User talk:Worm That Turned

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user helped "Doom Bar" become a featured article.
This user helped "Sabrina Sidney" become a featured article.
This user helped 30 articles reach "Good Article" status x 30
This user helped 54 articles reach "Did You Know?" status x 54
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Waseem181 (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 4 November 2019 (→‎Thanks: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Thank you!

The Original Barnstar
The Fram situation was a debacle from start to finish and Arbcom was dealt bad cards and did not play them perfectly. Nevertheless, you demonstrated courage and intellectual honesty in working hard at the end to make sure the verdict matched the findings of fact at hand. I'm not a Fram fan, but I am a WTT fan. Nicely done, you did well in an absolutely unwinnable situation. Beyond that, Dave, I thank you very much for your service on the committee — one of the hardest and most thankless tasks at Wikipedia. You've been a consistent, reasonable voice, and that's really all anyone can ask. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Carrite. I accept that with hindsight, the committee could have played things better - but allow me to point out that the committee could have played things a damned sight worse. I have no doubt that point will get lost in the annals of time, but I do think it's worth making. As for the final point, reasonable and consistent is actually where I generally aim, so I'm glad I've come across that way! Thank you again. WormTT(talk) 17:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll heartily second this. It must be extremely difficult at times to remain objective on Arbcom; Dave does this admirably.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
September
meadow saffron

... what they said --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1. KillerChihuahua 12:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Thank you for your feedback. All feedback is valuable. Some of what you said seems based on misperceptions, but I don't want to argue about it. Instead, I removed my remark (unreplied to) that you and Joe Roe had disputed, and tried my best to restate my concerns in a more constructive manner. [1] Jehochman Talk 12:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, Thank you. I've replied there. WormTT(talk) 13:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I ever sound like a troll, be sure to tell me, and I will try to stop. Jehochman Talk 13:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, I do appreciate that. I'm not one to generally criticise others, but sometimes I do feel it is necessary. Hopefully, that can be the end of it, I've no interest in pushing things further. WormTT(talk) 13:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent events

I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. If you are considering standing again this time (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Black Kite, I appreciate the note. I hadn't intended to stand, however, with 11 seats available - I'm concerned about... unsuitable candidates. We'll see. WormTT(talk) 07:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I share BK's sentiments and endorse their comments. I'd also be pleased to see you stand again, for the reason you suggest, and you'd have my full support. -- Begoon 07:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Begoon, Thank you too. I'm sure there are many who would be unhappy to see me (or any of the current committee stand), but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Of course, my talk page is hardly the best place to get honest feedback on how well I'd do ;) WormTT(talk) 08:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need so many arbitrators. If we reduce the panel size to 3 for each case, which is typically the largest number of arbitrators ever used in real world arbitration, a committee of 7-9 could handle the work load. I think that having 9 arbitrators all read the same evidence is too many. Having one arbitrator is very valuable. Having three is a little more valuable. Having more is already of little incremental value. Jehochman Talk 12:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with that model. How would the panel be created - I certainly wouldn't be happy with self-selection for obvious reasons. By making the panel small, you are effectively elevating individuals to a more important role on the encyclopedia. I'm not happy with that - that's why we have a committee. It needs to be reflective of the community at large. WormTT(talk) 12:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can let the committee as a whole vote whether to accept the case. Among those voting to accept, you can randomly choose 3, and you can ask the parties if they object to any of the ones chosen because of past interactions. We sometimes have a bit of back and forth about recusals. This would be the same. I don't think this makes anybody more important. If there ever is a major case the Committee could have an option of hearing it en banc, but most cases, appeals and modifications could be heard by one or three arbitrators. Jehochman Talk 13:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Randomly? Hard to see how that would work. Having things heard by one arbtirator is even more concerning. Self selected or randomly, giving one individual that much power is against the consensus model. WormTT(talk) 13:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you have single arbitrators doing things like approving what mail gets through to the list and what mail goes to /dev/null? Don't you have a single arbitrator who evaluates appeals? My suggestion is that you don't need the full committee to deal with every case and every issue. Set a reasonable number for the task at hand. This will increase the amount of careful attention that can be given to each issue. We do not want the arbitrators spread too thin because they are each expected to review everything. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, moderation of spam is largely done by the system (we get a nice big warning on spam) - so yes, individual arbs do that. Appeals are by committee vote and even back in the day we needed at least a couple of arbs to chime in. Indeed, there's little that is done individually these days. Cases are not too onerous if I'm honest - it's what arbs are expecting when they sign up. WormTT(talk) 16:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the idea of 3-person panels - the concern is less workload based but more representation. Arbs have different viewpoints, and a reasonably large ARBCOM is needed to make sure the community is sufficiently well represented. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly support if you stand. KillerChihuahua 12:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you KillerChihuahua - haven't actually worked out if I will yet!! WormTT(talk) 12:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tad late, but obviously I'd support you running again - that would be true anyway, but a couple of good individuals have already ruled themselves out by running as electoral commissioners - I'm distinctly unsure there are 11 good candidates willing to run atm Nosebagbear (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nosebagbear regarding disagreement over 3-person panels. We need a cross-section of the community and 3 arbs are not enough. Valid arguments were presented during Fram's case as to why some in the community supported WMF involvement. Perhaps it all depends on whether one is the prosecutor or the prosecuted. What we need is a strong, balanced arbcom, each of whom are independent thinkers, and can and will devote the time necessary to researching/fairly evaluating each case. I wouldn't oppose consideration of admins, former admins, editors who have been on both sides of a case running for arbcom. Atsme Talk 📧 02:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, I really don't like the idea of 3-person panels. They make sense in a true arbitration, but that's not actually what we do on Arbcom. As you say, a cross section of the community is essential, far more important than expedience. I also agree with you on the balanced arbcom, independent thinkers who are willing to speak their minds. However, we also need some willing to compromise otherwise nothing would ever get done. There are many factors that make a good candidate / committee, and leanings on subjects is not one I care about. I also strongly agree with your community groups suggested - however, the community has time and again not elected admins. It's a shame - I'd hoped running as a non-admin a couple of years back would have made a difference, but I was a non-admin in name only, so it didn't. WormTT(talk) 10:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was unsure about it when I first heard the idea, but if we are going to completely fail to elect non-admins, perhaps there is something to a specific spot in ARBCOM that can only be filled by non-admins? It has its negatives, but might aid a common concern, particularly with regard to desysop cases. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear, Thank you, I appreciate that. We'll have to see who stands. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing administrators

In my opinion, all administrators should be under mandatory removal by recall. Creuzbourg (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creuzbourg, I don't disagree. I am under recall for all my userrights (User:Worm That Turned/Recall process). However, the vote is quite WP:POINTy - individual candidates should not have to suffer because you disagree with consensus. WormTT(talk) 10:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom is effective at removing admin rights. If a proper case is filed and evidence presented ArbCom is usually going to remove rights. Recall is a nice idea but in practice it doesn’t work properly for those who need it most. Jehochman Talk 11:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Creuzbourg: What administrator has upset you, and why? PS: Mine is at User:Ritchie333/Recall. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Creuzbourg:, If that's your opinion, you only need to start a RfC to get it established in policy. Why don't you? Using it as a question or a reason to oppose on RfA is disingenous. PS: Mine is at User:Kudpung/AOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You probably included it for levity, but I doubt any of those users ‘hate your guts’. –xenotalk 15:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks Dear

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worm_That_Turned&oldid=924560021"