This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Re your wording "On the suggested amendment to the types of sources used, I'm not willing to expand to news sources at present". Just to be clear: in your view, are reliable newspapers ( Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), Haaretz, New York Times, etc.) allowed as a source or not in the discussed topic area? At AE Sandstein noted that newspapers like this are ok, but I'd prefer to hear it from an Arbitrator. I.e. are newspapers reliable institutions in the context of this remedy or not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, in my head, no. I think using news sources has been a big part of the problem, even if they are reliable. Worm^TT( talk) 07:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Therefore do you believe I should be blocked for my recent creation of Michler's Palace, which relies on a number of newspaper sources? Should I blank the article and request a speedy deletion to avoid a report to AE? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, I would rather the remedy was not managed with blocks, unless it is clear that the sources are added in bad faith. This is why we need to address this at ARCA Worm^TT( talk) 11:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I sent you an email about some other aspects of it, but regarding the article I mentioned Michler's Palace - do you think that it is unhelpful to the project? Using it as a case study, can you tell me why it is ok to write such article, using such sources, about any similar building in a Foo-country, but not about a Polish building? Do you see any WP:REDFLAGs in that entry? Does this article contribute to any sort of battleground? How does the project benefit from a remedy that would prevent such articles from being created (with the corresponding level of detail, such as the mention of the unveiling of the commemorative monument in 2007, a fact that I am pretty sure is not mentioned in any book or academic journal or such)? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, Of course I'm not going to say such an article is unhelpful to the project, but unfortunately, when an area has a history of disputes that the community cannot handle, sometimes thinking outside the box is necessary. I appreciate the email, which I have received but haven't had time to digest as yet - this has all been raised as ARCA, which is the right place for it, and I am currently collecting my thoughts to reply there. It might be a couple of days, but I've not forgotten it. Worm^TT( talk) 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

All of the issues with news sources can be addressed through WP:REDFLAG. In all honestly, personally, I can't recall a single dispute of the last few years where news sources, used for Polish-Jewish WWII topics, were the issue of contention, outside of the cases where they were used to call an academic 'antisemitic', and that occurred maybe once or twice. REDFLAG+BLP took case of those back then anyway. Can you tell me which particular incidents in this topic area make you wary of the news sources? Further, if the issue is with improper use of news sources by one or two editors, a topic ban (on the use of news sources by them) might be warranted. If nobody has an issue with the use of news sources by me, for example, why should I be restricted from using them just because one or two other editors can't play nice? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Worm, I have a closely related question. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't it follow from the very language of standard DS that the editors who are working in that area must strictly follow our core content policy? If yes, do I understand it correct that violations of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV should be reported at AE and admins have to consider them seriously?

If your both answers are "Yes", then all "sourcing expectations" clause becomes redundant. Indeed, per WP:BURDEN, burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and, obviously, that burden includes a proof the source is reliable. If reliablity of some source has been contested, and there is no broad consensus to keep it, then it should be removed, and any attempt to restore it must be reported at AE. That means, if DS are implemented correctly, no further sourcing restrictions are needed in the topics covered by DS.

If all of that is correct, then the main problem is not with the language of some clause, but with admins who are active at AE. From my experience, a significant fraction of reports of violations of our content policy is considered by them "non-actionable", because, according to them, it is just a "content dispute".

By the way, you are not right about reliability of Haaretz or NYT. They ARE reliable, but per WP:NEWSORG, editorial and op-eds are primary sources, so, although there IS a problem with their usage, it is not due to WP:V, but due to WP:NOR.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 15:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, the sourcing restriction isn't actually a standard DS, instead it's an Arbcom restriction across the topic. However, I'm willing to follow your logic beyond, yes, core content policy should be followed and yes, violations should be taken seriously. if we had felt that DS would be sufficient in the area, then your is impecable. However, from the evidence that we were provided, we looked at an additional sourcing remedy. Problems have been raised by Piotrus about it at ARCA, and I'd certainly appreciate this comment there too, for consideration.

Finally, I never meant to question the reliablity of news sources - most of the articles I have written, even to Featured standard, have included news sources, there's is nothing wrong with them in general. However, in this area of Polish history, a "higher standard" would be helpful, and therefore taking a step away from journalism and towards academia seems like a sensible step. Worm^TT( talk) 19:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Worm.

That is exactly how I understand that: if the area is under DS, and some user violates, e.g. WP:V, this violation may be reported at AE. Actually, is that procedure is observed by admins, "sourcing expectations" become redundant. Indeed, if we take the last MyMoloboaccount case as an example, in a situation if this article were under just standard DS, the sequence of the events was supposed to be as follows:

1. MyMoloboaccount adds a questionable source (which is non-reliable per our standard WP:V);
2. Francois Robere reverts him and warns;
3. If MyMoloboaccount re-adds this source, FR reports him at AE, and MyMoloboaccount is blocked.

In my understanding, that is how standard DS should work. In reality, a situation is quite different, and some recent cases demonstrate that admins refuse to take actions in similar situations, because it is "just a content dispute". I can give you some fresh examples if you want.

Therefore, it seems the "sourcing expectations" clause is not needed, and it can be removed, provided but only provided, that the admins will be duly informed that they should take seriously any AE report about violations of our core content policies, and should not reject them as "just a content dispute".

In connection to that, I am going to submit the ARCA to clarify this issue. What do you think about that?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The lack of warning is very problematic indeed. I hope one of the issues addressed (also raised at AE, currently) is whether the responding admin correctly interpreted the remedy as not needing any warnings. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Here is the actual issue as I understand it. There are many policies ("five pillars", etc.) and guidelines in WP. Yes, they are really helpful. However, they provide mostly an informal, rather than a formal advice. An attempt to rigidly formalize and codify these rules and use them for sanctioning people on WP:AE will usually backfire (consider the "consensus required" and sourcing restrictions). In fact, such formal restrictions will cause more harm (infighting, complaints, gaming etc. on AE and elsewhere) than good. Anything like that needs a preliminary community discussion somewhere. My very best wishes ( talk) 19:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is your name this name?-- A fatal error has occurred ( talk) 18:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello! In the story page of the The Wikipedia Adventure you are listed as a Participant. Do you know who the developers of the original Wikipedia Adventure are? Jakel181 ( talk) 13:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Jakel181, that takes me back. I believe the Wikipedia Adventure was the brainchild of Ocaasi, probably best to talk to him about it. Worm^TT( talk) 14:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Jakel181 ( talk) 14:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you might have one too many nots in this comment. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf, Thanks, sorted. Worm^TT( talk) 14:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I've come to you to ask you a question about adminship. Can you take a brief look through my contribs and tell me what I need to improve on? I would like to open an RfA in 1 1/2 - 2 years, and a would like to know what I should be doing in the meantime to show competence. I would be using the tools mainly in counter-vandalism, NPP -related areas, and helping out at WP:PERM and WP:AIV, so I don't know if I will still need to become a prolific article creator and file uploader to become an admin. I would be to contribute there, but it's definitely not my jam and I would probably not be very active doing admin stuff over there. I'm asking you here because WP:ORCP is for editors running into he near future, which I don't plan on doing. I have read all the admin-related policies and essays. If you don't have enough time, that's totally cool, I understand. Thank you, Puddleglum ^2.0 05:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, I have a nice answer for that. Check out my magic formula for being an admin. It's a slow process, but follow that and you will get there. Worm^TT( talk) 07:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps a lot! Just one quick short question though, if I am interested in doing counter vandal and NPP stuff with the tools, do I still need to be a prolific content contributor? Thank you again, Puddleglum ^2.0 05:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, not prolific, no. But I would absolutely recommend a few good articles, or equivalent. Otherwise you will not be able to appreciate how much work goes into them and why people get upset about them. Worm^TT( talk) 08:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, WTT - who can close my appeal? Leaving it open only attracts ill-willed detractors who believe they have a free license to cast aspersions and poison the well even further. I see GW hatted one such comment. 4 arbs are in agreement so isn’t that the required number to close? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, sorry it's taken so long. Now done. Worm^TT( talk) 09:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, WTT. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I just saw on my watchlist that a user whom I had reminded of his precious anniversary on Dec 6 removed saying he didn't want to be in the same group as another user linked in the edit summary. It hurts a bit, so I will try to not do that again next year, provided I'm still alive. (RIP Brianboulton, so sad.) I will not remember, and you told me not to mark by a little symbol. Help? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I told you that marking people as forgiven made it seem that you were marking people as disliked - which is against policy (it's mentioned in WP:POLEMIC) - Marking a name as "should not be reminded" is fine, but please include a key somewhere on the page so that other users can understand what the mark means. 09:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I came to tell you that the problem is solved. The user in question seems to remove every message on their talk with an edit summary, and I can live with it. I don't want to mark, per your explanation a while ago, so wondered what else I could do to save a user from being included in unwanted "company". Perhaps - in the very few cases - I could really spell it out, where I otherwise say what I dedicated to someone, such as work on Monteverdi's Vespers to the memory of Brian. This user won't rest until that is a FA. (But will be next year, busy singing and writing about that this season. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas
	Congratulations on being (re)elected to ArbCom. Best wishes for the New Year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas – Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

• Just saw the arb results so I'm going to squeeze-in my CONGRATS right here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• On 76% support, glad to see you on the committee again :) Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Congratulations on coming back/remaining on the committee, WTT. – Ammarpad ( talk) 15:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. And enjoy your third game of Dungeons and Dragons. SilkTork ( talk) 13:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2020 and beyond.

-- Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dave! All the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020. Seriously hoping that you'll join me for a cool beer in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{ subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

From my family to yours, I hope that you have a wonderful Christmas holiday and a Happy New Year! -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I am yet to know, as to what happened of this but remain brave enough, to have sent you (plural) another email. An acknowledgement will be appreciated and (belated) wishes for the holidays, by the way. ∯WBG ^converse 09:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Worm That Turned, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, To a user that helped me so much, whether it be in RfA or just general encouragement. 2019 was a tough year in some ways, but you added a huge amount to Wiki in it - here's to a great 2020! Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Why are you proposing making it even more difficult for me to appeal, yes my articles might not have been perfect but that doesn't mean my appeal should be declined and surely not making me wait even longer. I have made reasonable attempts to create compliant articles and you're completely rejecting that, that's completely unfair, 6 months is way too long to wait but 1 year is even worse, could you consider accepting the appeal (at least in part) please, and withdraw you're proposed year extension, thanks. I agree recommendations on how I should get these created and discussion would be helpful but no an extension to appeal time. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Another editor has made a suggestion of 1 a day and any DABs/redirects for a trial period. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, I am sorry that you believe it's unfair - but I firmly believe that until you demonstrate understanding of the disruption you have caused, you should not be mass-creating articles. I have been consistent with this view throughout 2019. As you seem to take a blinkered approach to comments - only engaging with ones that you agree with, I do not believe you are ready for the removal of restrictions. I do not see why I should be saying this multiple times per year. Worm^TT( talk) 12:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I have tried and tried to change my behavior to satisfy the concerns but it appears that no matter what I do its just never good enough, surely the suggestion of creating a small number would be OK? Do you have any suggestions on what would be suitable for me? rather than a complete decline. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 12:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, from my point of view, your restrictions are not as onerous as you seem to think. Let's ignore the fact that the encyclopedia is enormous and you could be doing anything from working on the WP:BACKLOG to gnoming away and assume that you want to stay focussed on your area of interest - UK geography (for want of a better word). You can't mass create new articles - but you can create 1 article every week through the AfC framework. You are also not topic banned from the area, so you can expand all the stubs - there's a LOT of them. You can work on gaining consensus for the creation of the remaining articles - building lists in your user space of the exact articles that need creation and sources that might be associated with them.

These are all things that can be done in spite of a complete decline. I don't want you to get me wrong - I am happy for you to be working in the area, and I think lifting the topic ban was the right thing to do. I am just very concerned about mass creation of articles, because mass creation is always disruptive - it's about whether the benefit outweighs the harm... and given your track record I don't believe you are the best person to make that call. Worm^TT( talk) 13:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

How onerous restrictions are depends on what you're interests/skills are. Given that my main interests are page creation/page moving, these are highly onerous to me. Note that I wasn't previously topic banned from editing UK geography articles but rather discussing geographical NC in general.

I understand the mass creation concern, if I was wanting to create all 600 articles in a single day saying "X is a civil parish in District, County, England" then that would likely be problematic (or someone wants to create a large number of dubious notability articles) but creating them over a long period of time and with appropriate sources etc is perfectly normal (as far as I'm aware) see also Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count. Perhaps I just need to focus on a smaller area namely Suffolk for example, see User:Crouch, Swale/Suffolk. In any case I should continue to look at how the others should be created and the consensus with it, thanks. The problem is that if I do get things sorted out in the next 6 months I will still need to wait until next year.

Although my appeal was mainly framed at the article creation there is also the move restriction and the ability to create DABs/redirects that hasn't been addressed. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven's 250th anniversary, everywhere, I just ordered festival tickets. In fond memory of your edit there, and of what Brian Boulton tried for Chopin: I'd rather bite my tongue than participate in the Mozart RfC, but could someone with knowledge of the topic please moderate the discussion? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I'm afraid I don't have knowledge of the topic, and have a long to-do list with higher priority than getting involved in something new. Worm^TT( talk) 12:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't get involved then, but please just take a look. You were even mentioned: "whoever added the staggeringly unhelpful info-box to Beethoven's article, which tells the reader his place and date of birth and death and then, God save us!, asks the poor reader to click into a different article altogether where he/she is confronted with a list of 148 compositions, with no indication of which are the most important". My tongue hurts already ;) - Needless to say that "the poor reader" sees a nicely organised TOC, not 148 compositions, and that's only one falsehood of many. (A small one is that it doesn't tell "the poor reader" a date of birth because we don't know it.) - Happy 2020!-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yawn. Cassianto ^Talk 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I find the Beethoven year exciting, Cassianto. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

also ... that the German Advent song " Tochter Zion, freue dich" has words by Friedrich Heinrich Ranke set to music used for triumphant entrances in two of Handel's oratorios? - "freue dich" means "enjoy". I was tempted to write "Enjoy" as a comment in the Mozart RfC, but am afraid that it might not be understood as serious. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Brian

(Still) on my talk page: a DYK about a hymn that I wrote about in memory of Brian Boulton, - we learned it on the day we later found out that he died, and it's about going in peace, which can be understood in more than one way. Nun lässest du, o Herr. Brian came to my talk shortly before he died, offering the sources he had collected for the Monteverdi Vespers. Only later I understood that it was a legacy. I looked over his entries on my talk in 2013: more legacy, trying compromise, for operas and classical composers, and telling me not to become a martyr. I try ;) - He installed an experiment that year which he called identibox, - a way to compromise. It's more or less what we have for Beethooven, so I don't take effort to ridicule it well. His Christma wish then: "May you take pleasure in all you do and find success and happiness". -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, could someone please remove this racist comment left by an IP for over a year? Thanks. Senegambianamestudy ( talk) 14:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Senegambianamestudy, I have done so. We don't generally encourage the removal of talk page comments, but comments that are clearly not made in good faith should be removed. Worm^TT( talk) 14:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In this edit, you have a typo in the closing </s> tag so the strikeout extends to the bottom of the page. It only affects one heading so it isn't readily apparent. Just letting you know. isaacl ( talk) 23:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, Good spot, now fixed. Thanks! Worm^TT( talk) 09:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks goes to Anomalocaris, who fixed it first in this edit but it got reverted. isaacl ( talk) 19:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

January

... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for your succinct reasoned vote not to desysop BrownHairedGirl. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I don't believe BrownHairedGirl should have been desysopped, and I certainly would be sad to see her leave the encyclopedia. I don't believe we've really interacted, but she's a big part of our community and it will be less for her leaving. Hopefully, one day she'll consider a return. Worm^TT( talk) 13:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe the same, all of it. I interacted with her, she's been nasty sometimes, but that's no reason for a desysop, and Wikipedia would be poorer without her as an admin even if she won't leave. I didn't watch the case, trying to avoid arbcom the biggest timesing Wikipedia has to offer, rather successfully so, but now kind of regret that I didn't look, - perhaps I could have talked to one or the other of the new arbs, for whom I voted after having asked about "In dubio pro reo", and even mentioned you as a model. Sad. - I gave BRH the image that says it all, from one woman feeling treated unfairly by arbcom to another ;) - Yes, I know the strong urge to leave. Only: I had defiantly decided to stay when the urge came first, in 2012, and hate to break my promises to self. So I stubbornly stayed. In the Mozart case (mentioned above) though, I was pinged today and broke my promise. Also sad. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Gerda Arendt and Worm That Turned I was pinged, and since I am here, many thanks to you both for your support.

Per my Statement on the ArbCom_decision, the desysop was far from the worst of the decision. I might have lived with that, and possibly even with the bizarre explicit finding that the other part did no wrong, but the double jeopardy and the finding that I misused admin tools are so out to lunch that I cannot stay under that cloud. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, well, you can see where my votes fell on those points in particular - I've been pretty clear where I stand. However, I do think you overestimate the size of the cloud. In your favour, the case wasn't named after you, nor were the votes unanimous. I think you could probably go on for a long time without thinking about it. What's more, I'd say you would be one of the rare situations where you may well be able to reclaim the user-right through an RfA.

For now, take a break. If you think of something that you fancy doing on Wikipedia, pop back and do it. Maybe a little bit more at a time. If in a year or so, you fancy risking an RfA, I'd be willing to nominate you, for what it's worth. Worm^TT( talk) 14:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did note your votes, and many thanks for those. Sorry that I neglected to make that explicit in my previous reply. Also, many many thanks for your kind offer to nominate me in a future RFA; that means a lot.

I did take some encouragement from the lack of unanimity on those points, but sadly ArbCom makes its decisions by a simple majority rather than by the consensus principle that operates elsewhere, so the majority-of-one was sufficient. At least its not a plurality threshold, but the majority-of-one is a bad process, as evidenced by the vocal opposition to both decisions.

The result is that a faleshood has been asserted as fact by the community's highest authority, and that's indelible. I am left feeling that ArbCom's whole approach to the proceedings is horribly reminiscent of the thought processes involved in Lord Denning's notorious "apalling vista" judgement: it amounted to a preference for finding a single "bad actor" rather than the addressing the structural problems underpinning the whole situation, such as the tipping effect point when a whole area of the project has normalised low standards.

So the result is not just that I am under an unwarranted cloud, but the whole ethos of Wikipedia is heading in a direction I deplore. My experience of Wikipedia is that it's addictive, so I don't think that a dip-in-and-out approach is sustainable for me, so either I stay or I don't. And what I have seen recently doesn't add up for me to a package where I can live with the deep flaws. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I read this valuable guide only after teh case, but found the section After the case especially useful, + it made me smile ("Criticizing the decision after it has been made is pointless"). It was linked from my ACE2018 (when he died) and ACE2019, but I wonder how many used the chance. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to also add that I was impressed with your considerations on the case. I know it was a difficult case for all the Arbs (on many fronts), and there was no "schoolbook solution" here, however, it was my first time watching a case to the end, and I can see why you are so well regarded. Much appreciated. Britishfinance ( talk) 16:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs! Hope you and the wife will participate :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for the current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Money emoji/Bureaucrat chat. Cheers, Primefac ( talk) 15:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Worm that turned nice to meet you. Do you mind Mentoring/adopting me? I have a CVUA teacher but Vandalism and other types of edits are different. Thanks. The4lines ( talk) 21:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)The4lines

The4lines, I'm afraid I haven't been able to find time to mentor / adopt individuals for many years. You're always welcome to ask questions at this page, or for a quicker response, there's always the WP:TEAHOUSE. Worm^TT( talk) 09:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks for telling me. Have a good day! The4lines ( talk) 15:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)The4lines

Following the request during the Money emoji 'Crat chat, I thought I'd put myself forward for consideration as a 'Crat. But I'm not sure on how to do the paperwork: [1]. When you have a moment, would you talk me through it? Or any talkpage watchers that know how to do it? SilkTork ( talk) 21:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll do you one better. In the morning, I'll nominate you :) Worm^TT( talk) 21:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork ( talk) 22:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

SilkTork, I've created Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/SilkTork for you. If you could head over there, accept the nomination (you can include some of your statement from last night there if you like!), answer the questions and let me know - I'll happily do the rest of the paperwork. RfA and RfB are a pain to manage - I really don't know why we make it so complex.

Also, I have to warn you that RfB is a stupidly high bar to get over - I seem to remember that it's around 80% but I can't find that written down anywhere. What's more, because the role is pretty much irrelevant these days, people seem to find it easier to oppose. Be aware that you'll probably pull some opposition. I doubt it'll be worse than any of the criticism we faced last year though! Worm^TT( talk) 09:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm just closing a RS discussion, then I'll head over and answer the questions. Yes, I'm aware of the high bar for 'Crats, and that there may well be sharp questions and comments. SilkTork ( talk) 10:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Questions answered. SilkTork ( talk) 11:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

SilkTork, You're off! Go go go! Worm^TT( talk) 12:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

According to the visual indication in Template:Bureaucrat candidate, a pass is above 85%, so I guess a 'crat chat is about 80-85%, anything less is a no ( Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy 2 went the full 7 days to 72% support and closed as a straight fail). Since we were throwing names randomly into the air to promote new(ish) admins to 'crats, what do people think of Valereee? Very strong RfA support, level-headed, sensible, avoids dramah, participates in most RfAs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, your opinion of my general level of competence continues to be higher than my own. :) If we keep having crats close RfAs, we do need more active crats to prevent cruelly long crat chats. But I can only remember one discussion I've closed since becoming an admin (and now I'm fuzzy on where it even was...) I guess I'd consider it, but to me it feels TOOSOON. --valereee ( talk) 15:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Ritchie333 I'd certainly consider Valereee in a few months, I'd like to see a year of admin work including some closes. Valereee, Hang out at WP:AN/C if it's something you're interested in it :) - of course, if it's just Ritchie pressuring you... whack him with a trout! Worm^TT( talk) 09:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Catherine Hall ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ruskin

Dick Whittington Tavern ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Georgian

Wordsworth House ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Doric

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Baldrine ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ramsey and Douglas

Catherine Hall ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ruskin

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Worm That Turned,

I'm hoping you could please advise me on something related to my arbitration case. I hope I'm not out of line approaching you like this, but I cannot post this on the evidence talk page (at least not yet) as it relates to the actions of someone involved in the arbitration case and I do not want them to know that I have raised it until I get some advice on how to proceed. I have known about this for a while and had hoped to avoid bringing it up, but now I feel that I have to. I can provide a fuller explanation if you ask me to, but will not for the time being in case it has consequences for the arbitration case. I know this is unusual and I'm sorry it's so cloak-and-dagger, but I think you will understand why I have to do it this way once I explain, be it here, in the arbitration case, or elsewhere. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 08:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mclarenfan17, the parties to the case are currently you and Tvx1, although the scope is wider than the dispute between the two of you. If you are referring to Tvx1, just go ahead and post your evidence. If it's related to another user, but related to the case, you'll need to put something on the evidence talk page asking for an additional party to be added, explaining why you feel they should be part of the case (alternatively, email the committee about it). Worm^TT( talk) 09:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Worm That Turned.

My issue here is not with Tvx1, but rather with another editor who I do not think should be involved in the discussion because of their past actions in previous attempts to resolve the issue. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 10:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, sure, detail why you think they should be added at the evidence talk page, or by email to the committee Worm^TT( talk) 10:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

February flowers

Alte Liebe

... on Handel's birthday, enjoy -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

He's got grumpy in his old age, Stacey has been wearing him down! Haha only kidding, I'll miss you both in this contest though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, Sorry about not replying sooner - I did see your messages! Unforunately, I don't seem to have nearly as much free time as I'd like, and Stacey even less so. Looks like we'll be giving it a miss. Good luck though, and it's great to see you editing with gusto again Worm^TT( talk) 09:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Understand. I will certainly miss your enthusiasm!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

... today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you've added all your entries to the bottom list. I patrol the pages by going through the entries at the bottom. When I got to yours there was 4 needing doing, which would have been ticked much sooner if they were at the bottom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I'm pretty sure I have been! I have been quite fastidious about it.... I'll double check though. Worm^TT( talk) 20:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Evidence for those 4 :P Adkinson, Angrave, Balfour and de Warenne. Not me guv. Worm^TT( talk) 21:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bessie Hatton ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Frank Benson and Frank Hatton

Alwyn Sheppard Fidler ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New Town

David Edgar Cartwright ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National Institute of Oceanography

Elizabeth Chesterton ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hamstead

Hildelith Cumming ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wentworth

Peter Cropper ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexander Lindsay

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 15:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Worm That Turned. Your user page looks appealing. How does the Show another picture change? I did visit User:Worm That Turned/RandomImage but there is only one picture. I really want to know how you did it. I hope you will allow me to use the way you did it. SaiP ( talk) 17:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

SaiP, it's switched on the total number of edits , making it quite random. You found the right page, just edit the source to see how to do it. Worm^TT( talk) 21:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Ref 4 can you fill out and also source the last claim? Thanks.† Encyclopædius 18:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow an incredibly productive last day for you two! Are you not entering them into the contest? I was looking to patrol them but they're not listed.† Encyclopædius 18:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopædius, I had 14 to put in, it just took me a while, they're all entered now :) Will get any fixes sorted. Worm^TT( talk) 19:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, 14, I didn't even know that was possible in one day!† Encyclopædius 19:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopædius, Actually, 16. We did 2 before lunch. I fully blame Staceydolxx for this mess. She's a hard taskmaster, but has managed to get us through it! Worm^TT( talk) 19:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Haha, behind every great man is a great woman! Can you check and update Wikipedia:The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon/Scoreboard?† Encyclopædius 19:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

[2] :-) Buffs ( talk) 21:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Buffs, Worms in space! Far more interesting than what I do :) Worm^TT( talk) 09:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I just need to request you that please delete page User talk:My password is poopy as the speedy deletion criteria G6: WP:DENY or the reason "talkpage of harassment username with no meaningful talk history" just like User talk:Widr farted got deleted. Thanks. 122.161.82.71 ( talk) 07:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. We don't delete user talk pages except in rare circumstances. Worm^TT( talk) 12:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a rare circumstance. Delete User talk:My password is poopy either as "someone's insane text" or "a stupid record of a user who is not here to contribute". Thanks. 122.161.82.71 ( talk) 13:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I was originally going to message User:EdJohnston in view of my experience of his past admin work. But then I saw you represented the arbcom in the recent Volunteer Marek versus Icewhiz case. I have a concern about a related matter in the WP:ARBEE topic area. It would be helpful if VMvI could be learned from by all users. It would also be helpful if editors could notify admins about places where there are signs of possible future escalation. Is there a noticeboard where I can flag the issue to all relevant administrators on that VMvI case (and/or ARBEE in general) in one go, rather than messaging admins directly? I have no wish to raise formal procedure, I would simply like to flag a volatile area so that things do not to have to get that far. -- Chumchum7 ( talk) 05:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Chumchum7, Sorry about the delay in responding. We don't have a mechanism to "alert" all admins, because admins don't all work in all areas - it's just too big a project. If there are issues in an area, you can flag them at one of the Administrators noticeboards, where interested admins can help out. There's quite a few different noticeboards which might be relevant, such as Arbcom Enforcement, or edit warring noticeboard - depending on what you need. Hope that helps. Worm^TT( talk) 12:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Excellent help, thank you. Also if you feel like delving in, the more the merrier. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 13:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Bold textIf you say "the worm turns" it means you obey another human being basically. but "the worm that turned" is about how the situation can suddenly change so that the person who has been weak, unlucky, and unsuccessful turn into a strong, lucky and successful person. -- 2605:A000:1312:C5F:AD03:7423:1FE8:92C4 ( talk) 18:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)?

Hi, just to announce that I've filed a £250 grant request for a "Summer Focus of the Week" feature for destubbing articles which will be run from May 1 to the end of July. £20 is planned to be rewarded each week, £10 most articles destubbed for the allocated focus of the week and £10 for the most destubbed for any topic of choice in total, a full £20 if most for the focused area. While it is intended to be more relaxed and open than an official contest, allowing editors to take a break some weeks from staying on focus and editing as they normally do, the winner will be whoever wins the most prize money at the end, so it is likely that some weeks they will need to tackle entries from the regional area allocated. The Summer Focus of the Week is planned to commence on May 1 with a 10 day focus on SouthEast England but will cover many regions of the globe as well as further ones benefiting the UK. S E England was originally planned as a full blown contest (which you signed up for) but it will now be run as part of this 50,000 Challenge and I will redirect the contest page to the 50,000 Challenge. Please sign up on the Wikipedia:The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge page if interested if you haven't already and hope this will be something enjoyable over the next few months!† Encyclopædius 13:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 19:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Read (businessman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dunlop ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a happy birthday message to you, Worm That Turned, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! A a s i m 04:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Irvine Loudon ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Green College

Kenneth Stowe ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Armstrong

Miles Salley ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kitchener

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 11:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

[3] You stated That's a clear oversight. Can you please raise this, and the issue you emailed me about at ARCA. There's currently an ARCA on this case, it would better to sort all these issues in one go. However I see that over half a year later, this hasn't been changed? Is the decision that it goes back to 1933 or was this an oversight and should be changed to 1939? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norah Blaney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marianne de Trey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 20:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ethel M. Elderton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alice Lee ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	By the authority vested in me by myself: For writing numerous high-quality articles (particularly on notable women) and needed de-stubs such as at Edna Annie Crichton, the Writers Barnstar is gratefully awarded to Staceydolxx and Worm That Turned. Thank you for your work! Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Eddie891, I really appreciate you taking the time to send me this. Been a while since I've had a barnstar! Worm^TT( talk) 13:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

is there an appeals process, in terms of the recent Medicine case (specifically in regards to Doc James restriction) that can be afforded to him?....(should note no one has asked me to do this, I am acting/asking on my own)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa, there isn't really, no. The idea of Arbitration decisions is that they are final and binding. If he abides by the restriction for a reasonable period, say a year or so, I'm sure it can be considered for amendment (removal) at WP:ARCA. Worm^TT( talk) 13:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

waiver there... to through old mud - are you on a phone with broken autocorrect? William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

William M. Connolley, I was indeed on a phone, and wasn't paying as much attention as I should... Thanks for the spot. I'll sort that out. Worm^TT( talk) 15:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Worm That Turned. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CommanderWaterford ( talk) 07:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Abell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles II ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Please help me to review this draft, I have submitted with no any response from anyone. Please help me to review it, if there is problem let me know it please. Abbas Kwarbai ( talk) 23:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Abbas Kwarbai, I'm sorry, I haven't been particularly active recently. I'm afraid there's a bit of a backlog at articles for creation, be patient and I'm sure it will be reviewed. Worm^TT( talk) 10:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Children's Cancer Hospital Egypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquamarine ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Good evening. You probably are not particularly concerned about this thread: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia But I probably ought to let you know that this former editor might be bothering you and might need to be ignored. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC) The other comment at Editor Requests gives some information as to who they might be. Not someone whom I recognize. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Next time I recommend WP:RBI or whichever of the steps you can perform. It's best not to respond or give obvious nonsense more attention. Thank you. Worm, here's the relevant link [4], because the above one is no longer working. Jehochman ^Talk 02:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I know the chap is trying to get under my skin, by invoking the name of Kevin Gorman, but I barely notice it to be honest. Someone told me how much he actually references me recently, I thought they were joking. The funiest thing is that the only reason I'm on the chaps radar in the first place is that he emailed the bureaucrats list asking to be an admin and I replied, saying no thinking it was a good faith request. Go and see how long ago the 'crats list shut down and you may get an idea how long he's been at this sort of thing. Poor guy, really. Worm^TT( talk) 08:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

sorry, didn't mean to step on your post! :) —valereee ( talk) 16:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC) can I be an administrator

Hi WTT, hope you're doing well and keeping healthy in all this "situation". I had a question for you which, of course, you are welcome to disregard, but since you were so generous with your time last time I made an appeal to the committee relating to DYK, I hoped you might be game for another round? Since the turn of the year I've got on with significant article expansion and have created something like 20+ GAs and (I think) around 6 FAs, and at least for the GAs it crossed my mind that it was a shame I couldn't nominate them at DYK. I have stopped commenting on the DYK section altogether for quite some time now, as you may recall I used to run a parallel ERRORS page where I was entitled to note issues. So I wonder if there's any mileage in seeing if the committee/community think it would be okay for me to have that particular editing restriction expunged? It's not entirely clear to me how to initiate such an action, but in the first instance I just wondered if you had thoughts or advice? Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man, I'm doing well enough, though seem to be far more busy despite not leaving the house. I'm afraid I don't have a lot of advice for you at the moment, because I'd need to refresh myself on a lot of the history - the only way I manage on Wikipedia is by actively forgetting everything. If, as you say, you've been keeping your nose clean for a long period, it might be worth a request at ARCA. I'm sure there will be some opposition, but there may be sufficient support. I can't tell you which way it will go though! Worm^TT( talk) 10:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, not to worry. I had hoped you might be in a position to just gauge the committee's feelings, but I didn't expect you to tell me which way it might go. Cheers though. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, Give me a few weeks and I might get my head back in the game :) Worm^TT( talk) 10:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No stress at all. I'll still be churning out good content which will be eligible for DYK, sadly the two dozen or so GAs will have elapsed by then, but them's the breaks. Take care of yourself. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone has kindly agreed to nominate my GAs kind of in absentia which is wonderful, but given the subject matter is not of their expertise, it's a little challenging (mainly for them, of course!). If you do get any time, please let me know what you think might be a good way ahead in reducing/removing this particular TBAN. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, how do I stop the 'Jamie's Quick & Easy Food' page from being redirected? Not sure what the page is lacking. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing, so any advice will be much appreciated. Davidsmith2015 ( talk) 15:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) @ Davidsmith2015: The answer was in the edit summary when it was turned into a redirect: "no independent sources". You find an independent source such as the Guardian review I've just added. Pam D 15:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Eight years!

Yesterday, I really felt supported when making Leon Fleisher ready for the Main page, for the sad reason that he died, - look how many helped! Even brighter here! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I like today's Main page, with the TFA on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello

I have been a user on Wikipedia for a long time now. I wanted to acquire adminship to stop vandalism on particular pages that contain topics which are extremely communal in our country but are protected by extended protection. I request you to please nominate me as I gone through the rFa guidelines and I think I am capable of being an Admin.

Thank you! Superbsic ( talk) 08:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

( by talk reader) @ Superbsic: Please read WP:RFAADVICE. Adminship isn't realistic for you. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

I'm going to look to see if anyone has the knowledge to produce a code for a bot to work (obviously if it is possible again I'll disclose my editing restrictions) but if it doesn't work or is declined its not the end of the world, I'll probably just work on creating those at User:Crouch, Swale/Settlement parishes if not but it would be useful to know if this is possible so that if its not possible I can work on current settlement parishes at AFC. As a side note for BUAs its interesting to note that at User:Crouch, Swale/BUAs there are numerous in England missing but User:Crouch, Swale/Welsh BUAs only lists a few and User:Crouch, Swale/Scottish localities only lists 4 OS settlements without articles (also note that Scotland's parishes have limited existence today so aren't a priority) thanks. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, Hi, thanks for taking the time to message me with this. I've not actually been active on Wikipedia for a few months, so apologies for the lack of reply. I have to say, my first instinct was disappointment that you were still apparently focussed completely on UK places, but then I popped over to your user page, and looked at your contributions. It appears my instinct was wrong, and you have my apologies. You have been doing some excellent work on requested moves. In addition, I'm pleased to see how well you've handled some discussions on your page.

Keep that up, and I will certainly be considering easing restrictions in the future. As for the bot, I'm not sure it's a great idea, as new articles should be created with care, but we can cross that bridge if you find someone willing. Worm^TT( talk) 09:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou, yes my main focus has indeed been mostly contributing on UK places but since my NC discussion ban was removed in July 2018 I have been also involved in other topics (see for example User talk:Crouch, Swale/Archive 3#A barnstar for you!) and for what its worth I would support also having a bot to create non UK places but it seems that these have already been done (for example France and Germany that have similar units).

Yes I remember you saying that you just want me to be getting on with things for a while before considering lifting. As far as the bot goes I still think its a good idea though maybe since there are only around 500 articles it could be argued that its not worth it (but 500 or so does still seem enough) but in any case I will make sure that the quality is acceptable (with the bot operator) and I will disclose my editing restrictions and its up to the community if this is done. And yes I would like to be clear that I'm not looking at mass creating poor quality articles on dubiously notable topics and I certainly don't want to add errors to the wiki, as Jimbo has said zero info is better than incorrect info. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 10:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

	Free avatars
	You are good and the best! AceLuan54 ( talk) 11:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am a new user that would like some guidance. I want to know how to be a higher part of Wikipedia. I have made mistakes in the past. I want guidance on how to work on my future goal of adminship.

Natadmim ( talk) 18:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	You deserve it! Natadmim ( talk) 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now started a RFC at User talk:Crouch, Swale/England#RFC to see about creating the missing parishes and if there should be splits etc. In the ban discussion that was declined at the begging of the year where you said about ensuring "there is consensus for any future large creations of articles" this should hopefully deal with this but even if the bot proposal does fail and you're not happy with me mass creating them all in one go you could relax the restrictions in the sense of allowing me to create 2 new articles a week, 1 every day, 1 every other day etc. As far as the page move restriction goes relaxing that isn't nearly as important since I can still use WP:RMT which unless contested normally results in the page being move shortly after so unless no one's prepared to alter the creation restriction I don't see a strong need to relax the move restriction. Maybe another way of relaxing the creation restriction would be allowing me to post them at RMT (after creating them in draftspace) or asking an established user to move them should be considered as a relaxation to the creation restriction? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Thanks for or kind offer [5] to nominate me for RFA.

As you have seen, I have two nominators already: see User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Nominating_you_for_adminship, where BD2412 and Dreamy Jazz are collaborating.

However, it would be wonderful to have a third nominator, esp someone as experienced as yourself. May I ask you three to communicate and see if this works for you all?

Thanks again -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, Of course. I would ask that we wait until the ARCA is resolved before I add anything to the RfA though Worm^TT( talk) 20:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That delay seems wise from every angle. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Dave. I do not swallow for a moment that the Arbcom case was a close thing, nobody knows what gets discussed behind closed doors despite the Committee's claimns of transparency. Neither was BHG's issue(s) of such severity that it merited the desysoping of one of Wikipedia's most respected, mature, and industrious admins on a handful of minor, possibly indictable Wiki-offenses. This is something the new Arbcom has demonstrated as their new iron-fist approach especially to admins who have done more for the project than than hundreds of true miscreants, serial harassers and rule-breakers who are sadly never even brought to book and are allowed to wreak havoc with impunity. Many Arbcom decisions are of course the right thing to do and the only possible outcome, but this - and also in the eyes of the Community - was a serious miscarriage of justice and one for which no appeal is allowed. I am urging the Committee to find accordingly and redeem themselves, at least by entirely vacating any sanctions.

Willing to nominate BrownHairedGirl is indeed a truly generous gesture and the equitable nature of the kind I have always respected you for (and your involvement as an Arbcom member) for a great many years. However, it does seems to clash somewhat with your not wanting to permanently lift the restrictions entirely.

OTOH, if you recuse yourself as others may have suggested, the decision risks - as has happened in other cases - of being left to a minority of Committee members who are left after many recusals and who either have a personal axe to grind, or don't take the sum of the work or the Wiki-future of the person in the dock into consideration, or what the project might, on the balance, be losing. IMO, the very nature of Arbcom needs reexamining, the Committee disbanding, and its function and MO totally rewriting - there have already been far too many scandals surrounding its own members and its decisions. But of course the way it's set up, they, and only they, have the monopoly on what they do. Take care, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung, The votes landed at 9 / 6 - which is the closest desysop I have been involved in to my recollection. Desysops at arbcom decision are generally unanimous or with only 1 or 2 dissents. I'm aware that you will be still a bit sore from your case, in which I did not take part, but I'm not seeing the "hundreds of true miscreants ... wreak havoc with impunity", still, that's a matter for disagreement.

I do not intend to recuse, I understand the optics, however, my nomination statement should be taken into account, which has not been written yet, as should my long history of nominating users I have little or no interactions with, and my lack of interaction with BHG herself.

As for disbanding the committee, I have hoped for this for a few years, however I do not believe the community is ready for that yet. Worm^TT( talk) 09:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope that you will vote both on the Arbcom appeal and the RfA (if it takes place) from your heart and not from some cold nosed aspect that today's Arbcom implements. Recusals can happen the way I described above. Indeed you and so many others recused on my case that it was finally decided by a minority of members left over who either had an axe to grind, or like the British courts so often, provided a verdict that they thought the community wanted to hear. Every single one of the so called complainants in that case was lying through his or her back teeth and Arbcom believed their prima facie evidence. Of course I'm sore. But ironically, I've now found better things to do with my twilight years than muck about in Wikipedia's murky police state. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

PS: At least around 15 arbs took part on BHG's case, which without checking, I assume that was the vast majority of sitting arbs at the time. It was probably as democratic a result as possible, but it was still the wrong one. I didn't really do too bad in the two ACE I ran for, but with barely enough candidates to fill the seats, that wasn't too difficult. I ran in 2019 only to make up the numbers and to deliberately expose some people who I was sure would come out of the woodwork with a vengeance with baiting and harassing veiled as questions. I never told you this, but had I miraculously passed, I had no intention of actually taking up the offer of a seat. By that time the Committee, IMO, as a body was already beyond repair and I proved my point. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not critical of your supporting the idea that BHG should able to address at RfA any questions that pertain to the topic ban; I support that element of the request myself. Rather, it's that you're weighing in as an Arb while also seeming to carry a torch for that specific party's re-adminship, and for it to be easier for the desysopped to regain adminship than the community has established that it should be. That comes across as a double-dose of INVOLVED advocacy.

Sentiments like "I feel that RfA is an unpleasant prospect for anyone, let alone someone who has had their admin bits removed, and they deserve a fair shake at community review" (as if BHG requires your help to win a wiki-political election) are easy to read activistic/interventionist. Analogy: a judge on the appellate court panel cannot also act as one of the defendant's or plaintiff's attorneys.

Being an Arb doesn't preclude anyone from nominating someone for RfA, or course, nor for advocating RfA changes. But if you've already expressed (at ARCA!) a desire to do so on behalf of the party before you an as appellant, then it doesn't seem appropriate for you act as an Arb on the ARCA request from them (or their supporters, in this case) about their upcoming RfA. Regardless what decision you would advocate in the proceeding, it is (or is indistinguishable from) a conflict of interest, in the regular sense not the special WP-content-editing sense.

I'm not raising the matter because of personal concerns (what you've said about how this request should play out mostly agrees with my own, and you're one of the Arbs I would vote to keep). Rather, I care that the community doesn't have its faith in ArbCom's lack of personal investment in particular outcomes eroded more than it already has over the years. It's an optics matter, and would apply regardless what usernames were involved. It's not me having suspicions about your motives, or trying to sway the Arb vote count in a particular direction.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope WTT is ok with me jumping in here. SMcCandlish, first I will say that I hate the phrase "the optics look bad". That can be true but we should be endeavoring to say whether the thing is bad or whether it's not. The optics can be a clue about which of those things are true and efforts should be made to avoid bad optics, but bad optics shouldn't be, on its own, a reason to do/not do something. As you've laid out here why you think it's not just the optics, but that a lack of recusal is bad let me suggest an alternative POV. WTT has pretty consistently been of the viewpoint that BHG should still be an admin and should not be under a 1-way IBAN. I don't entirely agree with that, but that's been his position. We know it's been his position because of how he voted at the case. So taking those positions at ARCA is entirely consistent.

So then the question becomes, if you're an arb and you think ArbCom got it wrong do you have any right, as a community member, to seek recourse? I would suggest yes. And if WTT had actually been invested in trying to get BHG to run and/or was consulting on the RfA then he should probably recuse. However, saying, in his role as an arb, that he thinks ArbCom got it wrong and offering, from that perch, to go further as a community member, but, and this is crucial, not actually going farther, is not on its own grounds for recusal. It's a fine line but I think WTT has stayed on the right side of it (even as I continue to disagree with some of the stance he's taken). Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, SMcCandlish Thank you both for weighing in. Barkeep, you are of course always welcome to weigh in here.

It has long been determined that a) Arbcom should not simply return admin rights after removing them and b) the community is not generally willing to return said user-rights. What's more, it has also long been determined that RfA is a horrible process.

With respect to BHG, I'm pretty clear about times that I need to recuse, and if you could point to any history I have with BHG outside of the case, then I would agree. I don't accept the analogy to judges and courts, as Arbcom isn't a court. On wiki, we reguarly have processes that follow one after another, and one person can carry on the other - For example, an admin who may shut an ANI thread and open an Arbcom case.

I'm not a strong advocate of BHG, as I mentioned elsewhere, I don't think we've interacted. Similarly, with a significant portion of the people named at User:Worm_That_Turned/RfA_reform. What's more, a nomination from me is by no means a golden touch - I've got a 50:50 rate or so. I am, however, willing to state, at an RfA, in the nomination section, that I do not believe BHG should have been desysopped.

Oh and Barkeep, my issue with the 1-way interaction ban is the 1-way side of it. I absolutely think the two should be under a 2-way interaction ban, as I generally believe that works, and 1-way one doesn't. Worm^TT( talk) 15:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know that you think it should be 2-way not 1-way which is why I intentionally included that descriptor rather than saying you don't think she should be under an IBAN :). Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Tangent: I hadn't seen your RfA reform page before WTT. I have come to the same place through a different route in my own work on it. My thought is that there's consensus it's broken but wildly different reasons why it's broken/how to fix it and so that there's not actually a viable reform process to be done. But also the way to "fix" RfA is by getting good people to run and pass. This is why I am particularly happy Jackmcbarn passed since I think that is one indication of a healthy RfA climate. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I decline to go on endlessly point-by-point about this; I've expressed my observations and concerns, quite clearly. But we can try rephrasing. Whether someone likes the PR and lobbying jargon phrase "the optics look bad" is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they do, and you can re-describe that situation in whatever language works better for you, e.g.: "WTT's stumping for the appellant while simultaneously hearing the appeal will further erode community confidence that ArbCom is in fact arbitrating rather than supervoting." I repeat that it has nothing to do with the specific individuals involved and any motivations they may have, nor with the specifics of what the Arb in question may recommend in the appeal. It's just the very fact of remaining on the bench for this appeal while – from the bench itself! – declaring for the appellant and also against the community consensus on how RfA operates (i.e. against "the law" itself, in a legal analogy). A judicial activism effect is corrosive whether it is intentional or not. So, that's now several different ways of expressing the same issue, and if it's still not getting through, then I'll simply sit back and let the damage be done. I may be able to stop a calf from inattentively stumbling off a cliff, but I can't stop a bull charging to leap off.
PS: OID's comments at the ARCA are also highly relevant, though they go further in some directions than I'm willing to. I'm not "political" about this, but system-analytical. PPS: "Grounds for recusal" simply isn't a thing. Recusal is not a punishment, and isn't imposed by anyone. It's a decision one makes oneself, about whether one's own thoughts on the matter to be decided may interfere with impartiality (probably doubtful in this case), or give others the impression of lack of impartiality, and erode their confidence in the process (already demonstrated in this case, since multiple commenters in a thinly attended ARCA have already raised this concern).
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC); rev'd: 04:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you: [6].  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

During Biblioworm's convoluted multi-stage RfCs for RfA reform 5 years ago (gosh how time flies), an item was on the agenda about the appropriateness of some kinds of user questions. Unfortunatey, with every further stage of that reform project, the issue, along with many others, got dropped as topics got whittled down to those which would have a chance of passing the semi-finals. There are those who claim that it's fair to throw any shite at the RfA candidates in order to faze them and make them demonstrate how they would handle certain situations. There are others, particularly old-school Brits like me, who believe that asking strangers delicate and intimate questions about their social or political adherence is beyond normal social ettiquette. That's why there are polling booths at elections and referenda, and possibly also why the Wikipedia community decided on a secret poll for ACE. There are of course people who are quite happy to wear their political and gender allegiance on their sleeve and that's up to them, but while it's accepted that it's disallowed to ask an editor his or her age, surely it should be equally forbidden to ask them if they are straight or LGBTQRXYZ or an ingredient of any other alphabet soup , Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Labour, or as in a recent RfA, a broad but direct question demanding some kind of admission to these aspects of personal opinion. I haven't lived in the UK for close on 50 years, but I know that in at least one European country where I have lived simply asking someone such a question can result in a 'Was geht dich das an? Kummer dich um deine eigene Scheiss' , a bloody nose, or from more dignified people even a successful lawsuit just for asking.

Today's Community is naturally far more aware of the PoV pushing that goes on than it used to be, and every editor who is genuinely concerned for the encyclopedia's neutrality has a right to be cautious when electing users for 'higher' office. Thus while at least one admin has been defrocked for using his privileges to promote his organisation and others admins have accepted paid missions and been allowed to retain their bits without even so much as a slap on wrist, I am nevertheless disappointed that the Community's suspicions are continued to be permitted to breach social norms on RfA where in the absence of serious evidence there is no reason to do so. I am therefore even more gobsmacked that an arbitrator (not you) openly supports and promotes the asking of such questions. I value your opinions and I would be interested in what you think of all this. OTOH, if you think my asking is an affront to your privacy, don't hesitate to tell me so. However, and I knoow you agree with me at least on this, it has certainly long been determined that RfA is a horrible process. I still firmly believe after all these years (even though I am now retired from mainspace and administration), that at admin elections (in contrast to other's reasoned opinions) fix the voters, and RfA will fix itself is the ultimate solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung, glad you still felt my page was still a happy place to discuss such matters. You have been consistent with the "fix the voters and RfA will fix itself" line for nearly a decade, I can't fault you on that! However, I don't necessarily agree. People should absolutely be able to ask questions of a candidate - taxing, thought provoking and difficult questions. The one area that I do pause upon is the "personal" questions. (As a brief aside, can you stop referring to non-straight as "LGBTQRXYZ or an ingredient of any other alphabet soup", which comes across as disrespectful ... if not worse)

So, should we allow personal questions? Well, quite often, the personal questions are posed in relation to past behaviour. If, for example, an editor regularly edits American Politics articles leaning in one direction, is it not unreasonable to ask them to declare any political allegiance? Many, many other questions that you would find unacceptable are ones that many editors rely on to make their decisions and go to the heart of our NPOV stance. Context is key. On the other hand, right now, I would expect any RfA to have someone throw in an American Politics question, simply because we're weeks out from a major election. That may well be inappropriate, if say, the editor has never edited American Politics, and especially if they are based in a different corner of the world.

There's another factor to this, which is a generational thing. In the UK at least, we have become a far more expressive with their emotions and opinions - rather than the British "Stiff upper lip". The transparency is expected through all sorts of walks of life, and reduces scandal. Not necessarily because problems aren't happening, but rather because there's less fuss. Donald Trump has survived scandals that would have sunk many previous presidents, simply because everyone knows the sort of person he is and it's just not surprising and doesn't make the same sort of news as it did. Good or bad, society expects people to be open about things that may cause problems in the future.

Now, the next layer to that comes back to admins being able to cause problems in the future. As long as admins are regarded as "higher" individuals, more important etc. then they will be subject to the higher level of scrutiny. There is almost nothing we can do to stop the RfA process being horrible. Secure-poll is one idea, but that negates the "discussion" aspect of RfA, and would up the ante on questions prior to the RfA. Of course, on the flip side, if we can stop regarding admins as superior - that will lead to people voting and asking questions at a less agressive level. To do that, we need to be making it easier to desysop, and, to be honest, we need to be invoking other sanctions against admins. How often does an admin get blocked? How much hoo-hah is there over it when it happens? These are all part of the same issue. Worm^TT( talk) 09:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, there aren't many places left on Wikipedia where I am still wont to have a serious discussion and this is one generally calmer corner where a bit of intellgence still reigns. Problem is, when you've become part of Wikipedia as much as I stupidly let myself, it's very difficult to let go completely - the time will come of course. Change takes place on Wikipedia at an excruciatingly slow pace, far, far slower in fact than in any other facet of modern society, and that is mainly the fault of Wikipedia's own consensus building system. Generation gap? I've been around now for a full 3 generations and have grandchildren in college and I even laugh at some of their old fashioned ways. I've moved with the times, unlike for example my parents who remained stuck in the 1930s right up until they sadly passed away recently (although to give him his due, my father knew more about Internet technology at 96 than I do, but he was a genuine rocket scientist). I do not believe that social mores have changed as much as you contend, but it probably depends on what level of the still existing British social hierarchy one moves in, lives in, and works in. Those whose life and work keeps them in touch with all strata are lucky and have the widest world-view, and I think I'm one of those, and I've had the benefit of living for decades at a time in both similar and very different cultures so it's almost impossible to assume that I have a blinkered outlook. I left the UK nearly 50 years ago and Europe (only) 20 years ago, but up until very recently, wherever I've been living I have always spent a few weeks every year in the UK, in taxis, trains, and planes, at academic conferences, school governors' meetings, government offices, libraries and other records offices (a lot of it stupidly researching for Wikipedia articles), pubs and clubs, and even in more recent years, at WMUK meet ups. I'm fully aware of the things one can say and get away with, and things that whatever one would like to say or ask must be left unuttered. Again, my take away from all that is that it hasn't changed all that much, except that the actual 'stiff upper lip' went out with Margaret Thatcher, and I was so relieved when, in 1997, the UK finally had a PM who was younger than me - somehow it made me feel proud for the way Britain had moved on, and how recently even some major royals have decided to live (almost) normal lives; yes , these things would have been unthinkable 30 or 40 years ago.

So back to RfA: As long as the Arbitration Committee continues to regard admins as "higher" individuals, more important etc., and hands out the maximum punishments in their catalogue to them because they can while they allow others to get off lightly with apealable sanctions, you'll never get the community to stop regarding admins as superior, so you'll never achieve RfA reform that reduces it to a less aggressive level. It's a bit Catch 22. Back in the days of all that blocking and de-blocking of Eric (where you also issued one indef block with 'Enough is enough'), was the time when the community should have been looking more closely not only at both at possible admin misdemeanour, but also at very serious issues of serial incivility and personal attacks and properly doing something about it, but they didn't, and a lot of my rancour is a leftover from those days where admins were considered freiwild (and still are by Arbcom). Nowadays people are so scared already to run for adminship lest they suffer the disgrace of having their stripes ripped from their shoulders later on, the only candidates are an absolute shoe ins, and are not likely to work in the contentious areas where a bit of professional risk taking is perfectly acceptable. These new admins are not going to expose themselves to people and situations where they are going to be baited, bullied, and harassed until they lose their cool and burn out. So you end up with huge backlogs at NPP, AfC, AfD, and lots of threads at ANI that get archived unresolved, and ironically Arbcom has less cases and when they do they ignore the facts and come down on the admins like a ton of bricks. Here's a fact: if I had been around the Wiki all these years without being an admin and somebody suggested I ran at RfA in today's climate (the one admins face after getting the bit), my answer would be 'Not bloody likely!' OTOH, if I hadn't been an admin, I would never have achieved the few good things I did, and I never pestered people with any improper personal questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung, I absolutely agree that change is slow on Wikipedia. You seem to need a couple of people with a firm mindset, clear vision and the tenacity to see things through. I remember deciding to close an RfC on WT:V as no consensus, despite it being clearly the right decision. Happily, they instigators kept pushing, and the change happened six months later. That was about removing 2 words from a policy!

Perhaps it's just my perception, but the scandals of the present seem to be much more about people abusing power or genuine corruption, rather than who they are and how they identify. In today's world, would David Mellor have been sunk because he had an affair? Or Ron Davies over his sexuality? We currently have a Prime Minister who has an undisclosed number of children - and a little over a week ago it came out that had an affair with someone who got £25k of funding from his office while mayor. Sure, there were a few articles, but there seems nothing to the level demanding his resignation.

On RfA, you're again suggesting the problem is with the Arbitration Committee, but that committee is taken from the community and reflects the views of the community. The view of the community is that adminship is something special, and so the committee must take that into account - or rather, the members will automatically take that into account. You're absolutely right, it's a Catch 22, one cannot change without the other changing first, and it's just getting tighter and tighter.

Regarding Eric, some out there believe that I fall on the other side - my "enough is enough" block was at the start of a 3 months incivility block from Fram, and subsequently overturned at ANI - meaning Eric was only blocked for a few days. Given that Eric had also reviewed some articles I've worked on, and I live in the North West, it seems I was tarred with that brush. I generally find conspiracy theories like that amusing, and was quite surprised to find myself in the middle of one. Worm^TT( talk) 08:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

On a totally different note, due to The Signpost apparently being so desperate these days for content, I was rereading this post of yours which in that context was mentioned in another place. I have said in the last couple of days that I have always encouraged users to do what they can when they can, rather than chide them for not doing something. (If I criticise a group for not fulfilling their mission, that's something else). Arbcom has a mission which it fulfills, but the results are arguably not always in the best interests of the mission of Wikipedia. It would be a great loss if your circumstances were to force you to be less active, or die on some hill, at a time when arbitrators with what you are able to offer the project are in such short supply. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung, Very kind of you to say, but I do feel I'm not adding to the project at the moment. Now would be a good time to leave, as my seat could be filled in the coming election. I'd have less concerns, and could happily fade into the background... or more likely into memory. I'm not one for the dramatics, so that route does appeal to me. However this community has been such a large part of my life for so long, it's tough to let go. Worm^TT( talk) 08:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's tough to let go. Tell me about it! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The WP:JAGUAR leaps! This was a really interesting thread to wander across, especially since I've considered some of the same questions (in the main topic of your convo) without actually reaching firm conclusions on them. I don't personally have much of an issue with people asking nosy questions as long as they don't totally lose it if I choose to be circumspect about one or another of them. But as a professional privacy activist for most of my early career, I can strongly understand and empathize with how and why others may feel very differently about this. It's an interesting question whether an overly strong expectation of secrecy about certain "self-topics" effectively constitutes a form of very narrow, potential CIR problem with regard to things like RfA (especially if the editor is already pseudonymous anyway). But one also has to wonder whether other editors should feel entitled to the "nitty-gritty" on things that fall into a category like protected classes (or a subset thereof, e.g. things that are factor of nature or sense of self, rather than choice or arbitrary circumstances: "Are you Hispanic/Latino?", "Are you a lesbian?", versus "Are you a progressive/liberal/leftist/Democrat?", "Have you ever lived in former Yugoslavia?").

And it's not always about asking. Not all that long ago I was being badgered with bogus wild accusations and wild smears by someone, in a way that effectively forced me to "out" some private-life personal facts about myself, of considerable sensitivity to me, to be able to contextually defend myself against that firehose of attacks. (After ANI refused to act because the other party had a reputation for socio-political positions that aligned with a lot of ANI respondents; one of those "unblockables"-style problems.) While that other party was much later T-banned via ArbCom, I've never felt that the community, and the admin corp, should not have accepted anywhere near that level of propagandistic manipulation (rather Trump-style, now that I think of it), effectively forcing disclosure from me lest that party's "dogwhistling through an amp stack" b.s. be taken at face value. Especially since it was completely hypocritical on that other party's part, given the nature of the issues the person was going off about. I'm more head-scratching than butt-hurt about it. Makes me wonder how frequently this sort of thing arises for others, who may have thinner skins or higher real-world risk. In my case, there were no likely repercussions, nor did there turn out to be any real ones in the end, other than my own consternation. But that might've be very different for someone else.

October

Today's DYK is a song, Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Kempf), a call to see and praise wonders daily and let nobody deny that, written in World War II, - a good recipe for peace, it seems. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a banned user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews in German, but music and scene. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I can answer that question you were considering, since you might still be wondering: I have no general privacy issue or fear of being harassed (or I would've changed user IDs ages ago, and wouldn't be pointing from my user page to any social-media sites, or using my regular e-mail address here). Hell, I spent about 15 years in activism circles being yelled at by people on the Internet every single day. >;-) Since then, being one of the top 3 or 4 shepherds of MoS for a decade or so already guarantees me various wiki-haters (and I actually try to smooth things over with them, though this can sometimes take years).

The reason I'd created the account was for doing cleanup work on mainspace topics that might be unsavory or seem freaky, and which a real-world potential client who was Googling me might mistake for a personal interest rather than a random page I was gnoming at. (It was a not-great idea, despite disclosures, to also later use it as a convenience alt. account when on "foreign" WiFi, library computers, etc., even if I didn't appreciate some not-very-AGF comments about that.) The anti-"topic doxxing" concern of that alt. was highly specific, and not even much obscurity, just not super-obviously listed by name on my user page or something as high-profile as an ArbCom candidate statement. I even disclosed it on my own talk page, confident no potential client would wade through years of talk archives. It's certainly not a secret from other editors, and I have no concerns about angry ex-editors trying to "contact my employer", etc. (that'll almost always be someone I don't disclose even at somewhere business-related like LinkedIn until after the contract is over, for NDA reasons.)

Oh, and the other question you were considering, someone else has already asked.  :-)  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I am commenting here as I understand I can't reply there. The main crux of my request is mostly clarification. I don't want to edit the GAA article itself but want it to clarified that I am able to edit the sportspeople and clubs who play it which have no political affiliation whatsoever. Joe said that it is OK to edit there but I was mostly looking for clarification on it. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 11:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The C of E, before I respond, I'm unsure why you cannot reply at the Clarification request. Worm^TT( talk) 13:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

When I had my sanctions put upon me, every time I tried to reply underneath, it was moved away from it. Plus it even says at the top "this is not a discussion", which I thought meant you couldn't reply directly to the statements made. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 13:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The C of E, this is your clarification / amendment appeal - it would be unfair if you could not respond at all. While you can only edit your section, you are able to respond to points. Generally, I would recommend editing your section, indenting, and pinging the person you are responding to. Look in the other ARCA above to see ProcrastinatingReader has done it.

I would certainly prefer to address your points there. Worm^TT( talk) 14:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Sabrina Sidney. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Eddie891. Worm^TT( talk) 20:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I read over the article, and it's a fascinating story and well done article. Really, I should be thanking you for all the great work you do. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

November

I remember, - thank you. - In case you are interested in an article related to my question to the arbcom candidates (that you probably saw): L'ange de Nisida, also a FA, and mentioned under #Donizetti on my talk. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

That one was resolved, - a new design came up for Hippolyte et Aricie. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

On your user page you mentioned that you have adopted users if I am correct? What does this mean? SenatorLEVI ( talk) 16:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

SenatorLEVI, adoption was a 1:1 system for learning the ropes of Wikipedia - see more at WP:ADOPT - my personal adoption centre is still visible at User:WormTT/Adopt

Unfortunately the system is now rather defunct and I'm afraid I don't have time to do it any more. Worm^TT( talk) 18:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I see, thanks a lot. SenatorLEVI ( talk) 05:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven in 1803

The birthday display! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!
	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! In this toughest of years, thank you for continuing to care about others - both in your editing, your words, and just in your being. Roll on 2021 and I'll see you there! Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my appeal I have started a RFC and although there isn't a clear consensus on what to do in general there is a consensus against bot creations (unless perhaps someone who has the skills to do the technical bits comes) and some have suggested that "X and Y" parishes might not be needed unless there is a decent amount of verifiable information. Therefore it seems that I probably need to create all the articles manually making sure sufficient content is included. Although this isn't great it at least hopefully helps somewhat with the point about consensus to create a large number of articles in the previous ARCA.

While I understand that the community are concerned about content quality is it a bit concerning how harsh you and some others have been towards editors who end up with sanctions since such editors are generally those who are least able to successfully appeal sanctions while those who are likely to be able to generally don't end up with them in the 1st place.

I'll provide a list of number of creations allowed in a table below, similar to the (2nd) tier regulations in England

• Tier 1, all topics such as BUAs and Domesday places that aren't higher.
• Tier 2, former civil parishes.
• Tier 3, current (and recently abolished) civil parishes (as well as Welsh communities and unparished areas) (around 500-600).
• Tier 4, settlement parishes (including those that are as such Welsh communities and unparished areas) (~60).

Times

Tiers	Tier 3	Tier 4
6 months	~3 a day	~2 a week
12 months	~1.5 a day	~1 a week

What this means is that if we decide tier 4, 6 months we would replace the 1 submit a week rule with me being allowed to create 2 civil parishes as defined in tier 4 a week and allow an appeal in 6 months, if we did tier 3, 12 months we would allow me to create 1.5 civil parishes as defined in tier 3 a day but I would have to wait until January 2022 to appeal next. As far as the current restrictions go I did submit some late due to the fact I didn't submit any in most of the 1st half of the year but I haven't gone over my limit. Obviously with the restrictions you could propose what you like (such as the ability to create 3 a week and appeal after 6 months) these just give what would be needed to complete such missing parishes. One other thing I'd throw in is the ability to create 1 article a month on any topic.

As far as removing the move restriction goes I'm not sure we need to lift it given I can file as many WP:RMT or WP:RM as I want however if we don't relax the creations restrictions significantly (say only a few a week) then I'd suggest allowing me to move pages as a result of a RM discussion that has been listed for at least 7 days since although I can still do this now people might question if I'm not allowed to move them myself and have to use RMT for move requests I close. However if one of the tier 3 options (or similar) happens then I'd say that this would be unnecessary since I should be encouraged to focus on creating good articles rather than potentially rushing it in order to do other things. Also if we do approve the ability to create directly as proposed a move exception should be to move pages from draftspace or userspace etc to mainspace in accordance with such creation limits.

The other thing that should be relaxed is the ability to create redirects and DAB pages as long as I keep in mind WP:RDELETE and WP:COSTLY. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, I had a look over the RfC - well done for starting that - and from what I can see, the reason the consensus was hard to read was a simple one. The community is still exasperated on the topic - and do not want you to keep pushing for these new articles. Given that you've gone on to do is talk to me about your appeal (which would have to be done at ARCA), I'm afraid I'm position stands - you should not be allowed to mass create these articles. Worm^TT( talk) 12:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I was asking you to see if you had any views before the appeal starts and I'll probably use this post to base the proposals on. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, I do have a view. Don't do it :) Worm^TT( talk) 18:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.