| Revision as of 09:28, 28 July 2013 editWorm That Turned (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators25,701 edits →Your userpage: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:53, 28 July 2013 edit undoKiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)39,688 edits →Kiefer ban proposal: No, David, you did not consider his points. :::He stated that my last blocks had been wrong and quickly overturned, and that it was wrong of you to bring up such blocks. He could have mentioned that I have received so many wrongNext edit → | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| :Hi ]. If you look at this case from a very narrow point of view, ignoring all the history leading up to this point, and only look at the incident in question, yes, I agree that a proposal to ban Kiefer would be quite horribly wrong. The incident can be framed as "WMF staff member badmouths user, user finds out, complains, gets taken to arbcom". There is, however, a lot more to it than that. For one thing, "user" is a user who has a long history of casting aspersions with out diffs, disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, gross incivility and so on. There was a reason the WMF staff member was badmouthing him. What's more, there's the way they've both behaved subsequently. One party expressed regret and actively tried to put things right (by moving away from IRC, offering to discuss his issues and showing regret), the other carried on in the same manner at the arbitration pages. | :Hi ]. If you look at this case from a very narrow point of view, ignoring all the history leading up to this point, and only look at the incident in question, yes, I agree that a proposal to ban Kiefer would be quite horribly wrong. The incident can be framed as "WMF staff member badmouths user, user finds out, complains, gets taken to arbcom". There is, however, a lot more to it than that. For one thing, "user" is a user who has a long history of casting aspersions with out diffs, disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, gross incivility and so on. There was a reason the WMF staff member was badmouthing him. What's more, there's the way they've both behaved subsequently. One party expressed regret and actively tried to put things right (by moving away from IRC, offering to discuss his issues and showing regret), the other carried on in the same manner at the arbitration pages. | ||
| :Arbitration isn't about a single incident. If we were only worried about the incident, then the community can (and did) handle it. It's about the history leading up to the incident, the behaviour of the parties over a protracted period, which lead to the incident. Ever since the last Kiefer's block in June, I've seen no other solution but his removal from the encyclopedia until he understands the issues with his actions. I stated that at the administrators noticeboard, and made a suggestion at the workshop too. I'm fully recused on the case and acting as a concerned editor. Anyone else is welcome to propose other solutions at the workshop, I'd be interested to hear them. The unrecused arbitration committee may or may not take my suggestions on board, I've no idea what they think of them, I'm not privy to their discussions. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | :Arbitration isn't about a single incident. If we were only worried about the incident, then the community can (and did) handle it. It's about the history leading up to the incident, the behaviour of the parties over a protracted period, which lead to the incident. Ever since the last Kiefer's block in June, I've seen no other solution but his removal from the encyclopedia until he understands the issues with his actions. I stated that at the administrators noticeboard, and made a suggestion at the workshop too. I'm fully recused on the case and acting as a concerned editor. Anyone else is welcome to propose other solutions at the workshop, I'd be interested to hear them. The unrecused arbitration committee may or may not take my suggestions on board, I've no idea what they think of them, I'm not privy to their discussions. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::No, David, you did not consider his points. | |||
| :::He stated that my last blocks had been wrong and quickly overturned, and that it was wrong of you to bring up such blocks. He could have mentioned that I have received so many wrong and patronizing admonishments that a thoughtful administrator has sketched a template to simplify the leaving of such admonishments for the next administrators taking leave of their senses. | |||
| :::He could have mentioned that you have returned to the dishonesty of your RfC/Us, where you accused me of removing antisemitism from articles, etc., and removing material to advanced my political agenda, when I had not. | |||
| :::He could have mentioned why you have not acted on child protection, when you know that your friend has contacted a minor off-Wiki against the parents' wishes, not once but over and over again. Perhaps your other arbs may have similar questions? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 09:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Hide IP/ Oversight IP == | == Hide IP/ Oversight IP == | ||
Revision as of 09:53, 28 July 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User | Talk | Articles | To Do | Toolbox | Subpages | DYK | Awards |
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message!
I am probably offline and am unable to respond swiftly. I will respond as soon as I can. Please feel free to send me an email, where I will likely respond faster.
 | This user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers. |  |
|
Adoption
Hi, would you mind if I created a adoption school based on yours?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not only would I not mind, I would be distinctly proud. Worm(talk) 19:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have set up my own adoption HQ.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Adoption school and Mentorship ... new ideaLab project explores some new ideas!
Hi Dave (worm that turned), it's good to connect here, you were highly recommended as a person I should speak with about a new project with big ideas :) I can see from your pages that you've done a tremendous amount of work with the Adopt-a-user program and I'd love a chance to speak with you about your experience and run some ideas by you. This is very early stage and some good conversations have started around format, design, needs etc here and here . Would you have sometime in the next few days to connect live, via phone, hangout or skype? Cheers! Sylvia slv (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I am impressed with this, notwithstanding the excellent work Dave has done on adoption in the past. I haven't looked at the programme yet, but is this likely to be discussed in Honk Kong in just over a week? If so, please let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Kudpung, thank you for the encouraging words. I don't know if there will be any sessions/discussions on mentoring or this particular project in Hong Kong (unlikely this is pretty new), but I will enquire and will let you know. All the best, slv (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sylvia, that sounds like a really interesting idea. Please do send me an email to discuss best modes of communication and timescales. Worm(talk) 08:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Worm, sorry I scanned your User page but couldn't find an email or way to email you :( could you direct me to next best option for us to connect live? Thanks and looking forward to it! slv (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Slventura, I think the link you are looking for is here.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed Gilderien!! Thanks a million. :) slv (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Slventura, I think the link you are looking for is here.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Worm, sorry I scanned your User page but couldn't find an email or way to email you :( could you direct me to next best option for us to connect live? Thanks and looking forward to it! slv (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer ban proposal
Just a quick comment - the proposal to ban Kiefer is troubling and quite badly wrong. The suggest of banning a user who was badly treated at the hands of a Wikimedia Foundation staff member is catastrophically wrong. It has all the hallmarks of criminalising the victim and apart from the questionable morality of such an option, the damage it could do to the project is enormous. The actions of the Arbitration Committee are closely scrutinised by members of our community and by people from much further afield, press and academics, and the negative reactions such a decision will create could do untold damage.
There's already a feeling of the community spreading out and clustering, of a caste system developing, with WMF staff at the top, functionaries and arbitrators also at the top, administrators some what further down, and regular editors without advanced permissions feeling really far adrift at the bottom, a decision to penalise such an editor when they were the victim of unsavoury and unacceptable comments by a WMF staffer is only going to reinforce that feeling amongst much of the community and polarise opinion unfavourably against the Arbitration Committee and the project itself.
I don't think Kiefer causes so much disruption that a permanent, indefinite block is the correct course of action anyway, the community is capable of dealing with any issues he raises, some of which are very important, such as the child protection issues. The most recent blocks have all been overturned, either at the behest or with the support of the community and some shouldn't really be on there - I blocked him for what turned out to be a spurious, bad faith outing complaint, for example. The use of his block log as a stick to beat him with is wrong and shouldn't be taking place.
I'm not suggesting no action should be taken against Kiefer, but it needs to be proportionate to the complaint, the comments made by Oliver, the overall level of action taken by the committee in the case and the risk of disruption Kiefer could conceivably cause for the project in future. I'd suggest some sort of admonishment and reminder about civility. The suggestion of a ban is a good example of what is wrong with the project - yes, Kiefer can be unpleasant, overly insistent and ultimately a little disruptive, but it's frequently because he feels he's being ignored and being unduly penalised. The current Arbitration case shows this to be largely correct, the Arbitration committee want to take no responsibility for IRC and personal attacks made via that medium, instead choosing to focus on the results and responses to those personal attacks, but only when they take place on Misplaced Pages.
I trust you'll take onboard the comments I've made and make a more appropriate series of proposals at the RFAR, for the future of the project, for the benefit Kiefer and for the integrity of the committee itself. Nick (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Nick. If you look at this case from a very narrow point of view, ignoring all the history leading up to this point, and only look at the incident in question, yes, I agree that a proposal to ban Kiefer would be quite horribly wrong. The incident can be framed as "WMF staff member badmouths user, user finds out, complains, gets taken to arbcom". There is, however, a lot more to it than that. For one thing, "user" is a user who has a long history of casting aspersions with out diffs, disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, gross incivility and so on. There was a reason the WMF staff member was badmouthing him. What's more, there's the way they've both behaved subsequently. One party expressed regret and actively tried to put things right (by moving away from IRC, offering to discuss his issues and showing regret), the other carried on in the same manner at the arbitration pages.
- Arbitration isn't about a single incident. If we were only worried about the incident, then the community can (and did) handle it. It's about the history leading up to the incident, the behaviour of the parties over a protracted period, which lead to the incident. Ever since the last Kiefer's block in June, I've seen no other solution but his removal from the encyclopedia until he understands the issues with his actions. I stated that at the administrators noticeboard, and made a suggestion at the workshop too. I'm fully recused on the case and acting as a concerned editor. Anyone else is welcome to propose other solutions at the workshop, I'd be interested to hear them. The unrecused arbitration committee may or may not take my suggestions on board, I've no idea what they think of them, I'm not privy to their discussions. Worm(talk) 09:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, David, you did not consider his points.
- He stated that my last blocks had been wrong and quickly overturned, and that it was wrong of you to bring up such blocks. He could have mentioned that I have received so many wrong and patronizing admonishments that a thoughtful administrator has sketched a template to simplify the leaving of such admonishments for the next administrators taking leave of their senses.
- He could have mentioned that you have returned to the dishonesty of your RfC/Us, where you accused me of removing antisemitism from articles, etc., and removing material to advanced my political agenda, when I had not.
- He could have mentioned why you have not acted on child protection, when you know that your friend has contacted a minor off-Wiki against the parents' wishes, not once but over and over again. Perhaps your other arbs may have similar questions? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hide IP/ Oversight IP
Hi Worm, I'm not sure on the policy for hiding or oversighting edits, but Yenwei showed his/her IP when making this edit. You may want to hide/oversight it, following this. I will leave it up to you. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi AK. I've done this, but it's best follow the procedures at WP:OVERSIGHT in the future, for a much faster response. Worm(talk) 09:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Your userpage
You mentioned that your userpage title design wasn't working anymore. You may wish to see this userpage.--Gilderien Talk|List of good deeds 23:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, not too much help - the issue was trying to use the display:none on part of my name so it displayed as WormTT, rather than Worm That Turned. It's no biggie really. Worm(talk) 09:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)