Open main menu
Nuvola apps personal unisex.png Nuvola apps filetypes.svg Crystal kdict.png Nuvola apps package editors.png Crystal package settings.png Nuvola apps bookcase.png Nuvola actions help.svg Original Barnstar Hires.png
User Talk Articles To Do Toolbox Subpages DYK Awards

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message!

Ledblue.svg I'm sporadic on Wikipedia these days, but feel free to email me where you will probably get a fairly swift response.

Obscured jaguar.jpgThis user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers.Swingline-stapler.jpg
Question mark.svgThis user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.


Wikimania 2020 BangkokEdit

Hi Dave. I won't be going to Stockholm most unfortunately, because I really can't afford $3,000 just for 5 days in the far north of Europe. I'll leave that trip to the Europeans and the 70-strong WMF junket. But next year Wikimania is right on my doorstep. I hope you will be able to come. I will be making absolutely sure that my friends who are able to come will have a great time. Regards, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, I doubt it Chris. I don't think it likely that I'll travel away from family for Wikipedia. WormTT(talk) 06:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I understand. If I am still alive, Bangkok next year will almost certainly be my last Wikimania. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, Then I will likely be there too. And don't be so morbid about yourself. You're not that old. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Dammit Kudpung, don't say such things about yourself man! ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I have to second what is said above. Things like that are just downright depressing.   --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I think these whipper-snappers don't understand good old black humour. I do hope we'll meet up again Kudpung. WormTT(talk) 14:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
We're falling over ourselves about Kudpung's declaration about his imminent death, and you're just like "that's funny". British humor is truly something special. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom commentEdit

Hi Dave, Your statement here says "However, this case request cannot those conditions and becomes largely symbolic." I presume there is a word missing there? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I wrote it on my phone and yep, missed a word. Thanks for catching it. WormTT(talk) 14:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding threaded discussion on case pagesEdit

Please forgive me for cornering you here. :-) I requested the case because it will serve as a drama sinkhole. You're going to get this case. You're eventually going to accept it in some form. Having a request open where people can comment will provide you will useful information about what people think, and it will give people a place to express themselves constructively to help defuse their frustration with decisions having been taken without their input. I hope you understand why I did this: to improve Wikipedia, not to harass the Committee with duplicate requests.

Keep in mind the Hoffman debacle from years ago. I warn you not to start a case sua sponte. It is an important safety measure for ArbCom to only take cases when the community wants it to hear them. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the machinations of the community, the board and T&S. I have no doubt this case is going to come to Arbcom, in the near future. What's more, it's really not going to be sua sponte - it's very clear that the community wants the case, it's clear that the board wants us to take the case from their statement. There are definite filing parties. However, we don't need a case now. We didn't need that filing now. We need to work out the ground rules for a case, before agreeing to one. We need to know what information we will get, what we will be able to pass on to Fram, what we will be able to pass on to the community. We need to know if those who complained to T&S would be willing to pass their complaints to Arbcom. If not, then we need to deal with that. There's all sorts of questions to be asked - this isn't a normal case. Whatever your intentions, dumping another case request on the Arbcom page was never going to be helpful. WormTT(talk) 14:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Quick question, related to what Jehochman said above about there needing to be a place for the community to (within reason) ask questions. My question is one I tried to raise here. What I would want to be able to ask is whether vanished/renamed/clean start users (doesn't matter what the end result was) will have their evidence considered, whether they are still part of the whole process, and whether a distinction would be drawn between evidence submitted before and/or after they left. As far as I know, there are only two users who have been renamed/vanished. I get that you can't say too much or be specific, but I know what it was like on ArbCom. People would retire/vanish (etc.) and still keep emailing ArbCom even after taking that step. It is not an easy conundrum, but is it one that ArbCom (as a group) are either addressing or aware they may need to address? (I'm not even going to ask if T&S respond to complaints from people who have exercised a right-to-vanish). Carcharoth (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Carcharoth, Very interesting question. I've long been a proponent of vanishing - people should have a way to leave Wikipedia, and as long as you have an account, it is possible to be dragged back in. If you want to be able to leave all together, you should have the option to. That's something I'm even willing to extend to some banned users (depending on sockpuppetting). However, the Meatball "RightToVanish" was significantly watered down on to WP:Courtesy vanishing - which was then made fairly irrelevant by unified logins and global renaming. Current policy is found at meta:Right to vanish. I hope it's clear that I absolutely support the vanishing of any individual that feels they wish to.
So, as to your follow up question - should vanished individuals evidence be allowed to remain part of the process. I would not recommend it - vanishing is supposed to be the extraordinary final step of cutting ties with Wikipedia. If an individual were to email the committee about the topic that lead them to vanishing, then they would not be cutting those ties - I would be personally encouraging any such individual to stop emailing and move on for their own wellbeing.
At the same time, if the evidence were removed upon vanishing, then that would encourage harassment so as to silence criticism. That's obviously not a positive outcome either. WormTT(talk) 09:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia has federated login across all its sites. What happens when somebody wants to vanish here? Do they vanish everywhere? Maybe we shouldn’t have federated login. Jehochman Talk 11:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Jehochman, yes, that's exactly what happens and has done since the single sign on was implemented WormTT(talk) 11:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems unfair for an accuser to vanish and then the accused is left in a position of having to talk about the vanished user in order to refute their evidence or impeach their credibility. That would be unseemly and potentially harmful. On the other hand, we can't just blindly accept accusations without giving the accused a chance to respond. Jehochman Talk 14:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Since I kinda answered this on Oshwah's page and I've been one of the louder voices on the renamers list about it (I'm sure that's a shock to everyone). SUL exists and renaming is theoretically a global action, but we give significant deference to local projects. That in practice means that it is very rare to rename a user who is blocked on their home-wiki.
There has been a recent push (largely by me and a sysop/renamer from, but it has a rough consensus among the renamers) to get people to leave potentially controversial cases to a renamer who is familiar with the project who would be aware if there were community issues going on that could lead to avoidance of scrutiny, which the global rename policy discourages. Ultimately in controversial cases where there's disagreement these calls are at the final discretion of stewards, who can reverse renames and also go ahead and rename users via their private OTRS queue.
In the more prominent case being referenced here, the standard I've always gone off of for declining a rename/vanishing is "blocked or sanctioned, about to be blocked or sanctioned, or about to be subject to a noticeboard discussion that could potentially lead to sanctions." I don't really think that applies here, as even if there were valid questions, I don't think anyone would have been suggesting any sort of sanction here. As I mentioned at Oshwah's talk, if people feel that an improper rename has occurred and the issue appears sensitive, emailing the stewards is the best course of action. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I haven’t heard of anybody thinking this was improper. No, not at all. The conundrum is whether a vanished user’s complaint could be acted on after they depart. The answer seems to be “it depends”. Jehochman Talk 03:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A quickie drive-byEdit

Just wanted to say Thank You for your participation. Awilley & JFG helped get my alert up and running on my UTP. If you get a chance, check it out by trying to post a DS alert.   Atsme Talk 📧 00:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Worm That Turned".