| Revision as of 15:08, 7 August 2013 editVictoriaearle (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers62,095 editsm →Revert of Evidence: indent← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:15, 7 August 2013 edit undoVictoriaearle (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers62,095 edits →Revert of Evidence: sorry to bother you; it's not that important and I don't really care anymore anywayNext edit → | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| :Saw you just added it back as she had permission - thanks very much ] ''']''' 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | :Saw you just added it back as she had permission - thanks very much ] ''']''' 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :{{ec}} I'm not going to revert everything after the deadline, I felt uncomfortable enough reverting those edits based on a time limit. I'm not generally too keen on the bureacracy and am pretty lenient on such matters, but adding new evidence today, when we should be drawing to a close, is only going to prolong matters - so I drew a line in the sand. I was aware that Victoria posted and removed her evidence earlier, but as it happens, when she first put it there, it was after the deadline. As she appears to have asked permission, I've returned it. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | :{{ec}} I'm not going to revert everything after the deadline, I felt uncomfortable enough reverting those edits based on a time limit. I'm not generally too keen on the bureacracy and am pretty lenient on such matters, but adding new evidence today, when we should be drawing to a close, is only going to prolong matters - so I drew a line in the sand. I was aware that Victoria posted and removed her evidence earlier, but as it happens, when she first put it there, it was after the deadline. As she appears to have asked permission, I've returned it. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::It's fine. I'll take it down. I had surgery on my spinal cord last Monday (July 29th) and wasn't in shape before or in the days after to post. Since people were ''still'' posting on the day I posted, I took a chance. I then removed - and asked for permission to reinstate when the block I asked for expired. Which was last night. But anyway, let's be fair all the way around - you're right, I posted on August 3rd, so it's beyond the deadline. I'll delete it. But, also be aware that in the this case an editor has been lost. ] (]) 15:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:15, 7 August 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User | Talk | Articles | To Do | Toolbox | Subpages | DYK | Awards |
 | Because the real world is far more important that our little website, Worm That Turned will be entering a period of lower than usual activity. He will remove this message when he has more time. |
 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 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)
- Along these same lines, slv recruited me to be the Curriculum Lead on the project, and my curriculum is mainly based off of GP's, which is mainly based off of yours. Anyhow, I digress. I'd love to speak with you about this topic and how you think that it can be improved, as I think you're indisputably the foremost adopt-a-user worker on WP. I also have a curriculum question of my own for you of a technical nature - for the final, you designed a bit of a template that gives a "count-down" until test completion, and I anticipate that this will improve adoptee retention due to the attached behavioral contingencies. Can you guide me as to how you made that work and how I can adapt it? --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- And much of my work was based on User:Hersfold's! Still, I've been thinking about redesigning the course, with a little help from User:KoshVorlon who seems to have made a rather good multiple choice answer script. I've said I'll try to get in contact with slv soon, unfortunately I'm in a period of lower activity, so am rather hard to find. Feel free to email me though. Worm(talk) 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Checkuser?
Dave, are you able to see if these two are the same person? I've seen both attempting to impersonate another editor in the last 36 hours. User:81.178.248.223 attempted to sign as Collect and User:81.178.244.213 attempted to sign Christian's talk page as "walesj". I tried help desk but they suggested a sockpuppet investigation and i don't want the hassle of that since i'll be on holiday friday. Thanks ツ Jenova20 08:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Dave can't do that. If those IPs do belong to Collect, it would reveal his IP address. On the other hand if it's not his, then it doesn't really matter.—cyberpower Online 08:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Cyberpower is right on that, I can't give any info even if I did do a check. What's more, I generally keep out of checkuser at the moment, I haven't had time to really learn the ropes. Worm(talk) 08:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's certainly understandable, but I think there was also a misunderstanding there. This was unlikely to have been Collect per his edit summary and i'm not insinuating or assuming any registered wikipedian is one or both of these IPs.
- I'll leave the matter anyway as i don't want to get involved in sockpuppet investigations atm. Thanks you two ツ Jenova20 09:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for no one asking me - and since I am not in London (or anywhere near London), the issue that they might be me is ludicrous utterly. Ban the hoaxers post haste, please. Collect (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ask you what? This edit summary is pretty clear that it wasn't you. I've not insinuated it was you in any form, in fact i've been clear that i wasn't assuming it was you since then it made even less sense ツ Jenova20 13:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Dumbfounded
How is blocking someone you're in a dispute with and protecting the page in question, esp when the block is ruled 100% bad, not tool misuse? Enquiring minds want to know where the admin standards have gone.PumpkinSky talk 09:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies, I was referring more to Bwilkins comment that there is no tool misuse... trying to say that even if there wasn't tool misuse, there may still be a case to answer. I'll clarify my statement. At present, I haven't fully investigated the allegations, I'm waiting to hear a few more statements and going to (hopefully) spend a little time reading the background to each of the incidents. Worm(talk) 10:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Please fix your statement if you haven't already. PumpkinSky talk 11:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have done here. I hope that's clear enough. Worm(talk) 11:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not involved when he was part of the edit war 2x? And why was prot and block needed? A block mind you that was so over the line it was unanimously overturned within hours, just like Doc J. Are you kidding? And " that I do appreciate Bwilkins' offer to step away from administrative areas" UH, hello, he claimed that game before and failed miserably. Are you and the other arbs naive enough to think he'll be successful this time? The other means of DR don't work at all, esp with someone like Bwilly who never sees the errors of his ways and I refuse to waste my time with them. It's only the threat of losing their bit that gets their attention you know that. High time for AC to stop circling wagons around admins and start instituting some real meaningful reform in dealing with wayward admins. Once again, no one in power gives one tiny crap about the innocent victims strewn all over the place. Once again AC tells incompetent admins they can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. PumpkinSky talk 22:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- @PumpkinSky:, Arbcom is the final step of the dispute resolution process, not the first step. We will not just jump every other step just because you think that they won't work. If you "refuse to waste your time" with steps of dispute resolution, then you have absolutely zero right to come to final step. You've been around long enough to know how wikipedia works. Either use the process or suggest an improvement to the community - don't just ignore it. Worm(talk) 08:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Suggesting improvements gets you exactly nowhere here. All one needs to do to understand that is to look at the number of failed proposals for reforming the admin processes here. A flurry of OWN always descends on the person foolish enough to suggest changes (usually led by the same handful of individuals who claim "it's been tried before" and point to a mountain of linked discussions that all seem remarkably similar). And nothing happens, while those who blocked the proposed changes complain that "no one ever wants to fix things." From what I've seen from watching these processes, following the normal routes when dealing with an admin is guaranteed to accomplish exactly nothing. The admin's friends can delay the process, minimize misconduct, and generally wear down the complaining party until they commit some sort of transgression out of frustration. Then they're blocked or banned, and the whole thing continues on just the way it was. Cynical, perhaps, but this closed society (again from what I've seen) tends to function most robustly when it's protecting its own power structure. Just my $.02, which is likely worth less than that. Intothatdarkness 13:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I spent well over a year trying to reform the RfA system and didn't have much success, so I do understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, that stems from one of the largest issues with Misplaced Pages, it's size. People are resistant to change, and when you look for decent consensus you see how resistant to change people are. Look for instance at the current WYSIWYG editor - it's a fantastic idea, overall a benefit to the encyclopedia, but it's being shot down because it's not perfect. To get something changed, you have to really sell it. Worm(talk) 14:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think everyone wants RfA reformed, but everyone wants it reformed in various different ways. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)Actually I think the size argument is something of a red herring. And the VE thing has more to do with the fact that it flat-out didn't work for basic functions like adding citations (something vital for article creation). VE will likely be quite good once its issues are ironed out, but it wasn't up to scratch when it was pushed out. But back to the size issue...I think if you look at most policy discussions here it's usually the same set of folks arguing against change. I've said before that OWN of policy is a much bigger roadblock here than just about any other single issue, and that's clearly on display at those sort of discussions. Even though the theoretical community is large, change can be effectively blocked by a handful of people provided they work quickly to confuse the issue or steer it down dead ends with tons of "we've seen this before" links and long posts. Frankly, I have no hope for real change here. That's why people jump cases to ArbCom...they have no faith in the earlier steps in the process. It should be quite concerning when long-term users start doing this. Intothatdarkness 14:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it doesn't work, I KNOW it doesn't work. Suggest change? WTF for? It's pointless. ITD is precisely right, you should be truly concerned when long term editors, esp one that has been at the high and lowest points like me and been an arb, is so fed up and disgusted with the now completely dysfunctional mess on wiki, that they know the one possible solution that will even remotely accomplish anything is to jump cases to AC and get shot down because AC is more concerned with legalistic maneuvering than fixing a major problem that has ripped the community apart and drives large numbers of editors away. Doc J and Bwilkins are just the tip of the iceberg. The largest issue isn't resistance to change, it's complete and total dysfunction. I am sure I don't need to belabor why we're at that stage though. I'm so thoroughly disgusted with the mess that I'm no longer going to even try to suggest changes to a process, system, etc. Dysfunction can reign freely for all I care as long it leaves me alone. AC has lost its compass, it needs to find itself, but that is also hopeless. Even better, AC should be abolished. PumpkinSky talk 20:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I spent well over a year trying to reform the RfA system and didn't have much success, so I do understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, that stems from one of the largest issues with Misplaced Pages, it's size. People are resistant to change, and when you look for decent consensus you see how resistant to change people are. Look for instance at the current WYSIWYG editor - it's a fantastic idea, overall a benefit to the encyclopedia, but it's being shot down because it's not perfect. To get something changed, you have to really sell it. Worm(talk) 14:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Suggesting improvements gets you exactly nowhere here. All one needs to do to understand that is to look at the number of failed proposals for reforming the admin processes here. A flurry of OWN always descends on the person foolish enough to suggest changes (usually led by the same handful of individuals who claim "it's been tried before" and point to a mountain of linked discussions that all seem remarkably similar). And nothing happens, while those who blocked the proposed changes complain that "no one ever wants to fix things." From what I've seen from watching these processes, following the normal routes when dealing with an admin is guaranteed to accomplish exactly nothing. The admin's friends can delay the process, minimize misconduct, and generally wear down the complaining party until they commit some sort of transgression out of frustration. Then they're blocked or banned, and the whole thing continues on just the way it was. Cynical, perhaps, but this closed society (again from what I've seen) tends to function most robustly when it's protecting its own power structure. Just my $.02, which is likely worth less than that. Intothatdarkness 13:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- @PumpkinSky:, Arbcom is the final step of the dispute resolution process, not the first step. We will not just jump every other step just because you think that they won't work. If you "refuse to waste your time" with steps of dispute resolution, then you have absolutely zero right to come to final step. You've been around long enough to know how wikipedia works. Either use the process or suggest an improvement to the community - don't just ignore it. Worm(talk) 08:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not involved when he was part of the edit war 2x? And why was prot and block needed? A block mind you that was so over the line it was unanimously overturned within hours, just like Doc J. Are you kidding? And " that I do appreciate Bwilkins' offer to step away from administrative areas" UH, hello, he claimed that game before and failed miserably. Are you and the other arbs naive enough to think he'll be successful this time? The other means of DR don't work at all, esp with someone like Bwilly who never sees the errors of his ways and I refuse to waste my time with them. It's only the threat of losing their bit that gets their attention you know that. High time for AC to stop circling wagons around admins and start instituting some real meaningful reform in dealing with wayward admins. Once again, no one in power gives one tiny crap about the innocent victims strewn all over the place. Once again AC tells incompetent admins they can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. PumpkinSky talk 22:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have done here. I hope that's clear enough. Worm(talk) 11:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Please fix your statement if you haven't already. PumpkinSky talk 11:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Precious again
'support'
Thank you for your generous support wherever it's needed, adopting mentees, proposing candidates, supporting them ("a knack for saying the right thing and getting stuff done"), helping fellow editors to get out of WP:Great Dismal Swamp, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 203rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats on this one Worm! Prabash.Akmeemana 00:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
TY
Thank you, I appreciate that. :) — Ched : ? 11:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, thank you for giving me the kick up the arse. I've not been a drafter on a case yet and that was a valued perspect to get me going. Worm(talk) 11:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Remove the template asking for more evidence if the page is closed
Hello - you left me a message on my talk - "Hi Smeat75. I've reverted your evidence on the infobox case. I'm hoping we're getting closer to finishing, and believe the evidence page should be closed to facilitate that. WormTT(talk) 14:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)"
in that case why is the template there inviting more evidence?Smeat75 (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, User:Smeat75 The "Evidence presented by {your user name}" template at the bottom? It's just a standard skeleton which is often left in cases after the closure, I'm happy to remove it though to save confusion. You'll note at the top that the closure date for evidence was 31 July, a week ago. Worm(talk) 14:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Revert of Evidence
Since you are reverted Victoria's evidence, were you aware that she first added it much earlier diff, then removed it after what I consider to be bullying by Pigsonthewing on one of the talk pages, and then added it back? If you must remove all evidence added after the deadline, please be aware that mine was added after midnight GMT (though not yet the next day for me locally). Ruhrfisch ><>° 14:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Saw you just added it back as she had permission - thanks very much Ruhrfisch ><>° 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm not going to revert everything after the deadline, I felt uncomfortable enough reverting those edits based on a time limit. I'm not generally too keen on the bureacracy and am pretty lenient on such matters, but adding new evidence today, when we should be drawing to a close, is only going to prolong matters - so I drew a line in the sand. I was aware that Victoria posted and removed her evidence earlier, but as it happens, when she first put it there, it was after the deadline. As she appears to have asked permission, I've returned it. Worm(talk) 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)