious that on several occasions I contemplated suicide over getting up.

This isn't me making a joke - as a mental health campaigner, I am not the kind of person to make jokes about suicide. It was awful.

This case needs to be processed expeditiously. If it isn't, and something bad happens, the Foundation will want to know why it wasn't. 217.34.36.106 (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Quoting AGK in the Signpost case, it is actually irrelevant that the filer has been banned. As AGK says,

We accept cases whenever our community mission would be best served by involuntarily imposing a binding decision.

We have here a case where an administrator was de-sysopped ten years ago for incivility and bullying. He has continued to be uncivil and he has continued to bully. No other administrator has enjoyed continued access to the tools after being de-sysopped for cause. It's time to iron out this anomaly. Bradv's action in hiding the case from the Committee is another example of his bad judgment - he previously caused a public relations disaster by deleting our article on Nobel Prizewinner Donna Strickland because he didn't consider the source (her faculty) to be "independent". The Committee should examine very carefully any application for promotion to full Clerk.

One of FP@S's complaints against Stevepeterson, which eventually resulted in him being banned, was an allegation (18:44, 25 February 2019) of his

writing in deliberately obfuscated Greek in order to make it more difficult for outsiders to understand.

In January 2016 an editor made the following observation at DeltaQuad's unprotected talk page:

In the sandbox two links from the "harasser"'s post are cited. What makes the respondent think The Rambling Man would have clicked on those links before replying? I have clicked on them. The first is claimed to be "a rant from another sock". It's actually a link to words written (yes, typed and saved) by the respondent which are so disgusting they would never be allowed in a family encyclopaedia.

I hurried over to FP@S's sandbox to see what FP@S had been saying. Here are the words I found:

• f*** off, idiot (14:45, 28 March 2009) [no asterisks in original]
• fu**ing sick of you ... stupid idiotic lot ... fu**ing sick (19:33, 14 April 2009) [no asterisks in original]
• What the f**k(22:57, 19 April 2009) [no asterisks in original]
• the community can go f... itself (08:06, 3 September 2008)

At 13:02, 19 April 2009 FP@S was wishing everyone a Happy Easter. That's Macedonian (or even "North Macedonian") Easter. The comment gives the lie to his claim to be a Roman Catholic - Roman Catholics in Germany had celebrated Easter long before. 2 days, 2 hours and 50 minutes later he told an editor αι σιχτίρ μαλακισμένε. I am reliably informed that the phrase means "F**k off, w*nk*r", but on its own the word μαλακισμένε is innocuous. @Stevepeterson's alleged "obfuscated Greek" is vicarage tea-party pleasantries by comparison. This was 6 days, 7 hours and 32 minutes after FP@S had told a Bulgarian academic that Bulgaria was "a banana republic". All remedies, up to and including siteban, must now be on the table. 80.5.252.147 (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Favonian has been busy at Hebrew calendar and its associated talk page. Last time I looked the article was locked for two years and on the talk page a response to a personal attack was removed and the editor blocked. Less than half a day earlier, at 21:26, 15 April, FP@S removed another comment, blocking the editor 31.127.81.232. This was two minutes after a sockpuppet investigation had been opened. FP@S didn't report in. The case was closed no action at 22:03, as was to be expected since there was zero evidence. FP@S is sabotaging the SPI process by taking administrative action and not logging what he has done. This is not an isolated instance - it happens all the time. He has been reported to the Committee hundreds of times in the past thirteen years but they decline to take action. The Committee is on record as stating that FP@S's WP:INVOLVED actions are not involved actions because when he makes them he believes in his mind that they are not involved actions. If a convicted murderer goes to his gaoler, says his sentence has expired and demands to be released does the gaoler let him out? This case was filed fifty days ago and it is intolerable that the Committee has not yet taken any steps to deal with it. I'm not blaming them because it was removed by a trainee clerk within ninety minutes and they may not even know about it.

I note that FP@S is now describing the Committee as a "heap of rubbish". I was under the impression that he was Greek (Dear Baristam, as a card carrying honorary member of the "GREEK WIKIPEDIAN NATIONALIST JUNTA" I strongly object to your exposing our despicable methods in this way - 10:23, 20 December 2006).

However, I have just discovered that in April 2009 he kicked up a stink about the removal from the article about an Archbishop of Athens of sourced content implicating him in scandal. On the matter in hand, he says there is 'nothing to "separate"', but threatening a block to force out a consensus version and replace it with his Macedonist POV is classic WP:INVOLVED behaviour. Implicit in the words "final warning" is that the warner is an administrator. The timeline is awful. At 09:23 Gogo303 goes on FP@S' talk page and gives examples of undoubted Macedonist vandalism of Bulgarian churches. Now, we know what FP@S thinks of Bulgaria:

Wow. I am really sorry for you, for having to live in a banana republic ... What a shame.

- Future Perfect at Sunrise, 08:20, 15 April 2009

Why is someone who describes Bulgaria as "a banana republic" allowed anywhere near east European articles? At 09:30 FP@S removes the examples and accuses Gogo of "forcing" the consensus version into the article. At 09:41 Gogo clarifies that the "vandalism" reference relates solely to desecration of churches. At 10:26 he politely points out that FP@S should discuss the issue on the talk page rather than edit war. At 10:27 FP@S does go to the talk page, but instead of taking up this eminently sensible suggestion he issues his "final warning", "justifying" it with a reference to an issue which had already been put to bed. There wasn't even one personal attack, let alone three. He then accuses Gogo of not "meet[ing] other people's good-faith opinions" and threatens to block.

Now fairly obviously, by this time Gogo would have done some basic research on FP@S, e.g. by accessing his user page, which contains an image of Wikipedia going up in flames on the left and a chimpanzee on the right. There are liberal references to him being an administrator, including the unpromising statement This user takes the definition of admin abuse to a new level.

Replying to Banedon, the last ArbCom case against FP@S is in fact this one: Special:Permalink/885225348#CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise, which still has to be adjudicated on. @Callanecc, @Courcelles, @Gogo303, @GorillaWarfare, @KrakatoaKatie, @Opabinia regalis, @Premeditated Chaos, possibly they could both be dealt with together?

A post from FP@S' sock account (12:33, 22 April 2009) under edit summary just fooling around a bit contains the Cyrillic letter Ж. The sock lost no time in vandalising the article currently titled "North Macedonia" [3]. I see Legacypac has been banned for using the word "bitch" once on BrownHairedGirl's talk page. Why has FP@S not been banned for multiple uses of the phrases "banned creep", "criminal harasser", etc. etc.? The only action performed by Favonian in a 15-hour period yesterday was a 2-year WP:INVOLVED block, based on the fantasy that an editor could travel 200 miles in 58 minutes (not allowing for the time spent composing, typing and saving the edit).

@Gogo303: was probably right to go straight to Arbitration, bypassing ANI, after receiving FP@S' "I am just about to block you" warning. After all, Stevepeterson was blocked immediately he filed at ArbCom, having been brushed off at ANI. On Tuesday AGK noted:

But you [FP@S] have history of acting while involved, and I will have no truck with admins who measure and calculate their wording just enough for it to go unnoticed by everyone other than the recipient.

On Thursday he added that this bodes poorly for the future. He then removed the last part of the comment, pointing out that it was a "tautology". Indeed it is, but it's none the worse for that - after all, the Book of Common Prayer is full of them. But then he continues, ... I do not see this matter as part of a more troubling pattern. Seriously? 188.221.78.85 (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A sockpuppet investigation was opened at 12:41 on Monday afternoon. FP@S blocked at 12:48, but, as usual, said nothing to nobody. It occurred to me that the reason why he said nothing to nobody is that he doesn't know what he is doing. I decided to test this theory by examining his block log. I concentrated on blocks with "VXfC" (or some variant) in the "reason" field, since this is what is entered in this field in his latest block. The editor blocked at 12:48, 6 May geolocates to Calne, Wiltshire. The editor blocked at 15:21, 4 May geolocates to Glasgow (not even the same country). The editor blocked at 12:40, 2 May geolocates to London. When we get back to 09:02, 26 April no "reason" is entered at all. Is any explanation to be found at SPI? Unfortunately not, as I pointed out earlier.

It's not only blocks that FP@S doesn't report in. The SPI report of 19:24, 7 May and RfPP request by Aloha27 at 19:25 led to FP@S protecting Computus for one year at 19:39. Again he said nothing to nobody and it was left to the bot to make the report (which it did at 20:02). This immediately raises the question, what other pages has FP@S secretly protected? Well, he indefinitely protected Gregorian calendar at 08:05, 11 December 2016. The barney there was Jc3s5h's claim that:

the Council of Trent approved a plan in 1563 for correcting the calendrical errors, requiring that the date of the vernal equinox be restored to that which it held at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and that an alteration to the calendar be designed to prevent future drift.

The Council said no such thing. What it did say [4] was this:

The sacred and holy Synod, in the second Session celebrated under our most holy lord, Pius IV., commissioned certain chosen Fathers to consider what ought to be done touching various ... books ... And it commands that the same be done in regard of the Catechism, by the Fathers to whom that work was consigned, and as regards the missal and breviary.

The article now says exactly what it said in 2016, with one difference - the date of the supposed canon has been changed from "1563" to "1545".

Another indefinite protection is Julian calendar, from 19 December 2017. The trigger here was a vandal removing a substantial block of content at 01:04, 16 December. Johnuniq added it back at 01:15. The vandal removed it again at 13:35, 18 December and at 14:43 an editor added it back, noting in the edit summary that the removal had been vandalism. At 12:22, 19 December AstroLynx removed the content again, claiming the editor who removed the vandalism was the vandal! FP@S' protection came five minutes later. 400,000 people signed a petition asking for the first picture in Islamic calendar to be removed. AstroLynx told the RfC that the Prophet delivered his farewell sermon to a congregation of five from a mosque pulpit. It later emerged that he had delivered it on a hilltop in front of thousands of pilgrims while sitting on his camel. This morning AstroLynx reverted a good-faith edit to Coordinated Universal Time one minute after it was made. The edit corrected the false statement that Greenwich Mean Time is the same as Coordinated Universal Time, replacing it with the correct statement that Greenwich Mean Time is the same as UT1. The article was in fact unprotected on Saturday. The unprotecting administrator did not consult FP@S - ALL FP@S' protections should be reversed in this manner.

On 4 December 2016 FP@S protected Solar time indefinitely. The trigger for that appears to be the removal of the incorrect information

the difference builds up until mean time is ahead of apparent time by about 14 minutes near February 6

and its replacement with the correct information:

sundial behind the clock 14m 06s on 12 February with a smaller minimum on 26 July.

On Monday I had another dream - I opened an account on Wikipedia. [At this point the keyboard started typing in Cyrillic - I managed to correct it]. For many, such a dream can turn into a nightmare as rouge administrators hunt them down:

Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylized"

Suspected sockpuppets

• 96.43.171.209

Three edits by IP account. All reinstated edits which were removed as sock edits by this banned user. - Aloha27 11:49, 12 October 2017

The edits being restored were by 31.52.216.116, which was blocked as a sockpuppet of User: **** *** *** *****. - Peter James 15:11, 12 October 2017

---

86.158.154.78, have you ever registered an account on Wikipedia? If the answer is no, then why not create an account for yourself, edit other articles for a month, and then try editing the one on Brexit?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Toddy1. Your link to WP:ADMINABUSE is exactly what I was looking for. It seems I have taken the right step to talk to EdJohnston first to give him a chance to reply. So let us see what he says, before we take it to the next level. (Do you know anything about this NeilN interloper? - I saw his comment on the Sexual Intercourse article with regards to children in early 2017. He gives me the creeps.) 86.158.154.78 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: @Toddy1 The latest remark from the IP resembles this gem of an edit summary from the ubiquitous WP:LTA/****. Agreed? Favonian (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Favonian: Yes, same style, same waste of time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! IP blocked. Favonian (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

---

I have nothing to do with a user named "**** *** *** *****" in whose name I have been blocked.

- SdrawkcaB99, 22:19, 16 January 2018

The SPI report was filed by Jayron32, the administrator who illegally activated an "LTA" report. Jayron 32 responded to an SPI report (12:02, 7 May 2019) by Aloha27, whom we have met, with a block at 13:46. Normally it takes months for these reports to be actioned. Could there be some link to reports on Risker and GorillaWarfare's talk pages between 9 and 15 April 2019 detailing misogynistic bullying by Jayron32? Similar reports have been filed in respect of Favonian, whom we have met.

---

Follow-up: Administrator Abuse by Users Mandruss and NeilN

Good morning Yamla. Recently you participated in what I think is called "cyberbullying", after I had tried to file a complaint against two administrators, see below. Unlike the other bullies, you at least gave a reason, namely "block evasion". May I ask you for the background to this claim? It is a sincere question, and the reason that I am asking is that I am trying to understand the mechanisms of Wikipedia, so that I can file a successful complaint against these two administrators without risk of further allegations and blocks. Many thanks in advance for your cooperation. 86.158.154.106 (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

1=Yesterday, on the Wikipedia_talk:Consensus page, I made a Request for Comment on my proposed new algorithm for editing Wikipedia pages. Essentially, I proposed the idea of including a majority voting element, which is often already applied in practice, but has not been formalised. To my astonishment, Users Mandruss and NeilN ganged up on me with abusive language and blocked me. I request that I be unblocked immediately, and that those two Administrators be sanctioned for their behaviour. Otherwise I may refuse to participate in Wikipedia editing from now on. 86.158.154.104 (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC) | decline = I see talk page access has already been revoked. Good. If you aren't willing to address your block evasion, you shouldn't expect to be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't request an unblock on my behalf. I'm not blocked. As to the unblock request I did yesterday, I presume you mean the one at User talk:86.158.154.104. I declined the unblock request because your block notice said you were blocked for "Block evasion" but you did not address this in your unblock request. As you did not address the reason for your block, there were no grounds for me to consider lifting the block. Nothing else in your request was relevant, when considering lifting your block. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response. So how do I (and you as an administrator/registered user) obtain information on the alleged block evasion? In other words, what precisely is the block about? 86.158.154.106 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ask the blocking administrator. Or look at WT:Consensus where you started a conversation and see how the blocking administrator closed the discussion. ~ GB fan 14:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) You'd have to ask the blocking admin. There's no information I have that you don't already have. I mean specifically, there's no sort of hidden blog log available only to admins, which has additional information. In your case, it's unclear if one of your other IP addresses was blocked, or if you previously used an account. You may know that, of course, but I don't. The one piece of information you may not know is that blocks apply to the person. What I mean is if you have an account and that account is blocked, you aren't permitted to edit through an IP address. Similarly, if one of your IP addresses is blocked, you aren't allowed to just change IP addresses and continue editing. Even though the block is placed on an account or an IP address, it applies to the person behind the account or IP address. --Yamla (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

In this specific case, you are believed to be the long-term vandal known as **** *** *** ***** (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** *****. I take no position on this claim. --Yamla (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Message for Yamla

Hi Yamla, I hope you will read this because NeilN has struck again, interrupting our dialogue on your Talk page. First of all, many thanks for the link pointing towards the long-term Vandal(X). So if I understand this correctly, NeilN is evading Administrator Abuse charges by blocking the plaintiff (me), by the simple means of tagging my IP onto a random other blocked account holder. How do you suggest I bring this behaviour to the attention of senior Wikipedia administrators? 86.158.154.106 (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)