User talk:Worm That Turned

User	Talk	Articles	To Do	Toolbox	Subpages	DYK	Awards

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.

Ready to make a difference?

Hi Worm That Turned,

Yesterday Russavia was added to the banned users list and marked as a "vandal". Russavia is not a vandal. Most users listed in the banned user list are not vandals. Vandals do not get banned you know. Vandals get blocked. Getting banned is a privilege of content creators. The list of banned users is Wikipedia's shame, but if the community (or rather the bullies of the community) cannot live without it, don't you think that "vandal" should be replaced with "userlinks" or with a similar neutral template? Besides I am quite sure some former editors listed in the list are listed there under their real names, and calling them "vandals" is a gross violation of their BLPs. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that the vandal template should be replaced with a userlinks template, as should the vandal-s template. I don't like scarlett letters at the best of times and that is a rather underhand one. However, it might be a good idea to start a community discussion on the matter, rather than just chosing a random chap to fix it! Worm^TT(talk) 08:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not choose you at random. I've chosen because of this "You are spending an inordinate amount of time baiting blocked editors and otherwise grave dancing. It's something I don't stand for ..."

I do not believe in "the Wikipedia community's" ability to solve this matter.

• "There is really no such thing as "the community". There is a small subset of editors - probably only a couple of hundred at the most - who participate regularly in the noticeboards, policy pages, RFCs and so on. "
• "The "we" I'm referring to, though, it the hypothetical we, an open community of recognisable, accountable real persons, not the current community of anonymous cowards that currently control this site."

Anyway the template was replaced, but it is not enough.

Banned users list should be deleted. This list is the Scarlet letter that does not let many banned editors go, and it should be deleted not by " the current community of anonymous cowards that currently control this site", but by a named person, by a leader like you. As it stands right now banning comes down to humiliation and punishment. Is this what Wikipedia is about? 76.126.142.59 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I thought that you say what you mean and mean what you say, but I see that you are a worthy representative of the Wikipedia community and its Arbitration Committee.76.126.142.59 (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My word, the hostility. I explained that this was a community matter - that's how things work around here, consensus, not individual discretion. What you don't believe in is the community's ability to agree with you. I don't have the authority to delete the list, and I don't even agree it should be deleted. Recording bans is essential, because we're such a large community, if they're not recorded, they won't be enforceable. Banning is a necessary method to make it clear that a person's help on the project is not wanted. That's not punishment, that's not the scarlet letter. Marking their userpage with a banned template, removing their userpage - those are insults, which come down to punishments. Recording the ban elsewhere is just common sense. Worm^TT(talk) 09:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"I explained that this was a community matter - that's how things work around here, consensus"

The thing is that "There is really no such thing as "the community". There is a small subset of editors - probably only a couple of hundred at the most - who participate regularly in the noticeboards, policy pages, RFCs and so on. " and truth be told "a couple of hundred at the most - who participate regularly in the noticeboards, policy pages, RFCs and so on" are mostly "cretins, despots and the slightly odd".

"I don't even agree it should be deleted. Recording bans is essential, because we're such a large community, if they're not recorded, they won't be enforceable."

And how the list is helping you in particular to enforce the bans?

"Banning is a necessary method to make it clear that a person's help on the project is not wanted."

Ah I see indefinitely blocked editors' help is still wanted, but banned editors' help is not? Is that so? Okay, let discuss a particular example: just a few days ago user:Russavia was blocked, and the block was supported by the community. He's not formally banned. He's not listed in the list. Does it mean that his help on the project is wanted?

"Marking their userpage with a banned template, removing their userpage - those are insults, which come down to punishments. Recording the ban elsewhere is just common sense. Recording the ban elsewhere is just common sense."

Well, a banned editor thinks otherwise. As you see he's going above and beyond in order to remove the mentions about his ban from everywhere.

I'd like to ask you a personal question if I may please. I've noticed that as the time passes many Wikipedians especially the ones with the tools are changing, they start thinking more as Wikipedians and less as human beings. Have you noticed this too? I do not even ask you to respond to me here. Just try to respond my question to yourself. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair old leap from "not enough people participated in X discussion" to "there is no community". Of course there's a community, even if there is only a subset of editors who notice what's going on. The discussions on this sort of thing should happen at the Village Pump, where actual useful decisions are made, rather than the admin boards where the fights happen. You ask how the list is helping me in particular - it allows admins I trust to see what's happened and ensure that enforcement to happen. I don't go in for enforcement myself, I don't enjoy it.

The difference between an indefinitely blocked editor and a banned editor is quite simple. A banned editor has gone so far that people have got together and said "enough is enough". An indefinitely blocked editor is one who cannot be unblocked until something changes. It needs to be made clear to banned editors that their help is not wanted. That's the difference.

As much as you may not agree - Wikipedians are human beings. Every single one of them. They think like human beings. They may not have as much empathy for other Wikipedians as they would with a person they can see, but we have research which shows this is normal. I'm satisfied with my actions, I'm open and honest about why I do things and will discuss them and change my opinion if I see a decent argument. Worm^TT(talk) 09:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You ask how the list is helping me in particular - it allows admins I trust to see what's happened and ensure that enforcement to happen.

Administrators do not really need to see what happened to enforce the bans. There's a block log you know, and it is more than enough to run around screaming "a sock of a banned user!"

Neither blocks or bans should be enforced at all. If a banned or a blocked editor returns to Wikipedia to make some "positive" contributions why to enforce his block? On the other hand, if an editor (any editor) is disruptive just block him without even looking for socks. Sometimes, I believe quite often, administrators enforcing the bans act simply stupid. Please take a look here. Mr. DragonflySixtyseven whoever he is deleted a few good, encyclopedic articles only because they were written by a sock of a banned user. It is getting even worse: DragonflySixtyseven deleted the articles 1.5!!! years after the sock account was shut down. Was this so called enforcement good for Wikipedia?

I don't go in for enforcement myself, I don't enjoy it.

Well, it is a good indicator that you have kept at least some decency. Good for you!

A banned editor has gone so far that people have got together and said "enough is enough".

What kind of people? In the most situations people who regularly support bans are involved with the editor and/or are bullies and/or are "cretins, despots or the slightly odd". Let's see a recent example with user:Russavia. A former arbitrator says about Russavia "It's not only a matter of Russavia's lack of judgement, but an utter lack of human decency." You endorse the comment,yet Russavia who lacks human decency and the judgement used to be a frequent supporter of community bans, and just a few days ago opposed another user's appeal. Do we know how many Russavias who lack human decency are supporting these bans? I could name you a few.

An indefinitely blocked editor is one who cannot be unblocked until something changes. It needs to be made clear to banned editors that their help is not wanted. That's the difference.

Hold on a second. Are you saying that a banned editor could never be unblocked even if "something changes"? What about Fae, for example? He was banned and then unblocked, was he not? I am sure there were other situations similar to Fae's, when a banned editor appealed and was unblocked. So could you please come up with another difference or two?

Banning is unneeded, it is a very sick practice, and it brings more harm than good to Wikipedia. I am sure that if there were no banning the sites like Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy would have had much less contributors. You could tell me that Wikipedians do not care about Wikipediocracy, but Wikipediocracy has succeed in creating some bad publicity about Wikipedia, and not only on their own site [1] [2] and so on. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I see you have run out of arguments to support the necessity of the bans of content contributors. I will not post here anymore but I'd like to remind you that silence gives consent. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  Either that or philosophical arguments with hostile individuals who appear to be unwilling to change their strong opinions is low on my list of priorities. I'll attempt to deal with scarlet letters, through the community processes in the future if/when I have time. Worm^TT(talk) 07:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  I am sorry, if my comments seem hostile to you. I assure you my intent is not to offend.I simply like to make Wikipedia a better place.

  I am willing to change my "strong opinion" if you present a few good arguments to demonstrate that banning is necessary to keep Wikipedia safe and that banning, especially so called community banning, is a fair process. So far I've seen none.

  I'll attempt to deal with scarlet letters, through the community processes in the future if/when I have time. In other words maybe you will help suffering human beings "in the future if/when you have time."76.126.142.59 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  No offense taken, don't worry. However, I don't see a need to carry on this conversation, so I will bid you good day. Worm^TT(talk) 14:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not going to parse the whole thread, or get into the issue of when people should make stands and when work with the system. But the whole concept that some tiny group of people at ANI deciding in a few hours to ban someone is a complete joke. And it's Orwellian to call that "the will of the Community". It's a very small group and selected for an interest in drama and banning. Yeah, there's a few liberals who attend, but it's still not reflecting content creators who are turned off by the whole shebang. Or people who don't check Wiki obsessively every few hours. And when you compare the duration and content to how long an Arbcom case or an RFC runs (and how logorrheic they are), it's night and day. Of course, it's the reality, just how a lot of things are reality. But I think if you're attuned to language, then "will of the Community" is kind of screwy.TCO (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

...

Sorry, WTT, I was not going to post here anymore but because TCO did, I would like to thank him, and to add one more comment for the record. In some situations human beings are getting community banned with no opportunity to defend themselves not even on their own talk pages because even their talk page accesses is blocked. Please try to justify such treatment of human beings if you could. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@TCO:, That's a different issue to the one that the IP brought up - but no less valid. The community banning process does appear short on the face of it and appears to be populated by people who defer to "ban". What you're not taking into account though is the previous reports on those dreadful boards - the entire process leading to a ban can take many many months, building up slowly. The people who appear to defer to "ban" are the people who have dealt with the case in the past, possibly many times. There's often a long history which isn't as obvious from the thread.
Having rebutted the argument from a "hivemind" point of view, I actually agree with you on a personal level. I don't like our community banning process and would like to see it changed. Again, it's not high on my list of priorities, because there are more urgent issues that need sorting on the encyclopedia - I'm working to improve them. On the up side, there's an appeals process to the community ban, a group of uninvolved individuals who will review the arguments passed by the banned editor and is willing to overturn bans, the BASC. Worm^TT(talk) 08:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@IP address, I'm going to suggest that part of the reason you feel so strongly about this issue is that you are actually one of the banned editors. I can think of one who talks in a very similar manner to you, she and I had a long conversation earlier this year by email. The only justification I have is that this is just a website, human rights, right of access, opportunity to defend themselves... they're all concepts for the real world, not a squabbling group of people trying to build an encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk) 08:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

WTT, if you think I am a banned user, and I have been using this IP since 2009, it is yet another proof that Wikipedia has no means to enforce the bans, and the banning should stop because it does not let people go, but, no, I am not a banned user. I found out about this list, when Russavia was blocked, and was horrified to see people are listed there as vandals. I've already been accused in being a banned user at least two times,probably more. If I sound as somebody you know, well, it happens to me too. Sometimes I read a post and think that it sounds very much as me. The last time it happened yesterday, when I read TCO's post.

The only justification I have is that this is just a website, human rights, right of access, opportunity to defend themselves... they're all concepts for the real world, not a squabbling group of. The only problem with your "only justification " is that this website is one of the most popular websites in the real world. It is read by millions, and most of them are normal and real human beings. What a normal human being would think about somebody banned by "the Wikipedia community"? A normal human being has no means of knowing that "the Wikipedia community" that banned this person is not really the Wikipedia community, not even close to the Wikipedia Community, a normal human being has no means of knowing that a few "cretins, despots and the slightly odd" are allowed to call themselves the Wikipedia community.

people trying to build an encyclopedia Then let them build an encyclopedia and not banned user list. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this guy notable enough?

Hey Dave. Brad Hagen asked me to write an article for him, and while most of the stuff is easy to cite, i'm starting to reach the limit of the information. Can you tell me if this looks notable enough to you the way it is going? I'm starting to think the band Trances Arc (of which he was the drummer) is more notable than him and it would make more sense to make that article. Can i get your opinion? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Straight off the bat, in what case would a drummer be notable when their band and lead singer isn't? I'm not seeing great sources at the moment, do you think he's really got significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? Worm^TT(talk) 16:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I guess i'll have to try an article on the band instead. Thanks for the speedy reply Dave ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is....Wow

And people say I lack the demeanor to be an admin..lol. Kumioko (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Hex is a good example for anyone, admin or non-admin, and hopefully he'll soon be desysoped. Eric Corbett 22:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised it hasn't already happened. Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think he's a good dude.TCO (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Parting thoughts on Jmh649 RFAR

This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2".PumpkinSky talk 21:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Year	Number of cases
2012	11 cases
2011	16 cases
2010	12 cases
2009	30 cases
2008	39 cases
2007	91 cases
2006	116 cases

Hi PumpkinSky. Dispute resolution has changed over the years, it's becoming more and more a community process. The arbitration committee is still needed, to sort out those things that the community can't handle, but it's the exception, rather than the norm. The community is getting better at that, look at how many cases the committee felt it necessary to take, it's a tenth of the number required 5 years ago. It's important that the community should be given the chance to find a solution, and that's why I turned down the case.
As to the more general point about administrators, I don't stand for it and I agree that Jmh649's actions were problematic. I don't believe they were irredeemably problematic though and his recent comments on his talk page reflect that. The community is able to sort out this problem and there are other solutions that pulling the bit. If his actions don't reflect those sentiments, then we can look at removing tools. I hope that helps. Worm^TT(talk) 10:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Retro

He's digging himself a bigger hole. I suggest we remove the shovel for the rest of the block time? Maybe to his own benefit? Dusti^*poke* 08:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded my comment, which may help. Having said that, I am really against blocked users being removed from their talk pages - there's nothing wrong with venting, or disagreeing with a block. The only problem is when he starts being disruptive, which he isn't at the moment, just not listening to advice. I'm certainly not pulling it for that. Worm^TT(talk) 08:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, while I've got you here Dusti, could I give you a bit of friendly advice? I've seen you around the "drama boards" a lot recently. They're not a good place to hang out, perhaps you'd consider focussing on other stuff? Worm^TT(talk) 08:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

99% agree with you - I too dislike seeing talk page access revoked, however - he's close to getting himself banned. He doesn't understand what he's doing, and he's making matters worse. Like seriously worse. Dusti^*poke* 08:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm treading lightly - on purpose. I have hope of gaining a new skill set, and I think that's where I'm going to learn. I'm, of course, doing my best to not become the center of attention - because you really don't want to be on those boards. Make sense, or still a bad idea? Dusti^*poke* 08:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Still probably a bad idea - I've seen almost nothing good come out of those boards, but if you must carry on perhaps change your sig to be a little less noticeable. You're probably not doing anything wrong, just catching my (and therefore others) eye. As for retrolord, I'm not keen on the "for their own good" argument. They'll have to learn, the easy way or the hard way - and revoking talk page access just delays the inevitable. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I agree that nothing he has done yet has warranted removing talk page access. Venting is expected and is often part of the process of coming around. It also gives us a window into the individual. In this instance, I have to admit I'm not filled with hope in the long term based on what I've seen. I've been watching Retro for quite some time. The block was unfortunate but necessary, and likely overdue. I can tell it is summer, the drama boards are full of fresh faces. I will be glad when school starts back, to be honest. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 10:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Kids kicking admins seems to be the new out-of-school sport and it tries our patience - as Worm has already mentioned on my talk page. However, we all have, and are entitled to our views on leniency... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a deletion

Can one of the friendly staplers here delete User:Jenova20/Bradley Hagen for me please. It is now a redirect to a more notable topic. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal info

Hi Dave, could you help me with User:Hz.tiang and User:Oliverlyc on this matter? Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 11:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to give me a little more to go off, I don't know what you're asking for! Feel free to email me if it's private information. Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Hz.tiang one, I did not realise that it was already removed. As for the Oliverlyc one, you can just hide the revision. Bonkers The Clown had already removed it. Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the issue, the declared information is very minor and not particularly identifying and there is no confirmation of the person's age. For future reference, please follow instructions on WP:OVERSIGHT in future - deal with this sort of thing by email, preferably with diffs which need suppression. Worm^TT(talk) 14:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Pedant eagerly weighing in

(LOL hopelessly at the barnstar you just got. Seriously.) Worm, when you wrote about "the current version of policy, not the past version" on a page a little while ago, didn't you mean "the current version, not a putative future version"? I don't believe there is a past version such as the user would like to see. Anyway, I marvel at someone who would answer your comment in detail while at the same time removing that comment. He's fond of pointing out that that's his "right", but it's hardly the action of a gentleman, is it. (I won't post on his page to say so. I prefer not to post on the pages of people who remove everything they don't like.) Bishonen | talk 13:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC).

Probably closer to current version rather than a literal minded reading of a specific past version, ignoring unwritten rules of the time. The thing is, we're not in 2006. We're here, today - in the present, where admins are held to a higher standard and are required to act civilly. I don't see a need to post further - I'm hoping he'll get the message. Worm^TT(talk) 14:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I was going to comment, on one recent discussion, that the difference between now and 2006 is mostly in who is wearing which hats... and that people's opinions on many topics may be largely dependenet on which hats they themselves are wearing! See also Hatology --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi Worm That Turned, I'm Kevjonesin.

I just happened across your user page/talk-page and have gotten the impression that you're friendly and sensible. And I also took note that you're an admin as well. An astonishing trifecta. :  }

Hope the day finds you well, --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll give you friendly and admin - but sensible? You might have to check with a few others on that one. Good to mee you at any rate! Worm^TT(talk) 14:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your Wikilove message

Very well played, sir. You may have saved me from being blocked over my personal-attack edit summary. Plus, with any luck, you'll be blocked for attacking me instead. You have a very dull block log so far! Bishonen | talk 15:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC).

Should we do like the BBC do for other royalty, and have an obituary prepared in advance, so that it can be posted on-wiki as soon as it's confirmed that the editor has passed away? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

== June 2013 - Blocked ==

Seriously though - I enjoyed that. Even though I'm still cleaning a bit of egg off my face for not reading more carefully, there were certainly smiles to be had all the way around there. — Ched :  ?  16:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Eeeek a fake block! I'd better watch my step. I've been chuckling at Giano's page all afternoon, just glad to join in. Worm^TT(talk) 16:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ideas

Based on some recent discussions, I have quickly drafted this. It is in no way definitive, but the effort is to keep it very simple and on track. If you have time, you are welcome to help develop this further on its talk page or tweak the draft until such times if and when a collaborative effort can be moved to RfC space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

You might wish to weigh in here because at the time, you also did your best. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd pretty much forgotten Anderson, but have commented. Thanks for notifying me. Worm^TT(talk) 12:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Banality of evil

At the time I redirected it, the article was in very poor shape, and over half of it was a copyright violation (the Duplication Detector report isn't even the full story) of this which would've left a very short article. Furthermore, the three references in the article (only one after I removed the criticism section), I don't see any reason this should stand alone unless it's going to be improved. Full disclosure, as I was looking around at the criticism copyright, Diannaa brought the exact website to my attention. It's a premium essay which I don't have access to (payment is needed). ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's different, I didn't realise it was a copyvio. Looks like another article for my to do list then. Worm^TT(talk) 18:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's fine :) I'll try to dig up any academic sources I can on use of the term if I get a chance. Work is heck right now, especially in the heat. The redirect was my way of not leaving a short article up, but it can be worked on. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Snark

It should have been obvious I was referring to CVUA because I specifically mentioned CVUA (something you later struck in your own comment), just as his participation in DYK/GA etc would obviously be fine as that is part of being here to build an encyclopedia, something I also linked. That is obviously a part of content work. I won't distract from the discussion there, but the snark (and the assumptions behind them) wasn't necessary nor helpful.

I've been mentoring and monitoring User:Scottdelaney1067 (now Anderson) since he first arrived at Wikipedia.[3] I knew it was him when he first came back as Anderson and worked with him even though I knew he was socking. I've probably spend more time with him than anyone else, so my comments were not just "drive by" or pile on, but based upon a solid understanding of his history even before "Anderson". Of course, I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, but I did mind the ad hominem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. I apologise for any offence that you took from my comments, that was not my intention - though I did feel the need to make a bit of a point against the meme that is starting to spring up that we're here to write an encyclopedia. You probably didn't deserve to be on the sharp end of that point and do deserve an apology.

My issue is simply that I want to see Anderson coming back and given a chance to do something positive. It need not be writing articles, which appears to be what's being pushed for. I really don't like the idea of saying someone can "only" work in an area - it's very different to specifically limiting areas where they can't work. I never mentioned CVUA, because there's more to that than reverting vandalism - there's a whole meta part and competition - which I agree is inappropriate. When I re-read your comment that people were getting bitten when he was reverting, I struck the option to revert vandalism. Worm^TT(talk) 07:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood and accepted. He isn't a bad guy, even if a bit obtuse at times, but in general he is safer staying anywhere on the building side of the encyclopedia rather than maintaining side. While they are both important, they are distinctly different, with different skill sets and utility to the reader, whom I have always considered to be the most important Wikipedian of all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I knew that Anderson was Scott Delaney because he mixed up his identities when posting on my talk page, and if I remember rightly he suggested one of his identities for the other at PERM. I think we're being very gentle by letting him back at all. If he were any older, his return would almost certainly get a definitive 'no' from me on the question of an early release from his block. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy

Hello User:Worm_That_Turned,

I am aware it is currently 1:19 AM in UK; don't worry, I am not expecting an immediate response. I have been referred by User:Technical_13 to you as a trainer for the CVUA, although I could not find you on the list of trainers for some reason. I am interested in helping to keep Wikipedia a stronger and more accurate place for users to look up information. In terms of the guidelines:

1. "Check that you have already made sufficient mainspace edits (generally around 200) and that you have addressed any previous advice or warnings about your editing."

I have already done so, in case you are wondering.

2. "Find a user who is in your time zone and leave a message on their talk page to request training. If you don't receive a reply within 48 hours, please choose another trainer."

You are within 3-4 hours of my time zone; I am not that concerned. I have heard many positive comments about you, hence wish to be your trainee.

Let me know if you are interested in training me; I would be more than happy to have you as a trainer. Look forward to hearing back from you; see you around. --JustBerry (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi JustBerry. I've never run a CVUA course and never intend to - I'm not sure where User:Technical_13 got the idea that I might, perhaps because I did help out trying to set up that project. As a sitting arbitrator, I've had to turn down a number of users for adoption, something I'm passionate about. - I certainly can't take on a completely different role, sorry. Worm^TT(talk) 07:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

WT

As I am respecting your wish to stay away from WT, I would nevertheless however like to point out that I was never '...once a new, immature, and inexperienced editor like me '. Inexperienced and new maybe, but never immature, never warned or reprimanded, and almost certainly (just 50 years or so) a little bit older ;) His continuous mentioning of me where I can't defend myself is, well, inappropriate and just conveys a false impression, propagates further bad noise about admins, and leads to more dramatics. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That comment made me smile a little too. But it's good that you have a positive opinion about your own maturity and about whether you have been warned or not.

Where's WT101 continuously mentioning you? I can't see your username on either his current adoption page or its talkpage; or on PBASH's talk page or TOS's talk page (where he seems to turn up most often). A quick flick through his most recent contribs doesn't show him posting on dramaboards (or any project space) in the last day or two. The last mention of you by him on his own talk page appears to be on 28th June, in reply to a post you made on his talkpage that same day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

After an email last night, I intend to be scouring WT101's contributions today. I'm certainly concerned with his behaviour since his return and adoption. Worm^TT(talk) 07:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

[4] Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)