| Revision as of 07:13, 13 May 2013 editWorm That Turned (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators25,701 edits →Reftoolbar questions: update← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:46, 13 May 2013 edit undoWorm That Turned (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators25,701 edits →Arbcom positions: answer for Doc JamesNext edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| == Arbcom positions == | == Arbcom positions == | ||
| Hey Worm. A number of us are asking abrcom members a few questions regarding a prior case here . The questions are basically 1) did you vote on this ban appeal 2) if so how 3) or are you against releasing this sort of details to the community. Many thanks ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | Hey Worm. A number of us are asking abrcom members a few questions regarding a prior case here . The questions are basically 1) did you vote on this ban appeal 2) if so how 3) or are you against releasing this sort of details to the community. Many thanks ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Hi ]. I have no problem with my personal opinions on the case being known, at the time, I made a comment that I would accept either Will BeBack's conditional unblock, or him remaining blocked. I stated then as I do now, that I can't take a strong opinion on the block itself because I haven't had the time to thoroughly review the case. My comment was more for completeness than anything else. As for the release of the details, I've no problem with releasing mine, but as this was not a formal vote I would be against releasing information unless the entire committee assented. | |||
| :Having said that, if there were a fresh vote, I would likely vote decline. The committee as a whole gave an answer - "No". I believe that the actions taken since then have been very telling. The userspace RfC, which was not widely published and not written neutrally, did not give me the view that the community disagreed with the decision. The long noticeboard threads, with an underlying tone of "if you don't vote right here, you'll be out at the next election" have a similar problem. I'm all for reform of how we handle ban appeals, but I don't approve of changing how we do things just for one high profile user. Will BeBack was banned until ]. He hasn't done that, and the tactics used by his supporters do not give me confidence that he would be able to. When he makes his next appeal, assuming it's after a reasonable time has past, I'm sure I'll feel differently, I'd probably support it. Right now, not so much. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 07:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Reftoolbar questions == | == Reftoolbar questions == | ||
Revision as of 07:46, 13 May 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. |  |
|
Pudding notification
This notice is to inform you that there is a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board regarding a breakfast dish with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Mail call
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
—MelbourneStar☆ 13:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Hi Worm,
My Copyright course will finish next week, I will be back soon! :D
RexRowanTalk 16:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 18:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Arbcom reform RFC
I've started a very early draft: User:TParis/Arbcom_RFC_2013.--v/r - TP 23:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
WORM IN MY BRAIN ALMOST KILLED ME (sic)
Hello. This message is to inform you that this morning's Metro had as its main banner headline a huge text saying "WORM IN MY BRAIN ALMOST KILLED ME", which I'm sure was not a statement relating to a brain or arbcom with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- (Also, on a more serious note, some articles about the recent tragic speedboat deaths mentioned "the notorious Doom Bar" as being nearby. No practical connection was suggested, though, so almost certainly not to be included in the article. Fifty years from now, who knows.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Arbcom positions
Hey Worm. A number of us are asking abrcom members a few questions regarding a prior case here . The questions are basically 1) did you vote on this ban appeal 2) if so how 3) or are you against releasing this sort of details to the community. Many thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Doc James. I have no problem with my personal opinions on the case being known, at the time, I made a comment that I would accept either Will BeBack's conditional unblock, or him remaining blocked. I stated then as I do now, that I can't take a strong opinion on the block itself because I haven't had the time to thoroughly review the case. My comment was more for completeness than anything else. As for the release of the details, I've no problem with releasing mine, but as this was not a formal vote I would be against releasing information unless the entire committee assented.
- Having said that, if there were a fresh vote, I would likely vote decline. The committee as a whole gave an answer - "No". I believe that the actions taken since then have been very telling. The userspace RfC, which was not widely published and not written neutrally, did not give me the view that the community disagreed with the decision. The long noticeboard threads, with an underlying tone of "if you don't vote right here, you'll be out at the next election" have a similar problem. I'm all for reform of how we handle ban appeals, but I don't approve of changing how we do things just for one high profile user. Will BeBack was banned until he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue. He hasn't done that, and the tactics used by his supporters do not give me confidence that he would be able to. When he makes his next appeal, assuming it's after a reasonable time has past, I'm sure I'll feel differently, I'd probably support it. Right now, not so much. Worm(talk) 07:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Reftoolbar questions
Hi, Worm That Turned. I see you helped out at User:Staceydolxx/vector.js. Are you also noticing the problem that with the Reftoolbar that the user reported to me? My toolbar is working perfectly so at the moment my suspicions are that it's a cache problem for User:Staceydolxx. If I could get a second confirmation that the new Reftoolbar code does indeed function correctly, that would help a lot. I use Firebug in Firefox to check Javascript stuff. I now only have the new code and it seems 100% okay to me. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Jason. I'm having the exact same problem as Staceydolxx, it's not that the RefToolbar isn't working, it's that the "cite" dropdown tab doesn't show at all. It's not hidden (looking at source), it's just not there at all. Now, had it just been me, I would have assumed that it was to do with my big pile of scripts in my js file, but hers was almost completely vanilla. I've checked the preferences and the flushed the cache a few times, but none of them seem to help. The only remaining flavour we've both got is access to the new Visual editor, so I'll turn that off and see what happens. Worm(talk) 06:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Update, no, not that. Worm(talk) 06:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have reverted the changes I made so things should work again. Let me know if it got fixed. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, no, it's still not there. This is very odd. Worm(talk) 07:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- After a bit of playing, v1.0 works, v2.0a works, but v2.0b doesn't. Worm(talk) 07:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, no, it's still not there. This is very odd. Worm(talk) 07:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)