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.

Avoiding threaded discussion on case pages

Please forgive me for cornering you here.  :-) I requested the case because it will serve as a drama sinkhole. You're going to get this case. You're eventually going to accept it in some form. Having a request open where people can comment will provide you will useful information about what people think, and it will give people a place to express themselves constructively to help defuse their frustration with decisions having been taken without their input. I hope you understand why I did this: to improve Wikipedia, not to harass the Committee with duplicate requests.

Keep in mind the Hoffman debacle from years ago. I warn you not to start a case sua sponte. It is an important safety measure for ArbCom to only take cases when the community wants it to hear them. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the machinations of the community, the board and T&S. I have no doubt this case is going to come to Arbcom, in the near future. What's more, it's really not going to be sua sponte - it's very clear that the community wants the case, it's clear that the board wants us to take the case from their statement. There are definite filing parties. However, we don't need a case now. We didn't need that filing now. We need to work out the ground rules for a case, before agreeing to one. We need to know what information we will get, what we will be able to pass on to Fram, what we will be able to pass on to the community. We need to know if those who complained to T&S would be willing to pass their complaints to Arbcom. If not, then we need to deal with that. There's all sorts of questions to be asked - this isn't a normal case. Whatever your intentions, dumping another case request on the Arbcom page was never going to be helpful. Worm^TT(talk) 14:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Quick question, related to what Jehochman said above about there needing to be a place for the community to (within reason) ask questions. My question is one I tried to raise here. What I would want to be able to ask is whether vanished/renamed/clean start users (doesn't matter what the end result was) will have their evidence considered, whether they are still part of the whole process, and whether a distinction would be drawn between evidence submitted before and/or after they left. As far as I know, there are only two users who have been renamed/vanished. I get that you can't say too much or be specific, but I know what it was like on ArbCom. People would retire/vanish (etc.) and still keep emailing ArbCom even after taking that step. It is not an easy conundrum, but is it one that ArbCom (as a group) are either addressing or aware they may need to address? (I'm not even going to ask if T&S respond to complaints from people who have exercised a right-to-vanish). Carcharoth (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Carcharoth, Very interesting question. I've long been a proponent of vanishing - people should have a way to leave Wikipedia, and as long as you have an account, it is possible to be dragged back in. If you want to be able to leave all together, you should have the option to. That's something I'm even willing to extend to some banned users (depending on sockpuppetting). However, the Meatball "RightToVanish" was significantly watered down on en.wiki to WP:Courtesy vanishing - which was then made fairly irrelevant by unified logins and global renaming. Current policy is found at meta:Right to vanish. I hope it's clear that I absolutely support the vanishing of any individual that feels they wish to.

So, as to your follow up question - should vanished individuals evidence be allowed to remain part of the process. I would not recommend it - vanishing is supposed to be the extraordinary final step of cutting ties with Wikipedia. If an individual were to email the committee about the topic that lead them to vanishing, then they would not be cutting those ties - I would be personally encouraging any such individual to stop emailing and move on for their own wellbeing.

At the same time, if the evidence were removed upon vanishing, then that would encourage harassment so as to silence criticism. That's obviously not a positive outcome either. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia has federated login across all its sites. What happens when somebody wants to vanish here? Do they vanish everywhere? Maybe we shouldn’t have federated login. Jehochman ^Talk 11:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, yes, that's exactly what happens and has done since the single sign on was implemented Worm^TT(talk) 11:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems unfair for an accuser to vanish and then the accused is left in a position of having to talk about the vanished user in order to refute their evidence or impeach their credibility. That would be unseemly and potentially harmful. On the other hand, we can't just blindly accept accusations without giving the accused a chance to respond. Jehochman ^Talk 14:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since I kinda answered this on Oshwah's page and I've been one of the louder voices on the renamers list about it (I'm sure that's a shock to everyone). SUL exists and renaming is theoretically a global action, but we give significant deference to local projects. That in practice means that it is very rare to rename a user who is blocked on their home-wiki.

There has been a recent push (largely by me and a sysop/renamer from it.wiki, but it has a rough consensus among the renamers) to get people to leave potentially controversial cases to a renamer who is familiar with the project who would be aware if there were community issues going on that could lead to avoidance of scrutiny, which the global rename policy discourages. Ultimately in controversial cases where there's disagreement these calls are at the final discretion of stewards, who can reverse renames and also go ahead and rename users via their private OTRS queue.

In the more prominent case being referenced here, the standard I've always gone off of for declining a rename/vanishing is "blocked or sanctioned, about to be blocked or sanctioned, or about to be subject to a noticeboard discussion that could potentially lead to sanctions." I don't really think that applies here, as even if there were valid questions, I don't think anyone would have been suggesting any sort of sanction here. As I mentioned at Oshwah's talk, if people feel that an improper rename has occurred and the issue appears sensitive, emailing the stewards is the best course of action. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven’t heard of anybody thinking this was improper. No, not at all. The conundrum is whether a vanished user’s complaint could be acted on after they depart. The answer seems to be “it depends”. Jehochman ^Talk 03:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A quickie drive-by

Just wanted to say Thank You for your participation. Awilley & JFG helped get my alert up and running on my UTP. If you get a chance, check it out by trying to post a DS alert. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Drive by comment from me too - saw your name pop up in the SPI feed. Good to see you're still around here nowadays :-) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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)