User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Pronouns

You seem to be claiming here that I used "incorrect pronouns". Would you mind supplying the diffs of any pronouns that I have used, either correctly or incorrectly? I didn't even bother to dignify this ridiculous accusation by making a statement, as I assumed it would be closed immediately as vexatious. If you want to get into it further, see also [1] for the same cut and paste message dumped on six different user pages. I suppose I will end up spending hours and hours getting this one straightened out. —Neotarf (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out where I claimed you did anything? I said "if an editor is wilfully and knowingly using the incorrect pronouns". I did not say you did, though if you had I would expect you to be sanctioned. Worm^TT(talk) 07:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why I said "seemed" to be claiming, since on doing a closer reading, I thought your remarks were probably not being applied to me. However my name is in the title, and the original complaint is specifically about me, so anyone reading the phrase "incorrect pronouns" might infer that there were some actual incorrect pronouns in the text under consideration, especially someone who was reading quickly or who did not speak English as a first language. Or who did not check the diffs.

Your statement that "if you had I would expect you to be sanctioned" opens up a whole new can of worms. I would call your attention to this unsuccessful RFC, which proposed applying remedies adopted under discretionary sanctions to all of Wikipedia, not just specific trouble spots. I shudder to think of notifications being placed at the top of ANI and Jimbo's talk page, informing participants that the page is now under discretionary sanctions and advising them to read the Manning case before participating in the forum. I shudder even more to think of all the editors who participated in that discussion getting templated and banned on the say-so of just one admin. I also find this edit curious, especially since the user in question has edited while logged out on a number of occasions, and has never bothered to hide their IP. —Neotarf (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That RfC asked for discretionary sanctions across the whole of WP, not the same thing. We're talking about a specific invocation of the Manning discretionary sanctions, I would expect them to be applicable to wikipedia users as well as BLPs. Worm^TT(talk) 14:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one. highlight for clarity Worm^TT(talk) 14:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I do have an example of such an editor

Hello. I'd like to ask that if I gave you an example of an editor blatantly refusing (and in paragraph form, on wiki evidence) describing how they will never ever describe me as my own gender, wouldn't that qualify for sanctions under the manning case? I'm asking based on your comments at WP:ARCA. If this is the wrong procedure, please advise me in the correct one. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit summary looks rather problematic from that perspective as well, but I don't know if that is the editor you're talking about based on some other edit.

I think WP:AE may be the correct forum, but am not sure so will wait for someone more procedurally well-informed to comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge, if you believe that edit to be problematic, feel free to take it to AE. Worm^TT(talk) 07:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, I was talking about the general case, not your specific case. Specifics should either be taken to AE, or brought to the Arbitration committee as a whole. I'd suggest you take it to one of those venues Worm^TT(talk) 07:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Assistance w/ user page protection

Hi Dave, it's sure been a while!

Earlier today, I reverted vandalism on the user page of a relatively new user, DSCrowned. Their user page throughout the past 24 hours has been subjected to vandalism related edits from multiple IPs. The user then proceeded with placing a report at WP:RPP; however, was declined. I find this odd, considering we protect articles on the project from IP vandalism, yet what about new users whom encounter vandalism on their own user page – 10 in a day from multiple IPs?

Since you protected my user page back in the day for vandalism without me having to lodge a report at RPP, would you be able to review the said User's user page, and provide a second opinion?

Hope all is well! Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The declining admin, User:Inter, seems not to have edited much since 2006, so is perhaps unaware of common practices at WP:RFPP these days. It is normal to semi-protect user pages at their owner's request after even one or two incidences of vandalism. Some administrators even semi-protect at request without any vandalism at all, though I think most people still frown on that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've recently returned to active duty and is still catching up on common practices as they are today. You are indeed correct about that. Back in the olden days we had fewer tools for protection and were much more conservative when protecting pages in cases such as this. I'll revert my decision. Oz\^InterAct 08:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not WTT, but I saw this and the request seems reasonable so I've semi'd the user page for a month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks Floq, Sorry I'm slow MelbourneStar! Worm^TT(talk) 07:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  All good Dave!

  And thank you all for the follow up! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Peace prize

Malala on the Main page reminds me of "Let us not forget that even one book, one pen, one teacher can change the world", added to my images a year ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Even if your efforts hadn't panned out, you're owed some thanks for getting the ball rolling on some overdue spring cleaning. That your efforts were successful is even better. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 28bytes. I'm pleasantly surprised it succeeded. I was expecting a strong consensus to improve the list, but was happy to find that we have a more compassionate community than I expected. Worm^TT(talk) 06:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider nominating this list as well? Among other things, the page contains the following: How to avoid being subject to remedies...We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people. Seriously. The way I found my name on the list was a request for assistance with vandalism by Kevin Gorman on an RFC I was following, back when I was helping out with move requests. I was a naive newbie and reverted the spam. Instantly I found myself added to this list of reddit warriors and evil-doers. I have already corresponded with the admin who put my name there, pointing out that I was not interested in the topic area, and had never edited in the topic area, since I was only interested in WP:RMs. I pointed out that in the year that had passed since she put my name on this list, I had not made any edits to the topic, outside of that one vandalism revert, however she refused to remove my name. I have already been to Arbcom and they said it was not in their jurisdiction. This is by far not the most horrible thing that has happened to me here. My entire wiki-career seems doomed to be mired in red tape, as I trudge from one forum to another, trying to learn the ropes enough to clear my name. When I saw the request to delete the other list of names, I thought I might nominate this list as well, but since I have never done this before, and have little confidence in my chances of getting it right, perhaps you or one of your talk page stalkers would know how to do it correctly, and take on the task. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid not Neotarf. I don't agree with notification lists, that's why I voted that way regarding them on Arbcom discretionary sanctions, but this is a community sanction. The entire page should absolutely not be deleted, so nominating it for deletion wouldn't be the right step in any case. If you feel passionately about it, have a look at this page and it's associated talk page archives. You'll find a lot of strong arguments there. Then, go to the article probation and ask if the list can be removed, explaining your reasoning. Worm^TT(talk) 06:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I want to do something--it's no secret I've been trying to "retire with dignity" for some time now. But the page doesn't seem to have a talk page, in fact, the talk page is the project page and the project page is a red link, so I'm not sure where I would start such a conversation. It seems the talk page should be moved to the project page, in order to free up the talk page for talk, but I'm not sure I should be the one to do that. —Neotarf (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This should be deleted too. 200.114.116.155 (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A request

Hi Worm That Turned: I noticed that you have check user privileges on Wikipedia and that you have a userbox on your user page stating that you're willing to help people out with queries. I have a unique request. At my first RfA, some people opposed based upon the incorrect notion of previous accounts (plural), but I only had one previous (singular) account, User:Unitedstates1000, which I fully divulged in the discussion. Prior to that, I edited as an unregistered user. I am considering the potential of a new RfA, and prior to doing so I would like to have a checkuser verify that I have had only one previous account. I recently discussed this matter with User:Fram on their talk page here, since that user provided verification in the General comments section of the RfA about my edits, but a checkuser query was not performed in that analysis. At my RfA, it was disappointing to be opposed for an offense that wasn't committed.

Rather than filing a formal SPI about myself, I figured I'd ask a checkuser to perform a query. Per the instructions at WP:SPI, “Before opening an investigation, you need good reason to suspect sock puppetry”. I have no good reason, because I know for certainty that I have only had one previous account. Please respond at your convenience, and thanks for your consideration regarding this matter. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi NorthAmerica. I'm afraid that that use of CheckUser does not fall within the WP:checkuser policy - I'd be very concerned about any checkuser who did. Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

All right. I figured the request would be a long shot to be fulfilled. Thanks for the reply. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

LTA

[2] "Pointy" is actually disrupting the encyclopedia. It is not pointy to show the faulty logic that allows this list to be here over the other. To dare question the status quo. I'm not sure if by me taking it "personally" you mean that I think it was a politically-motivated joke of a close, or that I was somehow insulted as a person. I can assure you it was not the latter. Do you think there was overwhelming support to delete the list of banned users? There was not. "Pointy" my ass. Cheers... Doc talk 06:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Doc, you were clearly trying to make a point - you neither believe that page should be deleted, nor do you believe the community consensus would be for deletion. So the question, was it disruptive? The answer - unequivocally yes. You wasted community time on the discussion, which required a snow keep. A bad faith nomination can also preclude future good faith nominations. You nearly disrupted an ANI thread with the deletion. It was without a doubt disruption to the encylcopedia.

As to your question - having read the arguments, I absolutely believe there was consensus to delete the list of banned users. Wikipedia is about weight of arguments and consensus - not about numerical support. Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not a Supreme Court justice! It should not be down to some random closing admin to "decide" a 50/50 issue on "consensus". The "right" thing was not done here. Half the dissenters were ignored in favor of what Jimbo said to do. You are wrong, and you can alienate me as a "crank" all you want. But you were not right on consensus here. At all. Doc talk 06:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how my role has anything to do with the price of fish, but for what it's worth, I agree - I am certainly not a supreme anything, a court anything or any sort of judge. We are on Wikipedia. We work as a community through discussion and consensus. Not voting. If you were to write down the list of arguments and counter arguments, the balance is towards deletion. If you add weight to the arguments, for example by reducing the value of fallacies and unsupported statements, and increasing the weight of statements backed by evidence or other strong arguments, the consensus is overwhelming for deletion. All you are doing is counting the numbers - and missing the point. Worm^TT(talk) 07:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Damnit! Why do you have to be so freaking... logical about it! It's impossible to argue with that. Very well said, and I appreciate your time on this. Cheers. Doc talk 07:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It's what I do, drives most people I meet insane. Thanks for coming and chatting (or venting) rather than stewing on the matter. It's an asset to your character, come back any time. Worm^TT(talk) 07:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Just one more thing... Let's say we had a really bad banned user who didn't make it onto the LTA list before the banned user list was deleted, for whatever reason. A hypothetical situation, of course. Only admins can see the now deleted list of banned users. Who determines who is added to the LTA list? I've added two myself: WP:LTA/VCV and WP:Long-term abuse/Hanoi Vandal. These editors had to be put here simply because of the IP-hopping; there was no "account" to ban, yes? Is there going to be any sort of transfer of the thousands of accounts that were on the deleted list? Or is it all "forgiven and forgotten" for each and every one of the banned users that weren't added to the LTA list? Doc talk 08:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer to your third question here is yes, Doc, if that helps at all. Although that's assuming that "any" is implied before "of the thousands", as your last question suggests. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Doc, I'm sorry, I totally forgot about your "one more thing". I'm not nearly as familiar with the LTA pages, so I'd defer to common sense, combined with knowledge of how a wiki works. The pages you've created, therefore, seem sensible. I would expect that anyone could create a LTA page if there is evidence of long term abuse. If a new page is created, any admin can check the list of banned users and pass any useful data across. That said, the banned users who deserved an LTA page generally already had one, with the information already available. Those banned users who had disappeared / accepted their ban don't need an LTA page. Is everything "forgiven and forgotten"? Absolutely not! The editors are still banned. If they want to edit, they can try and get the ban lifted, through BASC or community consensus. Would you have said that anyone who had been forgotten on the list previously wasn't actually banned? Worm^TT(talk) 07:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Breach of Arbcom ruling concerning Hell in a Bucket

Hi, Worm. Hell in a Bucket and Sowhatchawant have been edit-warring at SMH Records. I was intending to give Sowhatchawant a warning about edit-warring, and blocking Hell in a Bucket for a while, since Sowhatchawant is a fairly new editor who may not know any better, but Hell in a Bucket certainly has more than enough experience to know full well about the edit-warring policy. However, when I went to Hell in a Bucket's talk page, I saw this, which informs Hell in a Bucket of an Arbcom ruling in which "Hell in a Bucket is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions." To edit war within days of receiving that notification certainly warrants "serious sanctions", perhaps significantly more than the a short block I had in mind. Also, some of the messages that Hell in a Bucket has posted to Sowhatchawant have been rather intemperate, as for example here. Maybe the words "needlessly inflammatory rhetoric" would not exactly describe that, but it certainly seems against the spirit of that part of the Arbcom ruling. Under the circumstances I decided that it would be better to consult an arbitrator who had prior knowledge of the case than to try to decide on my own what was a suitable "serious sanction". So, who better to consult than you? What do you think? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it edit warring, I was removing information that wasn't in the actual references and trivial blurbs. I would look at the original AFD which already has an admitted history of an offer for paid editing[[3]]. I ended up deciding after it became apparent no one was actually going to step in and help [[4]] that rather then go through more useless policy directions to use the correct csd situation because it was previously deleted by AFD. An established editor came in and asked time to review it and [[5]] as you can see here. Inflammatory language, I've called them a WP:DUCK and invited admin to go "duck hunting" similar to a "ban hammer" I haven't used any other even remotely offensive wordings. I have said I believe the person is dishonest as you can see they are defintely on the promotional side from their comment "Now with research on SMH Records - I found someone who claims to be part of the company but isn't. If you want to "go after" a page here is one for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bentley_(producer)" which is their first posting to me. I'm actually surprised JamesBWatson, who is an admin I hold high regard for wouldn't actually be able to see that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd also point out that this is what I was doing [[6]] attempting to save the information and take out the spam. Consider "SMH Records is distributed though Caroline, which is part of the Capitol Music Group / Universal Music Group umbrella" The provided source [[7]] where is any of that information? It was the same thing as the last afd too and related problems if you look User talk:Pearljambandaid. Both usernames are band oriented, So Whatcha Want is beastie boys song, Pearl Jam is a 90's band as well. The foundations on the article are the same, I can't look at the old versions but hell if it's a hanging offense go for it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The above has just been readded [[8]] as important backstory but it's still not in the references. Given the level of detail on research before this I have to point out [[9]] from the last afd for [[10]] yet another gem from the last copy of this article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

[[11]] read the comment and consider the first edit to that page [[12]] and the extensive editing [[13]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, you said "I wouldn't call it edit warring" and then went on to explain why you believe that your editing was right. I am really surprised that someone with your experience can be unaware of the injunction "do not edit war even if you believe you are right." Edit warring is repeatedly reverting to the same, or substantially the same, version of a page, and it does not somehow fail to be edit warring because the editor doing it believes he or she is right; indeed, in almost all edit wars everyone involved believes that he or she is right, so if the edit warring policy said "unless you are convinced you are right" then the policy would be meaningless.

I see that you have six times been blocked with block log reasons which mention personal attacks, harassment, or incivility. After that, is it not time that you learnt to approach other editors in a civil way? You may well be right in believing that the accounts Sowhatchawant and Pearljambandaid are the same person, and if so then you may perhaps be right in believing that using two accounts was done with dishonest intent. However, there are various ways you could have dealt with your suspicions to that effect. For example, you could have posted a polite message to Sowhatchawant asking if he or she had used more than one account, and if so, why. Instead, you chose to say to a fairly new editor things such as "You don't have a clue about what you are blathering about" and "I don't have the time or patience to deal with people who are dishonest". If the string of short blocks for such things in the past has not led you to realise that such behaviour is unacceptable on Wikipedia, then it seems that the only recourse is a much longer block. Combining that with edit-warring days after the warning from ArbCom, and I really see no alternative to a long block, but rather than unilaterally impose one (which I could easily have done), I have consulted Worm That Turned to see what he thinks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatsonInputting sources that don't state what they are alleging is a serious issue, I understand why you are coming here first but I find it surprising that you didn't even do what appears to be a modicum of research. If it's block worthy block me. Those personal attacks you saw were for calling people SS and likening things to crusades, the inflammatory language is from an earlier ocmment that used the word cunt queer and nigger but when I asked for clarification as to what that meant I was ignored with no answers as to what qualifies [[14]]. When I say it appears you didn't even do a modicuym of research this was my first comment[[15]], [[16]] clearly very uncivil, [[17]] this as well was uncivil, hmmm seems like the only uncivil comment thus far was [[18]] which totally ignored everything I had done previously and now you are playing right into it. I have a serious problem with people trying to use that case as a bludgeon to manipulate the situation because they want to twist the situation in their favor. I understand that's not what you are doing of course I think it was actually a rather clever ploy to distract from the issue a Post hoc ergo propter hoc and by extension Moral high ground Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In case you didn't realize Blathering means "talk long-windedly without making very much sense" at that point that person had made I think at least 4 comments saying the route of all their issues is the disruptive Hell in a Bucket when what they were saying made no sense what so ever. This user has been here at least 90 days how long do we not bite a newcomer, what language constitutes biting a newcomer? I'm sorry to rant like this but I have quite a bit of frustration in the last couple months here and to be bludgeoned over the head with a arb case that doesn't apply makes me pretty fucking pissy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure this likely won't make a difference but...[[19]]. I feel somewhat vindicated, you can put me in my room now and I likely won't complain as loud now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi both. I do apologise for the delay. JamesBWatson, I would say that the situation from the Arbcom case is significantly different to that of the situation here. This is over content, for one thing - something does actually matter. That said, Hell in a Bucket, there were definitely better ways to handle this than you did. Requesting page protection while discussion was ongoing would have been a start. AfD and waiting, that's another option. It doesn't have to be right immediately. Edit warring, and it was edit warring, just after you'd been severely warned for edit warring by Arbcom - does not look good. I'm not going to recommend a "severe sanction", JamesBWatson, feel free to take it over to WP:AE if you think that's the best idea, but as it's a warning I don't think it falls under AE. I'll leave the matter up to your judgement, you're an admin for a good reason. If you feel a severe sanction is the right option here, then go for it, but since the edit warring has stopped, I would say it's probably moot. Hope that helps. Worm^TT(talk) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment, Worm. Any block now would be pointless, as the edit warring is not currently continuing. Hell in a Bucket, you are substantially a constructive editor, but you could, I think, benefit from trying to handle things more calmly sometimes. On this occasion you were edit warring, and no matter how justified or unjustified your view of the issues was, edit warring was not the best way to deal with it. This is, as far as I am concerned, the end of this incident, but please do be careful to avoid anything that might be regarded as edit warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In this case I do actually owe the user an apology for one thing, I still believe they are connected to the company either through PR or a paid editor scenario but I do at least owe you an apology for one thing "The iTunes release of “Let’s Take It Naked,” a flute-infused, bubble-gum dance-floor jam, is expected soon, along with a music video and radio promotion from distributor Caroline Records (a division of the very big deal Capitol Music Group)." [20]. Both times I researched this the first afd and this I searched Universal, Umg and Capital music. I search using just cap this last time cause I was going to rip you for it here and I found Capitol. FUCK, that did make me feel like an asshole and made me look like an idiot to boot. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

one last thing I have asked some questions that I think still need answered here [[21]] regarding this editors status [[22]]. I will attempt to change my approach because I do understand at times it's not levelheaded and I really shouldn't edit when I am stressed out but I'm not here to cause problems I'm here to improve things.

Inside

You know I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.22.54 (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

A little less cryptic please. Worm^TT(talk) 07:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look . . .

. . . at the first line in this section, and also this comment. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Writegeist, I don't particularly have a problem with it. Some arbitrators want to have as much evidence as they possibly can, and may well have looked at the historical version anyway. If he wants to waste half a dozen words and a diff linking, then that's up to him. Worm^TT(talk) 08:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Worm. I get it. The stipulated word limit for evidence can be totally disregarded. (Why then was the user instructed to cut their evidence down to the stated limit instead of being allowed to leave it at some 300% over? Which is what it is again now.) Likewise the stipulated time limit for submitting evidence. Surely as these limits are clearly not meant to be complied with they should be discarded? It's misleading to retain them, and they unfairly disadvantage people who comply with them when others don't. Anyway thanks for the clarification. Arbcom's MO, like most of its findings, really is a joke. Writegeist (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Word limits and dates are there for a reason, to facilitate the best outcome in the fastest possible time. That said, the priority is the best outcome - and I'd rather not miss a key piece of evidence based on a simple bureaucratic rule. I'm not a "rules are rules are rules" person, never have been, never will be. Worm^TT(talk) 09:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, in that case the limits are false and misleading and should be removed. I suggest this be continued, if need be, at the evidence talk page, where I have already raised a related issue. Writegeist (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As there seemed to be some dispute over the scope, on which clarification didn't seem forthcoming, I chose to retain only the evidence that seemed of direct relevance to the GGTF/misogyny. I don't think I would like to apply for an exception unless the scope is clarified, but if you could communicate to your fellow arbitrators that, if they feel the scope is broader than that, if the purpose is in any way to investigate the governance failures contributing to the hostile environment on Wikipedia (something which Mr Wales is urging strong leadership on, and something which is cited as a direct cause of the gender gap), then there is definitely one other section in my removed evidence that I consider to be of utmost importance. I'm fine with leaving others to decide for themselves if "Carrite engages in the same behaviour he seeks to condemn in others" and "J3Mrs has the same issues she seeks to criticizes in others" are sections they would have any interest in reading, in the context of this case. Patrol forty (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Asking for help

Hello. I'm new to English Wikipedia and I think you can put me in the right direction about what to make in a situation I've detected. Excuse me if this isn't the right way to ask for help. Short version: There's an user on the list of highest paved roads of Europe article/list that seems to act unilaterally and ignoring other users' comments. Long version: The cut-off of the list was 1000 meters. On Feb. 6th (at 16:36), user Zacharie_Grossen, unilaterally rised it to 1200 meters (no mention about it on the talk page, I had to look at the history of the article/list). On May 12th, the same user asked on the talk page to rise the cut-off to 2000 meters. Nobody answered on the talk page but on Sep. 7th user Chienlit deleted the unilateral change made by Zacharie_Grossen on Feb. 6th at 16:36 because it was an 'unilateral deletion of sourced material that conforms to the stated context of the article'. On Oct. 2nd, user Zacharie_Grossen, ignoring Chienlit's deletion, rised the cut-off to 2000 meters (as far as I know, without the explicit support of any other user) and deleted, if I'm not wrong, more than 100 roads that had less altitude (What will think the users that made those contributions because the cut-off was 1000 meters?). The cut-off isn't the only change this user made unilaterally. On Oct. 6th, he decided (unilaterally) to make on the same page a separate chart for highways (in that case with a 1000 meters cut-off). On May 13, ignoring the comments made by some users on the talk page and the pictures available on some of the links provided, he decided to provide an 'accurate height and high point coordinates' of the Veleta road being the height wrong (I don't know if the coordinates too). User Bizkaino corrected it on his second edition on Aug. 13th but the wrong remarks on the comments area remain. I've made a comment about it all in the talk page of that article/list (you can take a look at it) and let him know in his talk page about the comment on the talk page of the list of highest paved roads in Europe article/list. My question for you is: What (else) should be done in this situation bearing in mind that an agreement doesn't seem too likely if we consider how this user ignored other users' comments? Aguarda (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic

Quick question - as you know, he's running a discussion on Meta. What's the easiest way to get ArbCom to confirm for the purposes of an unban discussion, it has to be held on en.wp and not Meta or elsewhere ? Is there a case it could be added to for clarification or is it something the committee could clarify directly ? Cheers. Nick (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

There's been no Arbcom case on Colton Cosmic - just a BASC appeal which was turned down in May last year. Everything has happened on wiki since then. He's community banned, not Arbcom banned, so Arbcom does not have the authority to state that any unban has to happen on en.wp. Worm^TT(talk) 12:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the discussion on-wiki, as I was responsible for the most recent AN discussion in July of this year [23]. You cannot seriously be suggesting that community banned editors can appeal their ban on Meta or elsewhere and have their ban overturned on that basis, that's opening up an almighty can of worms which really needs ArbCom guidance. Nick (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not. Every time I've seen it attempted, it's been shot down very quickly - I said as much to Colton Cosmic there. In my opinion, Snowolf's block on Meta is a clear sign that it's still the case. What I'm suggesting is that Arbcom has no jurisdiction to make that statement. Worm^TT(talk) 13:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha, wrong end of stick and all that. I'll write a few lines at the banning policy talk page and see what the appetite is for explicitly codifying the current arrangements. Nick (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Too many nots

Were it not for the fact that Gamaliel had not explained himself... don't think you meant to say that. Bishonen | talk 13:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC).

... bugger. Worm^TT(talk) 13:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare does it all the time. Bishonen | talk 14:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC).

User:Patrol forty

I'm concerned about this user with 13 article space edits - total - and 35% of their total edits to Jimbo's talk page is doing on Wikipedia. 58% of their edits are to user talk pages. 14 of their edits, more than their article edits, are to Arbitration. I'm concerned twofols: 1) That there is more noise than anything else from this users, and 2) that there are all of the signs of a previous account with this user. Their primary contributions are to pursue disputes with DangerousPanda and Eric Corbett. Any thoughts?--v/r - TP 18:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Saw the thread title on my watchlist and thought I'd comment. For what it's worth, I came very close to blocking this user as an obvious returning blocked/banned user, or (at best) as an illegitimate CLEANSTART. I am 100% certain of it (I don't know who's sock it is, but I know it's a sock), but was not convinced I could justify it to the ANI crew (which is where I am sure it would go if I had made the block). In theory, a "does everyone agree this is a sock" thread could be started at ANI, but in practice, that would just result in more EC bashing and drama and ridiculousness. Also, I think I'm probably (inaccurately, but oh well) viewed by the ANI crew as an "EC enabler". The only other solution I can think of is, on the count of three, everybody ignore them, but that seems unlikely. See also RationalObserver... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm certainly not an EC-enabler. I'm an ANI-drama-fighter (I hope). But I don't want to block someone who has taken an opposite position as I have in an Arbcom case. That could be seen poorly.--v/r - TP 19:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I block rarely, less so as an arb. I've a few theories on who this user is, from a bad hand of a current user to a returning blocked / banned user. I've seen nothing conclusive but I'm satisfied that he's not a new user Worm^TT(talk) 21:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Awesome user page! Bhootrina (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Awesome user page! Bhootrina (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Hi Worm! In August 2012, you kindly arranged a change in the editing restriction I was under. Specifically, I am banned from requesting any additional rights on the English Wikipedia without getting your agreement first. This restriction is now well over two years old and I haven't felt the need to request any rights for a long time. I also don't have any current plans to request any. But, I was thinking that if the restriction is no longer necessary, then perhaps it could be removed. What do you think? Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. I'll drop Fluffernutter and Mbisanz a note, asking if they have any objections to its removal. Worm^TT(talk) 08:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Doom Bar

Hello, The Manual of Style says this "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left." so the way it was before my changes is acceptable. I cannot find anything specific against images at top left so perhaps it is something that was in the Manual of Style for images in the past. The argument against it is that on reading through section by section the eye will not find the text of the next section in the expected position. What I was trying to do to begin with was correct "Fortescue Hitchens" to Fortescue Hitchins but could not find the full form of the citation only two ref names.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Johnsoniensis, all the long form references are found in the reference section, so that we could use the short reference method in the article. tada! I've reverted your image move, as the staggering looks much better in my opinion. The text wraps, so it would always be in the same position, left or right. As it happens, neither image is critical to a specific part of text, just the section. Worm^TT(talk) 11:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

When you have a moment

Can you opine on this at NYB's page? I find it extremely hard to believe that the intent of your admin board prohibition meant to prohibit me from seeking redress in a situation I am directly involved in. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Instead, I've commented at the clarification. Worm^TT(talk) 08:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Question on arbcom draft corrections

Am I doing this correctly by commenting on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's where I'd expect comments. Worm^TT(talk) 11:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

GGTF

On the "proposed decision" page, section re Sitush you have "... edit the biography in his userspace but with the intention of moving it to userspace ... which needs copyediting. pablo 15:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This is why I shouldn't be allowed to write anything ever. Thanks for catching that. Worm^TT(talk) 15:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's easily done, hard to proof your own writing. pablo 15:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been glancing through the proposed decisions, and I noticed that in the "Sitush" section, it says, "Sitush has a demonstrated history of working in positively in controversial areas of the project, despite off-wiki harassment." There's an unnecessary "in" between "working" and "positively". --Biblioworm 19:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like it's already been taken care of. Unfortunately, I've never been the best writer... Worm^TT(talk) 11:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

wordo?

though bans round --> "throw bans around"? NE Ent 11:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Bloody hell, that's a new one on me. Worm^TT(talk) 11:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I know you're busy, but ...

Dennis and I are having a disagreement over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Proposed decision#This edit of Eric's from today strikes me as deserving a block. Is this information that Arbcom would prefer not to look at? Speaking as an Arbcom-newb, it seems directly on point and relevant. Dennis has hatted it as "prejudicial". What do you think, Dave? - Dank (push to talk) 06:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• One thing I didn't mention is the fact that no Arb can block him (and you are specifically asking for a block), or they become "involved" and can't vote, which is another reason that is the wrong venue and ANI is the right one. Whatever Worm (and any other Arbs that care to jump in) decide, I will live with. My objective was protecting the process, not avoiding scrutiny of his actions, which is why I suggested ANI and said I would not get involved in that ANI since I hatted it. Dennis - 2¢ 06:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the top of the Proposed Decision talk page (and all of the others) reads: Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision. It does not seem problematic, therefore, to highlight instances of perceived inappropriate behavior to the Committee. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say ask the clerks, they're the ones tasked to look after case pages and empowered to act in such cases. They've experience in the area and I'd trust their judgement. Worm^TT(talk) 08:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dave, I'll point them here. FWIW, I'm completely comfortable with people examining any of my behavior in this. I'm not aware of anything I've said, at any time, that would generally be considered sufficient provocation for either of the outbursts ... just the opposite, I've tried to be respectful always ... but I'm sure Eric will disagree. - Dank (push to talk) 08:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I do. Eric Corbett 09:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• IJethrobt, If it had been behavior at the case pages I wouldn't have hatted and would have simply opined on the merits (which I have yet to do). Had it been on the project pages and not the talk page, I would have asked a clerk, unquestionably. And Eric, you're mistaken here. Dank and I strongly disagree on a point, but otherwise get long quite well. I disagree with Dank here, but like with you, I've taken the time to get to know him and feel I can trust his motivations even if I find object with his method in this one instance. My concern is bigger than your case, and it isn't personal. I just happened to be there. I think my interpretation is correct, Dank thinks his is. I don't claim to be an Arb expert, although it could be claimed I'm one at ANI and those procedures, which is almost sad in a way. Because Dank was asking for a specific sanction (blocking for a singular incident that happened that day) and it wasn't likely an Arb was going to involved themselves by delivering it. The fact that he was talking about the case is meaningless. He might say the same phrase about the case next week, next month, and in all those instances, ANI is the proper venue, as it doesn't change the case. More importantly, the comment wasn't quite as cut and dry as it might seem to some, so there exists the possibility at ANI that the community will come to the conclusion that a block is NOT justified. In that event, the introduction at Arb WILL have become prejudicial, and perhaps poison the well, at the very time they are debating a ban. Dennis - 2¢ 16:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Please see my apology. Sorry to have wasted your time. Dennis - 2¢ 16:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not a problem, I've replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Penwhale (one of the clerks) replied and said he's assuming there may not be anything for him to do. Since Arbcom is voting as we speak, I'll ask a few more Arbs to come to this page to see if anyone's willing to respond to my request to bring to this to the attention of the committee. And I want you guys (on the committee) to know I have no objection to being grilled on any role I may have played here, because one of the central points in this case is whether Eric only reacts when he's provoked (I have never provoked him, though he's reacted as if I had from time to time). - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I see Eric has just responded on that page with a denial that he said any such thing. This is for you guys to decide; I'm not going to take any offense if you want to ignore it, you've got plenty of other diffs to look at. But I just want to point out ... and Eric knows this ... that no one says I knew them to be male and both of them are, because that's redundant ... saying that you know someone to be male implies that you're saying that they're male. (Test it ... tell that to someone, put the accents on knew and are, and ask them if that sounds right.) People do say (well, Eric says) "I have only ever called two editors "cunts", ... both of whom are", that makes perfect sense, if you want people to know that you still believe they're what you called them back then. If it helps, mentally put a dash or semicolon before the "both of whom are", since that was a separate edit of his. I'm not buying that Eric, of all people, suddenly forgot how to write coherent English. Considering the kinds of things he says on a routine basic, personally, I don't have any doubt what he was saying here. If he managed to make it a coded message that not everyone understood, well ... does that change anything? - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. By "not provocative", I meant that I didn't say anything that provoked either of the "cunt" insults (or the many others, for that matter). Obviously, Eric is going to feel provoked by what I've said in the last 24 hours, and I don't blame him. I didn't want it to come to this, and I'm not happy about it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Just letting people know

I've been giving it a lot of thought over the past 6 months and I'm not planning to re-run for Arbcom. When I ran, I wanted certain things. When I saw what it was actually like behind the scenes, my priorities changed. I'm proud to say that everything I wanted to achieve has been achieved - real change behind the scenes should be on the way soon. There's a lot more to be done, but I'm planning to leave it for others. I might consider running again in 2015, but come December 31, I intend to relinquish my Arbcom hat, my checkuser bit and my bureaucrat bit. Thanks for listening. Worm^TT(talk) 11:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your service. (Arbcom has an email from me in the queue, it's just to keep you updated on a previously discussed situation.) I appreciate your calm approach to dispute resolution. --Pine^✉ 08:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

List of banned users

I just now discovered that the list of banned users page has been deleted. The reasons sound very reasonable and compelling. However, I wanted to tell someone if they are considering hiring a Wikipedia service (I do some such contributing), to check the vendor against the list and avoid using paid editing vendors that are banned by the community. I was wondering if you know of any way this could still be done? Is there a category or a list or any record anywhere I can link to of banned paid editing services? I guess the list would probably not be very long as typically accounts are blocked and admins don't know what vendor they are from. CorporateM (Talk) 16:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it was relatively poor advice, given that it is so unlikely to turn up results and would therefore give a false sense of security. Indeed, suggesting they look at the person's user/talk page would be more useful - seeing how many warnings they have and whether they've stated CoI per our instructions. If you must look for a banned user list, we have Category:Banned Wikipedia users, a much more comprehensive list. Worm^TT(talk) 07:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI

[24][25]. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I'll take it into consideration. Worm^TT(talk) 14:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Just my view on GGTF but...

I am sure you have reasons you consider sound for abstaining on the GGTF ban !vote on Eric Corbett, but I am just popping by to state my opinion that he should not be banned, (slapped soundly from time to time, yes...) and that it would be a travesty were he to be banned due to abstentions who might otherwise oppose. Seems to me that when in doubt, just vote no. You can, of source, state your caveats and concerns. I just feel that abstaining in this case is simply a yes vote by default. That's all. (FWIW, I don't think CMDC should be banned either) Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is that my name appears as one of the administrators who has indefinitely blocked Eric Corbett. Furthermore, I had an RfC/U on him in my userspace for a while (which I never contributed to, but intended to). Other arbitrators have had less dealings with him and therefore I've stepped back. As I said, I don't think I'm "INVOLVED" with him, we haven't had disagreements and I don't believe I have terribly strong opinions on him. I would like to hear Eric's opinion on the matter though. Worm^TT(talk) 14:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either way. I note that I've reviewed at least one of your articles at GAN though, in addition to you blocking me, so I suppose that might make you involved in the eyes of some. Eric Corbett 18:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and looking back, you've extensively copyeditted my lone featured article, and probably more than one of my GAs. I'll stick where I am. Worm^TT(talk) 08:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Archived

Hi Worm. To me it seems fine to archive the page there, but your comment "I'm very tempted to archive the rest too, and lock down this page.", when the comments were made at the invitation and request of Carcharoth to give a final summary of ones arguments seems off. Are you sure that's the best plan? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I've been meaning to do it for a little while. User:Carcharoth is welcome to unarchive any bits that he feels are helpful - but the discussion there has gone long past useful. I saw this as the best way to sort things out and I stand by it. Worm^TT(talk) 12:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, the talkpage-in-question, needs to be limited to only arbs (maybe involved editors) responses to proposals. Plus, involved parties should be restricted to merely responses to proposals. It might help stop or slow down the bickering. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

ACE2014 questions

Hey, just thought I'd let you know I answered the questions you asked me. I apologize for my delay in getting to them. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I also have and wanted to point your attention towards User talk:Worm That Turned/ACE2014 in case you haven't seen my comments :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. Dusti, I've seen your comment, I will reply as soon as I can. Worm^TT(talk) 08:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for the questions :) → Call me Hahc21 13:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd actually like to go on record and say that although I've not support any of you three in my voter guide, I really do appreciate the work you do for the encyclopedia. You are all excellent Wikipedians and have skills which the encyclopedia is desperately in need of. Having spent 2 years on the committee, I've come to the conclusion that it's really not a nice place to be - always seeing the worst can really dis-illusion even the best of us, and I'd really rather not see you three end up in that place. I appreciate that you took the time to put yourself forwards, it really does show you've got the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Worm^TT(talk) 13:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Co-op: Pre-pilot discussion for mentors

Hey Dave. I know you were interested in mentoring for the Co-op, so I figured I'd drop by to let you know that we're starting some conversations up with mentors. I've posted some initial information and discussions points about the space so we can collectively figure out how we want the place to work. Give it a read, ask questions on what's not clear, and feel free to add suggestions to the ideas I've brought up about mentoring so far. I know you'd be a great mentor just based on your work at the WP:AAU, so I really hope you can join us. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jethro, I'll do my best to come along. Unfortunately, my time is rather under pressure at the moment, but I'll be out of Arbcom soon and will certainly head over that way at that point. I may not be actively mentoring, but I'll be helping out! Worm^TT(talk) 11:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Civility enforcement amendment request - is part of your comment missing?

At the Civility enforcement arbitration ammendment request, your comment includes the wording "Hawkeye7 should be allowed to run through an RfA (which is not required, but m, but I would not support vacating the Arbcom remedy."

This looks like either the concluding part of the parenthetical comment is missing, or you changed your mind part way through typing and didn't quite get the tidying up afterwards quite right. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Got it, cheers. Worm^TT(talk) 20:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Temporary fame

Regarding the Engelbert Humperdinck suggested move: imagine a singer called himself Joseph Haydn, accumulated fame, prominence and google hits, - would you suggest to make Joseph Haydn a disambiguation page or a page for the singer? And return to the other way round once that singer falls out of fashion in a few years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Simply, yes. Wikipedia is written based on what other sources say - not on our opinions. We can't be certain that an individual will fall out of fashion, his music may well stand the test of time - in this case, he's already stood a lot longer than most 70s singers. If he does, we can change it back, that's the great thing about having an updateable encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk) 20:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understood me, because I didn't refer for a second to the singing Mr. Humperdinck but the fictous singer Joseph Haydn. I confess that for a second I thought you talked about the composer when you mentioned "stand the test of time" ;) - Topic is over for me, - "two comments" was Arbcom's best idea in the two years I watch some of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Look how the BBC links to "Wikipedia -" here, - that's the type of links being broken, - would readers blame the BBC or Wikipedia if they arrived at a disambiguation where information was promised? - I assume the example rings the arb clarification bell ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, we shouldn't be holding back consensus based change on Wikipedia based on how some website links to it. The information is still available, it's just one more click. Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!!

E-e-bayer_lover (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

And remember to keep the CHRIST in CHRISTmas! E-e-bayer_lover (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Iota Sigma Pi

Hello! Your submission of Iota Sigma Pi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Vensatry _(ping) 17:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vensatry. Thanks for the review. I was very surprised as I know Stacey wouldn't write copyvios - it looks like there was a copyvio in the article before she expanded it and she left it in. I see she's now fixed it, any chance you can have another look? Cheers Worm^TT(talk) 08:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

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 a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, The Herald : here I am 14:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Barnstar for you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I hereby award you, WTT, the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Although I am not around as much on-wiki as I once was, and rarely award barnstars, I have always admired, and noticed even now, how you go the extra mile to be nice (particularly when interacting with others on-wiki), and that too without being asked or being prompted. In fact, I sometimes even wonder if that is deliberate on your part or if it is just comes naturally to you without even realising. Either way, I wish other Wikipedians, including certain current AC colleagues & clerks of yours who will still be hanging around, will take a leaf out of your book in all of their future interactions (be it in interactions with other community members they disagree with, other persons involved in the project, or with each other for that matter - which has prompted this). Thank you for your efforts and contributions to date, and while you may be missed at AC, I can confidently say that the community will still be looking forward to having more interactions with you (and more of your wiki-time) in other aspects of the project from next year. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) Worm^TT(talk) 09:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Priorities

This is just a web site. Log off and spend time with your family and in-laws. (Unless you don't like your in-laws, in which case your duties here are very very important.) NE Ent 20:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

you'll notice my very low activity over the past week. :) I logged on because we were watching a movie I've seen too many times - you won't be seeing me again for a whole. Merry Christmas NE Ent and to anyone else who visits this page :) Worm^TT(talk) 21:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

indef block

Hi - sorry, I know you've been busy and probably haven't had a chance to get around to it, but I just wanted to inquire about the status of my indefinite block you notified me you'd be imposing last month? I've been actively limiting my edits over the past month to two articles and have been avoiding fringe topics; I just wanted to see if there was an ETA and whether it will be indefinite or for a fixed period of time or is it okay if I resume normal editing (there's a backlog of new articles that have been created about various UFO conspiracies I'd like to get around to AfD'ing if this isn't going anywhere)? Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You're ok to carry on, I'm sorry to leave you hanging. Do keep in mind your behaviour, if you end up going down the same routes again I'm sure people will come to me. Worm^TT(talk) 11:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Dougweller (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec14c}} to your friends' talk pages.

Cheers Worm^TT(talk) 11:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Iota Sigma Pi

Harrias ^talk 00:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Worm That Turned!

Happy New Year!

Worm That Turned,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Have a bacon-filled new year!

As a member of WikiProject Bacon, I'm wishing you a very happy New Year's Eve and a great 2015! May your new year be filled with positive experiences, great wiki contributions, and of course, well-smoked thin-cut bacon. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Hamster, and the same to you! Worm^TT(talk) 08:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 already

Hi Dave. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come. Chris. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Did you get my email the other day (30 December) by the way? Entitled "RfA again"... Worm^TT(talk) 08:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy 2015

Best wishes for a productive and dramah-free year's editing, and health and happiness in the real world too. Good to meet you at Lancaster the other month. PamD 15:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Pam, I wish the same to you. Am looking forward to time off Arbcom :) It was good to meet you in Lancaster too, hopefully we will again. Worm^TT(talk) 08:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Mail

No, I didn't get your mail. I've somehow lost that Gmail account. Please send it again through Wikipedia email to my new email. Cheers, Chris. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds careless, have resent this morning. Worm^TT(talk) 07:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Recall

(don't worry, I'm not asking for a recall :) ) I wanted to thank you for having such a no-nonsense and fair recall system, though I doubt anyone will be using it. Cheers, --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 19:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Finally, someone is doing something about the chronic out of control admin abuse foisted on us by WTT! I'll sign this recall petition, where is it? I've been waiting for a long time for someone else to get the ball rolling... oh, wait... oh... I see... um... Nevermind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

awww, but I brought the pitchforks and torches. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

What am I gonna do with this 5 gallon bucket of tar and a pillowcase full of feathers????Buster Seven Talk 20:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: as long as you don't use them to tar all admins with the same brush, put them back in the garden shed :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Awww, I was looking forward to a recall :( I think I'm the only person to have ever had a route for "arbitrator recall"... though clearly everyone missed it. I think I should have put it in bigger letters on my userpage... Interesting to see who jumped on the supposed petition. I'll have my eye on you three. Oh yes. Worm^TT(talk) 07:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK

... that Karl Jenkins conducted the premiere of his Te Deum, "a joyous, theatrical piece", in the European Capital of Culture of 2008, Liverpool? - Joyous! said Gerda, hoping that for your 2015, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine!

		Sunshine!
		Hello Worm That Turned! Bhootrina (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Bhootrina (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello...

I just wanted to say that I was taken by your comment on User talk:EEng, and that I copied it to my "thoughts" page as the first entry for 2015. Best, BMK (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And I guess that cements the fact that I'm now a meta user... Thanks for letting me know anyway, I might read have a read of the other thoughts! Worm^TT(talk) 11:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for meeting that wealth of thoughts, starting with "Wikipedia exists for the people who use it or who will potentially use it, not for the people who edit it." I dream of the day that the infoboxes are looked at with that in mind. Some editors like them, some don't , - what about the readers? - On the Main page we have now a quirky hook (DYK ... that in Roger Scruton's musical vision of the eccentric love-life of Violet Gordon-Woodhouse, a leading lady is sung by a baritone?), made by an editor who doesn't like them and me, - we love collaboration, not boxes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

User rights

When user right "admin" is removed on request, why is it changed to "none"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't generally like to just guess what a person might need, especially if their stated intention is to leave the encyclopedia. Should the past administrator request any other user-rights that were a subset of the admin package, I (or any other admin) would quickly give them. Worm^TT(talk) 11:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw it more than once, and for people not intending to leave, but think I understand your point. I may have a language problem because "I don't have the free time to contribute much to WP" doesn't translate to me to an intention to leave, especially combined with welcoming a new user just before. Perhaps my ability to read between the lines is too limited? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You may indeed by right. StringTheory11, did you want me to update your user rights with any unbundled admin rights? If so, which ones would you like? Worm^TT(talk) 08:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Just got the ping...the rollback right would prove useful for any random vandalism I come across, and the autopatrolled right would be useful to new page patrollers in case I decide to start an article for whatever reason. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Done and done. Worm^TT(talk) 15:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Sang joyous music, couldn't help thinking of someone who doesn't like that (me thinking I mean). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Worm That Turned, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve, Happy editing,  - T H (here I am) 12:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

RFA cleanup

Can't really disagree with the anon, but thanks anyway. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If there's one thing that bugs me, it's cowardice such as that. If the editor wants to call you something, it should be at least presented in context of who they are. I've got my eye on the RfA - indeed, I've got an opinion on the proper outcome, but I'll keep that to myself :) Worm^TT(talk) 15:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse invitation and a question

Hey there - I have a question about editing and proprietorship. Is there any rules or recourse to editors brooding over content? I've been trying to improve an article, but a contributor who wrote many of the contributions seems very recalcitrant to any critique. Thanks in advance!Psiri (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Psiri, so sorry I never got back to you! You'll find that sometimes on Wikipedia there is a dispute over what the content should say - and in those cases we have "dispute resolution". The first thing to try is a discussion at the talk page of an article, where other people can get involved. If you're not happy with the outcome there, you could always ask for some advice at the teahouse, to discuss the matter with independent volunteers. Wikipedia is based on consensus, so a single contributor (no matter how many contributions they've made) would not be able to go against the consensus of the community. Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Boing

• If you're in touch - please pass along my best wishes. :) — Ched :  ?  14:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

will do :) Worm^TT(talk) 14:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

More attention is needed

Hi Worm! I offered comments in a couple of RFC's on Landmark Worldwide but have mostly watched from a distance. I noticed that the article has become very difficult to follow. I know that there was an arbitration case and reading the findings, see you were on the committee. There is an Arbitration enforcement request related to that case that merits attention. All the best. :) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Worm! Just thought I'd drop by to say hi, as it's been awhile. Glad to see you're still doing your thing here and remain one of the most important pillars of the community. Hope everything's going well on your side of the pond. :) Swarm... ^—X— 06:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you too Swarm, though I suspect you were just popping over to show off your new signature, very nice by the way! I was worried you'd had it a while and I was out of touch, glad to see it's pretty new :) Hope life's treating you well, and Wikipedia treating you well too! Worm^TT(talk) 07:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, for whatever reason my Old English font no longer rendered on Wikipedia so of course I had to come up with something somewhat interesting to replace it. I mean, what's the point of any of this if people don't know how cool I am? :P Anyway, Wikipedia and life both seem to be treating me better than ever these days, so I can't complain. I dare say I'm enjoying Wikipedia more than I used to even. Something seems different about it, but maybe that's just in my head. I don't know. Glad to see the project seems to be treating you well too though. :) Swarm... ^—X— 19:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Joy!

said --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

unfortunately, I wouldn't get your hopes up. Worm^TT(talk) 10:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you know my hopes? Hope came a year ago, and I needed it, remember, because 28bytes had left. It's the one message I kept on my talk from last year, letting go of all the other past. It helps ;) - The Joy piece is pictured on top of Hope, coincidentally, because Palladio was on DYK and I was too lazy to return to the songs of praise for those I couldn't encourage enough who just gave up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hope pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dave

Hey there Dave, I hope I'm catching you at a good time. I had a question. I was looking around in the history of wiki, and I have a vague recollection that during the iBox case in 2013 that one of the talk pages was archived because it became so long. I think it was the PD talk here, but it may have been the evidence talk .. I'm not sure. I thought I remembered that it was you who did the archive, but I'm not positive on that - if it was you, or if you know - can you point me to that archive? (link). Thank you (even if you don't find it. :)) — Ched :  ?  18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ched. I know I did something like that once whilst I was on Arbcom, but I don't remember which case! I'll have a look.... Now found at the GGTF case. I remember thinking that this was an unusual thing at the time, I don't think I'd done it before, nor that I'd seen it done before. At any rate, these are the only pages under Infoboxes. I could be wrong, I had to take a break around that time, but I don't think it happened then. Worm^TT(talk) 08:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone/Zhanzhao

Hi Worm That Turned,

This morning (my time), I see that OccultZone has started editing on Lee Kuan Yew, both the main and talk page, an article I just started helping out at. Other than the ANI and SPI related posts, you can see that its something I have spent most of my effort on: Before today, 27 out of the last 33 non SPI/ANI related posts were on the topic Lee Kuan Yew(4), [Lee Kuan Yew talk page](13),DRN about Lee Kuan Yew(2), Sgpedian noticeboard discussion about Lee Kuan Yew(6), Request for Mediation on Lee Kuan Yew(2), Lee Hsien Loong(1), Amos Yee(4), Integrated Resort(1).

I know that OccultZone edits on a wide range of pages. But the timing, plus taking offense at the exact same single sentence I was discussing with the other editors especially on DRN and Mediation, and taking the dissenting view from me, I find it hard to AFG and believe that this is a coincidence. I seriously don't want to engage him anymore and made it very clear in my posts, but I am fairly sure this counts as harrassment or something similar if he actively targets pages I am involved in. All the editors on that page are already working hard to improve the article, I don't want my conflict with OZ to affect them and the article. When he files another SPI, I will engage him again. But what he is doing now is not helpful. I really don't want the conflict to spill over unnecessarily, nor do I want to file any action against him as I just don't want to be sucked in again, so hope you can counsel him on this. Thanks for your time. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User_talk:Zhanzhao#Notice. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

See what happened at the Lee Kuan Yew talk page. This was the sort of thing I was worried about. UPDATE: OZ has disengaged for now. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts? Both of you would do better to ignore the other, but if you want an interaction ban you'll need to go over here - I can't do that on my own. There's very little I can do here unilaterally and the best thing for you two to do is disengage. Worm^TT(talk) 13:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Worm That Turned, I'd like nothing better to never see his name again, so I was shocked to see his name turn up on an article I was helping, that he never worked on before. Sorry to post this on your page, I did consider posting on OZ's page and pinging you, but he's deleted my posts on his page before quoting WP:OWNTALK. I don't even want to get near him with the proverbial 10-foot pole, and just hope he'd extend the same courtesy to me. But as he's disengaged for now (albeit after reverting a still-under-discussion topic and annoying the other editor there) I'll leave it for now and hope to not have to take up your advice. But still, thanks for your reply and advice. Zhanzhao (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: Case has been closed. Though you got dragged in by OZ's request, thanks for being fair to Swarm, Bgwhite and me. And thanks for reinforcing and explaining nicely to Bgwhite that he was not involved, as I feel really bad about all that happened from what I though was an innocent request. You're a good and fair admin, and I wish I had encountered you under better circumstances. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to add that OccultZone was inconvenienced yesterday [26] partially my fault, so I have taken precaution to prevent it from happening again and apologized to him. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing offensive usernames locally

Hi,

I saw that you recently used your global renamer right to change a username that you deemed offensive on :slwiki. Now, I'm not questioning your judgment whether that particular username was offensive or not, but I do find it slightly unsettling that you invoked a global administrative privilege without being asked in a situation that is, basically, local (the user doesn't have a global account), thus subject to local consensus. Could you please point me to a meta guideline that legitimizes this action? Because the way I understand the Global rename policy, we global renamers are only supposed to rename users on request. Presonally, I think this is sensible, as the free-for-all principle that you used could lead to many problems. Your thoughts on this would be welcome. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yerpo. That's a very good point. I'll have a mull on it. Worm^TT(talk) 09:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, you might not be aware, but there's a process in place for dealing with such issues - oversight which enables suppression of improper content including usernames. It's in the hands of oversighters, stewards and staff, but they have quite strict guidelines for their work and this particular issue would still have to be brought to them by the community, I think. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is that I've been thinking in a local way for years and really haven't got my head around the fact that we're getting to be a more global project with SUL. There was a request at the local Bureaucrat board and in the old world I'd have done that without a second thought (I'm a local oversighter too). I'll certainly be more careful with such matters in future. Worm^TT(talk) 09:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you support my proposal to amend the current global renamer guideline accordingly? Right now it's rather vague in this respect, only specifying in what case can a user make a request to change their own username. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I certainly think the issue should be raised and would support that :) Worm^TT(talk) 10:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll let you know when I have the time to put the argument together. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, how did you come across that username anyway? — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

[27] Worm^TT(talk) 19:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so technically you did intervene by request. I apologize then for assuming you were simply lurking around :slwiki. I just don't understand how the username appeared in both places because there is no global account. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, technically. But as you say, it was a local request about a local problem by a third party and I acted globally based upon it. I still think it's worth raising :) Worm^TT(talk) 07:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I believe that you have been tracking issues related to the editors I have been tracking at issue here. Just an FYI. Montanabw^(talk) 02:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

General reminder

I have concerns over the topic ban that you have imposed. I have also read your page notice still I am making this message in case you forget to watch over there. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Any specific reason that you ignored this above message? Given the seriousness of this issue, how would you know about these concerns until you will allow me to tell? Don't you think that it is procedural to let you know about the things you are not aware of, or you have missed? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've not ignored anything OccultZone, I'm just not as active as you. I'm aware of what's been said on your talk page, I'm aware of the multiple changes to the messages you've made. I'm considering whether changing the topic ban would be beneficial. Worm^TT(talk) 11:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that you may have had this answer, much quicker, if you might allow me to at least explain my case from start. You may doubt if this is a legible WP:TBAN. So many things I never told, and how I could then, you know the circumstances. But I think that I should, before it is too late. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've heard enough of your case, OccultZone, I don't see the benefit of rehashing it. What I'm interested is the path forward which leads to the least disruption on Wikipedia. I said I'd reconsider the topic ban if fresh evidence came to light - it did, there were 2 sockpuppets at the article. However, you claimed a lot more than that. Are you going to drop further accusations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry? Worm^TT(talk) 11:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that I ever told. If I had at that time, you might have dropped the decision of topic ban. Since you are interested in avoiding the disruption, how about we find at least 1 disruptive edit that I had made? We can discuss my edits, some of them you referred as "minor edit war", however it is not ruling out the fact that we cannot accept the clear disruptive edits, even if they are being added into the namespace by any multiple accounts abuser, if it is not a sock who is being reverted by at least 4 users, still how we can rule out any of the respect to WP:CON, WP:V and WP:BRD? By 'clear disruptive', it means anyone would agree that they are disruptive.

We can rule out the violation of multiple accounts policy and see if these edits were correct or disruptive without that.

[28] What was wrong with this edit? Yes it is not a notable incident neither it is proven. Editor had told to me that he now considers his edit to be wrong.

What was wrong with this [29] revert? I went for another reverts[30][31] only after establishing the clear-cut WP:DUCK case,[32] though there was no violation of 3rr by me, in such situation these reverts(even 10 reverts) are exempted from 3rr and they are not counted by any admin. Still I had asked for page protection regardless of wrong version.[33]

This source has no mention of India. [34] is also unreliable and written by a journalist who also represents the views of his friends on very different subjects.

This source is completely unreliable since the author is a primary source, not an academic and misrepresents the UN report like there is a law of the country, India, that's why it "registers only 1.8", while other registers "27" and more, and then cites an unreliable primary source for doubting the stats.

But any expert would know that UN reports were not based on the official stats nor they described them as "rape" per standard definition, a number of countries count even minor molestation as "rape", while many wouldn't even recognize rape if 4 witnesses are available. That's why it is highly misleading to compare rape of one country with other, especially when the law of two countries differ and the law of the US and India have great differences in this regard. We have mentioned them here, but we have also made it clear that "entry is based on that country's definition of rape, which varies widely throughout the world".

Just like we generally don't accept the sources that are promoting fringe/conspiracy theory on articles, we also don't accept the URLs that are violating copyrights, just like that many of us don't accept or give any undue weight to non-notable and still unproven allegations, or any of the sources that are alleging a living person. That is how you provide better quality. Even if one is going to mention as "A man did this on March 18, 2015" and the source is clearly mentioning the name, it doesn't means that the event becomes credible and evident. It is better to stick only to those events that aimed towards the convicted ones and even if the person is notable, having their own article, still there should be a limited mention on that article and no undue weight to the allegation should be provided. Fair example is Bill Cosby, we don't mention him on Rape in the United States though that case is notable. Thus even if the allegation is notable, it would depend and there are some limitations.

Best way to compare the unreported and reported statistics of any field is to show both of the researches, not just baseless estimates from someone who has no relevance in the field.

[35]: Indeed crystalball and also violating WP:NNEWS. Even after the clear indication of the guideline in my edit summary, he reverted[36] and rewrote[37]. If my approach was to edit war, can you find me reverting it again? Can you tell if this edit(that I opposed) had consensus or discussed upon using the article talk page? I didn't bothered to revert because I knew that in the end of the day I would be considered correct. The current version of article reads like we are still living in the world prior to 30 March, "courts have set 30 March 2015 as the hearing ..."

Thus, in this part, who was making disruptive and undiscussed edits?

Same edits were also made to 2014 Badaun gang rape allegations

I am amazed that why these sentences have not been updated, actually I waited and wanted to see if someone would, since I was sure that no one will, I just thought of turning such assumption into reality, and now you can see that no one has updated that thing on both of the articles.[38] In short words it wasn't even required also because of WP:NOTNEWS. From 17-30 March, this particular content has violated the WP:CRYSTAL and from 31 March - this day, both articles are misleading the readers for its factual inaccuracy and outdated statements.

What was wrong with this edit? Apart from the collection of unproven and non notable allegations, copyvio, all that I discussed before, it has enlisted the views of different politicians on a subject where they have no expertise. Check WP:SOAPBOXING.

After measuring all that, I don't see merit in this topic ban. The policy itself says that it should be applied "where their contributions have been disruptive".

It is not hard to find disruptive edits. It is possible if some editor has made a few edits on an article and even if 1 edit is controversial and made without consensus or it is misrepresenting the source, such edit would qualify the definition of "disruptive edit".

Can you find even a one disruptive edit per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, that was made by me? This topic ban is discrediting me from every single attempt that I made for the betterment of the article. Obviously all such great efforts look useless when you are rewarded with a topic ban for removing the seditious content from the article. I would ask if I was the only one to remove, what about other 4 editors who were also removing the same problematic content? That is how WP:BRD and WP:CON works. In order to avoid edit wars, I was the one to open discussions[39][40] and ask for page protection on multiple occasions.[41][42] This topic ban tells me adopt the approach of those objectionable editors who misrepresent sources, unnecessarily edit wars, make undiscussed edits, continue to violate the above guidelines(copyvio, Nnews..). Furthermore should I never address any sock abuse or admin tools abuse?

I surely know about this subject, and it can be proved with what I have done here.

Being the creator of the articles such as Rape in Sweden, Rape in Saudi Arabia, Rape in Egypt, Rape in Belgium (DYK), Rape in Germany (DYK), and few others, I have made my edits only after carefully assessing them, and my edits are something on which everyone or most can agree. Each of these articles would be DYK only if I had knew about this thing from before. None of these articles are violating any of the above guidelines that I have mentioned. You can compare Rape in Sweden with Rape in India and evaluate, you would find Rape in Sweden to be more better, realistic and it is rid of any copyvio, soapboxing, unproven allegations, etc.

This restriction is also making the block by Swarm look real when it was overturned for its inappropriacy. No admin until now except Swarm says that it was valid in any form or substance. I had contacted an active arbitrator and they told that they see unblock summary if it hopes for improvement or counts the block as invalid, and they would not count any of these blocks as appropriate for anything. Often, unblocks are also inappropriate and they are judged that way, whether there was a consensus or some obvious reason. But none of these reasons apply here, I was not released upon any promise for better conduct but rather due to the factual problem with both blocks. Topic bans are not for removing the best editors of the article but for removing the clearly disruptive editors. Again, "disruption" about which no one can doubt.

This topic ban is stopping me from improving en.wiki across many namespaces. I cannot revert disruptive edits such as [43][44][45] [46] these edits because article has some minor indication of "rape", I even know who is behind that account but because of this topic ban I cannot report. I cannot even participate on great page move discussions like this. What I have mentioned is just a smidgen short of the effect, overall it is just huge.

Topic ban is disparaging and misrepresenting me as some disruptive incompetent source misrepresenting sock abusing edit warring editor, none of which can be proved with diffs. Such issues are of serious concern, they further help others to sanction without thinking as much as it was required before the first sanction. For real we know that my approach was not problematic or even cent-worth disruptive. How it is my fault if someone is abusing multiple accounts and making highly disruptive edits and obsessively edit warring on a highly sensitive article, and I am just reverting them along with the 5 other non-socking editors per WP:BRD, WP:CON? I can request for page protection I did a few times. I would clearly qualify for the most anti-disruption force on that article. Forgive me, but I really I find it better to ask that you should completely remove that entry[[47]. I know that I hadn't discussed about this all as much as I have now, would you consider the benefit of doubt?

As for your last question, re:accusations of sock/meat puppetry. I know who you are referring to but how they are any related with this topic or its content? How they had any affect on my edits after the SPI on 5 March? I had referred only the obvious IP hopping of that time as socking. None of my allegation of him being a sock had any effect over the article or this subject, I never reverted him(after 5 march) for that reason, nor I degraded his points for that. Yes I won't carry them unless there is any new account, since we've been through 3 SPIs already. There are better ways to deal with something you suspect or thinks. I actually wanted to talk with Mike V about that, because he had blocked a range that day and I have some suspicion about that range, discussion would be better if I do that on-wiki so that he may better know and other experts may chime in. He was incorrect in many ways, whether if he said "its an article", though there were 2 articles, or if he predicted "some of these users will also agree on the same", though there has been no edits to this article since that SPI. You see that it required another CU to block 2 suspected accounts and an IP. Wikipedia is a team work after all. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• I did say I had no interest in re-hashing the past, yet you proceed to make a massive statement about the past on my talk page, complete with 8 following tweaks. I've told you what I want to see - a plan for moving forward without disruption to the topic. If you want vindication, get the consensus of admins (at say, WP:AN) that the topic ban is incorrect. I'll gladly make a statement there if you go down that route. Or take it to Arbcom, as a request for clarification. Discretionary sanctions allowed me to put a sanction into place which would stop the disruption at that article, whether you see the merit or not.

  Swarm's block was appropriate. I'm telling you that now - stop implying that it was not. Bgwhite's subsequent block was also appropriate. Multiple admins have taken issue with your behaviour. So, before I lift the restriction, I want to know why I should be confident that it is the right thing to do, not you think the topic ban was incorrect in the first place. Worm^TT(talk) 12:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I made those statements in order to prove the statements that I found to be important. I really got no hope that they can be refuted. Anyways, here I am trying to keep it meaningful and without repeating what I have already said. I would echo that the issues that you are talking about, they are already outdated. I already told to Callanecc and DoRD that what happened, and they have got no problem. I knew they would come to that conclusion, I had such belief. If I had disrespected any of their command, like that one from Callanecc, who told me not to file SPI. If I had, I might have lost some respect in his eyes, that's why I didn't.

Have you ever seen me repelling any of these editors? No matter even if they were criticizing me, I never did. I knew that they will find me correct one day and if I had to embarrass them, then I would've never even signed into en.wiki ever again. When you know that the next one is unaware, you are required to tell, there are many ways to. I respect their positions and I also respect them. It has been proven that Sonic2030 operated socks on not only here but many other articles, more than just 3 socks have been blocked after my investigation. I have history working with these editors on many of these cases. I even believe that this incident might have strengthened my credibility in their view, more than ever. Since that time, there have been a few SPIs where I have participated and like before there was no problem.[48]

If you want to know that why lifting restriction would be a good idea, I would say that you have every reason to think that it is. Topic ban started from 11:06, 1 April (UTC), since then I have made over 8,000 edits.[49][50] Every of my edit was major, there were no minor edits and none of them were automated or semi-automated. There were no conflicts not even a minor one. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible violation

You might be interested in looking at this complaint. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block opened

You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Review of admin actions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

My head appears to have damaged my desk... Worm^TT(talk) 08:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Occultzone C E (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ludwig van Beethoven

The talk page at Ludwig van Beethoven is about to be the focus of an edit war. There has been a debate on having an infobox for some time and I believe the strength of the arguments are clearly in favour of having an infobox. This partisan closure suggests there is no consensus and therefore no infobox. I have reverted that closure and I'm going to ask you to either review the debate and close it, please, or suggest a neutral admin who might perform the task. Thanks in advance --RexxS (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't really this weekend, not sure who to suggest either... If its still to do on Monday, I'll look. Worm^TT(talk) 20:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no rush, but I think it's now important to have a neutral closure at some point. This is the second time the infobox-opposers have closed a debate themselves in a partisan manner, making a supervote in the process. I didn't make a fuss about the one at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Infobox 3 in an effort to keep the peace, but there needs to be a limit to the subversion of proper process. --RexxS (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's Wednesday, did you look? The latest entry (of just now) said: "All these issues were gone into at vast length in the arb case, & I am sorry to see you apparently joining the ranks of those who simply ignore that case and its decision." - I confess that I doubt that. The case shapes my work every day, but obviously the decision was no solution. Infoboxes will come without Andy and me, I can do something else with my time, so I was helped, but what with the others? Imagine the discussion on Laurence Olivier with everybody sticking to 2 comments, and no revert! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked. The drama instigated fresh discussion, so I'm leaving it a few more days to die down before considering a close. Worm^TT(talk) 09:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought that you looked ;) - I wonder why infobox opponents remember and quote the wording about deciding on article level often, but not so often #6 of the formal decision: "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes , and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." - If you ignore comments violating that (Beethoven or elsewhere), you are done fast. - Look - remember de:Stargazy Pie? - at something more pleasant but not without bitterness, de:Emma Ayres, translated in fond memory from an article by GFHandel who left us over the Bach discussion (not willing to tolerate many things, including "Inconsistencies across articles which are largely due to the bizarre "first major contributor wins" philosophy"), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ps: today is a birthday, look for "peace" in my thanks, dated May 2013, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

more ps: It was in memory of this birthday that I gave Precious to GFHandel three years ago. I wonder if he knows that Handel has an infobox now, and Carmen, Rigoletto, The Rite of Spring and even Victor Bruns, - I miss him, see ibox on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree with letting the debate reach a natural end. If more voices are heard, it can only strengthen the resulting decision. In passing I should note that I feel ArbCom got it wrong again in the way that #6 was phrased. A reminder to observe decorum and to avoid re-litigating entire general debates has been used by one side in an attempt to ignore arguments in favour of an infobox at a particular article, simply because those factors could be generalised to other articles. I'm pretty certain that ArbCom never intended to disqualify reasoned debate just because similar arguments could also be made elsewhere. Or did they? --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

Do you think OccultZone should be indefinitely blocked once the Arbitration case is over? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No. But if he is unable to accept the result, whatever it is, he may have to be. Worm^TT(talk) 06:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I left a talk message on OZ's page. Add or not add to the evidence page as you see fit. I only glanced at the evidence page once, just after you added your first round of material... trying to have as stress free week as I can. Bgwhite (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to unwatchlist the page. The fact is, I'm spending too much time on it. I'll come back in a week and see what's happened. Worm^TT(talk) 08:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for deleting it, i was tensed in high temperature due to Summer season . Anyway Asceticrose claimed that i had lots E-Mail discussion with AHLM13. Now if he sends me E-Mail asking about my country, Religion and other meaningless things, what can I do? AsceticRose thinks i sent him mail and he replied. But AHLM13 is the one who sent me E Mail first and then I replied. You can visit my talk page, now he is even calling me hacker.--C E (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

request

Hey Worm, I don't care about any of the details as to why my CVUA page was deleted, I'm just wondering if you could please restore it to User:Technical 13/CVUA. Thank you kindly. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 10:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I dont expect that will be a problem. now done. Worm^TT(talk) 10:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I have contacted them. They sent me a confirmation email saying they were going to get back to me but its been 2 days. I know editing through an IP breaks regulations but i'm taking time to apologise to some of the people I acted hellish to. Thanks for your time :)--89.241.208.230 (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest you stop? Wait until BASC give you an answer. Normally the turn around time for the Ban appeals sub committee is a few weeks - and that's due to the large number of requests that come in. The fact you haven't been rejected instantly is a positive sign - but if you keep editing as an IP, you will likely knobble you're request. Worm^TT(talk) 13:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for "OccultZone and others" arbitration case

Hi Worm That Turned, in the open OccultZone and others arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others closed

An arbitration case regarding OccultZone and other editors has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. User:OccultZone is banned indefinitely from English Wikipedia. They may appeal the ban after twelve months, and every six months thereafter.
2. User:OccultZone is also topic banned from making edits related to a) sexual assault or b) crime on the Indian Subcontinent, both broadly construed.
3. User:OccultZone is indefinitely limited to operating a single account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#OccultZone and others