User talk:Worm That Turned: Difference between revisions

User	Talk	Articles	To Do	Toolbox	Subpages	DYK	Awards

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37

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'm moving into a period of low activity. Do not expect a rapid response from me.

This user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers.

This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

Dave, I'm saying this to you as a friend. I think its very poor form when a Bureaucrat and sitting Arb goes round the site telling candidates what they should and should not be doing - especially when they are absolutely not in breach of any protocol whatsoever. You are a highly respected member of the community, but whatever importance you attach to your functionary and special rights, I think you should keep your thoughts to yourself until at such times a RfC is held. That said, you still get my vote (not that you'd need it) but remember that in the unlikely event that I get elected, we're going to have to work together on that committee which traditionally has a reputation of being riddled with individuals who suffer from delusions of grandeur. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, I work with people by being open and honest with them. I say when I see a problem - I don't hold my tongue. You are free to ignore my comments, or discuss them - I'm not arguing from authority, I'm pointing out my personal opinion as I've tried to make crystal clear.

As for arguing from authority - Wikipedia is about debate and consensus. No user has more authority than others, we have tools that we work with. An arbitrator has no power individually - we work as a committee. A 'crat has the ability to flag admins and bots. These roles do not make me more important, do not make my opinion worth more and do not give me more authority over every little thing. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Worm^TT(talk) 13:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That may be and I believe you. But it is the nature of Wikipedia to see it as otherwise of anyone who holds advanced rights. People will always accuse admins and arbs as throwing their weight about. I know what I'm talking about - I may not be an arb but I've been an admin for nearly 9 years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, My comment to you, and the others was on a rather unread page, a talk page in your userspace. The only person who was meant to read it was you. I have been accused of throwing my weight around in the past and I am sure I will be accused of it in the future, I just didn't expect it from you. But this is a tough time, everyone is on edge - I could have judged the situation better, clearly. Worm^TT(talk) 14:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually accuse you at all. My English is near perfect - it was my job for 30 years (including the 9 years studying applied linguistics and socio-linguistics). Which proves just how much everyone is indeed on edge. I pointed out simply that making comments like that and being an admin/'crat/arb don't sit well together. Imagine if I had gone around making comments like that. In fact I just don't, whatever else crap people accuse me of. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, now would be a good time to end this conversation. Good luck in the election. Worm^TT(talk) 15:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as for the election, frankly I'm not bothered. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you have missed it. I left a follow up question at your Q&A. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaky caldron, I did indeed miss it. Thanks for highlighting it. I'll answer it now. Worm^TT(talk) 11:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Leaky caldron (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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