Jump to content

User talk:Amorymeltzer/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson/Archive

I see the sockmaster Nrswanson has been unblocked. I can understand the reasons for him being allowed back, however I don't understand why he has been allowed to assume a new identity as 4meter4. I think he should be asked to use his original username: Nrswanson. I've also written to Antandrus and Voceditenore about this. --Kleinzach 04:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)--

According to Voceditenore , the username decision was primarily yours. Can you get back to me on this? --Kleinzach 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I'm trying to take a bit of a vacation. As I originally mentioned, my personal preference was to use the original, but in the end does it really matter? The accounts are connected and only one is editing. I believed the apology to be sincere, and still do, and following the complete admission, was willing to accept it. Letting 4meter4 be the active name is really just an extension of that, a cosmetic preference that really doesn't matter. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course it matters. Sockpuppetry is against WP rules. Nrswanson is a well-known sockpuppet (as well as a serial copyright violator, vote stacker, and edit warrior). His activities are not restricted to opera. If anyone wants to see what has happened to him, they can go to User:Nrswanson and they will see that he is still banned ("CheckUser confirms that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts."). He has, thanks to you, a brand new identity only known to a few editors in the Opera Project. He has been allowed to successfully create a sockpuppet, the one thing he is not supposed to be allowed to do. (To clarify: As I've said before, I am not against him being allowed back providing everyone is forewarned.) --Kleinzach 10:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Perhaps you have been too busy administering to answer? Should I take this elsewhere? --Kleinzach 04:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry sorry sorry. I must've missed your message among the ones much lower down posted after you. Anyway, here's my take: Yes, socking is frowned upon, but it's not the end-all be-all. WP:OFFER is a nice guideline (we're trying to up content, after all) and we're all pretty much in agreement, as you said, that it's okay for this editor to come back. That doesn't mean we should put the man in a pillory and all point and laugh. There's no need to "forewarn everyone," just like it shouldn't be announced to everyone editing articles I like that I am a sysop. I wouldn't argue with an admin indefing him for even a 3RR violation, but if we're going to allow an editor to edit we should allow them to edit. The accounts are clearly linked through the SPI case and if 4meter steps out of line, that will be abundantly clear. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Would you at least agree to redirect Nrswanson to 4meter4? To the community as a whole, Nrswanson remains banned. The accounts are only linked very indirectly. I don't think it would occur to anybody to check back through the SPI case unless they had a good reason for doing so.
It's been my misfortune in the past to be interested in almost the same set of articles as this user. Since 2007, I have spent hours and hours removing his copy-and-paste copy violations. If you want to see the extent of his activities check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup, though this only shows the last lot of his articles (and ones I was not involved with).
Regarding: WP:OFFER. Perfectly reasonable, but it doesn't apply here because there was no six month threshold. --Kleinzach 05:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've redirected the talk page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and redirected user:nrswanson to user:4meter4 as well. I have no problem with that. FYI, Kleinzach has had a strong dislike for me for several years now for reasons unrelated to the sockpuppetry/copyright issues as any wikiproject opera member of long standing will attest to. One example being, he actually quit the opera project in an angry huff because I had the audacity to reorganize the opera stubs in accordance with WikiProject Stub sorting without his personal approval. We've been clashing for years and I've attempted many times to extend an olive branch without success. Of course I have had my issues so I am not a saint either, but I really have tried to bury the hatchet with Kleinzach many times without success. As a result, I do my best to steer clear of him as much as possible.4meter4 (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Page to note

Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo on number of articles

Linkity linky link ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review for Nappytabs

I'm having an issue with my reviewer's integrity. I can't get other people to contribute a comment since you removed my anonymous request for a third opinion. So since it was you who removed it I'm asking you directly to comment. // Gbern3 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, you don't have to agree with me. I just want someone to weigh in. // Gbern3 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

First, allow me to say:
  • WP:3O is for resolving content disputes between two editors. The project has no desire to meddle in the affairs of other projects, especially those with very specific criteria and a large member base, such as WP:GA. Hence, my removal.
  • I don't think HJ Mitchell's integrity, whatever your thoughts on it, has any place in any discussion here.
  • I'm not wildly sure what you want out of me, seeing as you've already requested an RfC and submitted a GAR, and HJ M has asked for input from WT:GAN. Give editors time to respond and review it - it's a lot of work, and doesn't pay nearly as well as the 9-5.
That being said, I largely agree with the assessment. I don't want to go too in-depth, but it definitely reads as a little more promotional than one might like; sort of like a laundry list of accomplishments and important names they are associated with. The block quotes, for example, I personally disagree with entirely; it gives the article a more unprofessional notion and feels cheap. We should be using our own words. I think the article (at times) forgets that it's about both of them. Maybe Napoleon is the bigger player, but a lot of the time it's like reading a list of what he's done, and sometimes his wife helps. It seems like a lot of your issues revolve around HJ Mitchell giving more suggestions after he "failed it." If your goal is to make the article better, then it really doesn't matter when help gets given. If the goal is to get the GA badge, that's another story. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I've made some basic edits to the page. I think they help, you're free/welcome to disagree. One other issue is that of sources. This and this are dead, and this and this don't seem to say anything. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and the heads up about the ref links. Whenever I check my refs to see if they're dead, I always use this tool. It didn't catch those so I'll fix them. I did add the quote box back. It's just odd to have this sentence present --> In an interview with Zap2it.com, he expressed his excitement about the show's potential to bring dancers to the forefront and not let the reader know what was said. This edit you made actually gave me an idea for how to please HJ Mitchell. It sounds like the intro to a "personal life" section so thank you for that. You're welcome to copy and paste your comment at GAR. I won't be offended. It's a fair assessment as you are an uninvolved experienced editor. // Gbern3 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't bother with tools - I just click the link! That's fine about the quotebox, although I would've removed that sentence had I not missed it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

re AIV report

Is there an ongoing sockpuppet thing regarding the article? If so, note the ip's there but I ask because there are no posts to the ip talkpages which mean that they have not been warned. Only if there was an original account that was warned would I expect not to see any warnings on suspected ip socks, and this is not noted in the above report. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Err... what? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
This, perhaps? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian Arb

Thanks for the head's up, Amory. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Arshan

I am working on Recession 2007-2010, Can I post summary from My own research at Univ.

Read Wikipedia:No original research, especially the section on synthesis. Essentially, no - everything must be supported by published, verifiable reliable sources. Your own work may have some good sources, but it itself definitely constitutes original research. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Madamewus

Hi Amorymeltzer. I've unblocked Madamewus after a short chat in #wikipedia-en-help. I think it was a bit of a misunderstanding. Of course, this doesn't mean you were wrong to block (and I would have blocked too, in your shoes) but I think an unblock is appropriate at this stage. --Deskana (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I would've done the same thing. Thanks for the notice, though. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

RBLs

Doing an RBL on an IP used to occasionally turn up information about who it belonged to if it belonged to a school, company, etc. It doesn't seem to do this any more. Do you know why? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I know what you're talking about, having never done a range block. Sorry. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
"Realtime Blackhole List" - IP spammers. See here. Tan | 39 17:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I'm being stupid. But before I could do reverse IP lookups and I thought that was right next to the IP button. What's happened to that facility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean all this stuff? That hasn't been changed in a while so I don't know what would've changed. The Whois and Geolocate seem to do it, right? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The button next to the IP button (the Whois one( used to do reverse IP lookups. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

→ Doesn't it? Sometimes it's less than others. The link for this one gives a little bit, this one just gives the isp, whereas this little piggie tells you everything you'd ever want to know. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

??Those are links to three IP contributions pages, what am I supposed to be looking at? Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was hoping make it clear that clicking on the Whois links works. My bad. If you click the Whois link at the bottom of those pages, the readout should mesh. My bad. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I see now, but sometimes when Whois tells you nothing, a reverse lookup does. I'd like to know why that was removed. There must be a page where the buttons are... I can probably track that down and hopefully find a discussion page for it. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, sorry I can't be of more help then. I'll keep an eye out among MW pages, though. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just realised that clicking there gives you a page that shows blacklist but it's a tabbed page, and if you click the left-hand tab that says IP you get information that WHOIS doesn't give you that may identify the owner. Someone's simply changed the provider and maybe the default action. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Oregon Wrestling

Was just in the process of blocking him as well when you posted. Actually, his edits are even worse when you look at sourcing and BLP issues. Black Kite 13:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention misleading edit summaries. Anyway, great minds... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q1 2010)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2010, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

SPI investigation

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bill Huffman/Archive. What does, "Concur with the patrolling admin" mean? Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Think of it as a second opinion. Cases not for Checkuser are up to the so-called "patrolling admin." Orlady is a sysop, and expressed his/her view that there is no connection. Because it was not posted under the patrolling admin section, I figured I might as well make it more clear/official. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, were you aware that Orlady is involved, as in editing the same topics and appearing to take the same side in content and other disputes? I believe in this case Orlady was acting as a sympathetic co-editor, not as an admin, which is why she posted in the "others" section. Would you be willing to reopen it and ask for another second opinion? Cla68 (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
By the way, User:Atama has apparently made a decision and tried to resolve the matter here, but the editor in question has so far not responded to his request. Cla68 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I still see no intent to deceive, and I would have said that in the SPI. The recent edits aren't on the same pages. Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree 100% with everything Atama (and now Dougweller) has said (not surprising since he agreed with Orlady, whom I agreed with); he just put into words what I declined to say on the SPI case for obvious reasons. You already have my opinion, although I'm a bit confused by the "made a decision" part - clearly I did, else you wouldn't be here? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
TallMagic has initiated an ANI complaint. Cla68 (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Amory. Many thanks for considering my request for rollback rights, and granting same! Thanks also for your complimentary remarks about my edit summaries. Working on Wikipedia can sometimes feel like working in the dark - you see what you are doing but no-one else does - so it is gratifying when someone acknowledges that they have noticed things done well. Best wishes. Dolphin51 (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted redirect, reconsider?

Hi you are an administrator that participated in the deletion of trimethyloxoxonium tetrafluoroborate, which once was a redirect to triethyloxonium tetrafluoroborate. These two chemical compounds are very similar in many respects and, depending on circumstances, either one is useful and notable. The problem is that we only have an article on the latter, we have not developed an article on the trimethyl compound. The compounds are sufficiently similar that the redirect was useful, IMHO. No editor that is experienced in the Wikipedia-chemistry project participated in the discussion except Ephemeronium, a well-intentioned newish editor who has limited experience in with chemical content and would not be a suitable evaluator. The deletion is certainly no crisis, but you might reconsider the action. In general, I recommend that before deletions are made, that experienced editors in the area be consulted, ideally by consulting the project page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Otherwise, I appreciate your good efforts in trying to keep things in good shape.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the clear solution is to write an article, as was suggested by some in the discussion. That being said, the consensus was clearly in favor of deleting the redirect. Your opinion is noted, but I must say that I find your argument that "experienced editors in the area" be contacted before deletion to be anything ranging from overly bureaucratic to rather offensive, especially your assessment of Ephemeronium. There were seven days in which you could have voiced your opinion in that discussion, but did not. Wikipedia works via consensus of all editors, not just those who choose to be active in a particular area, and no matter how much work one does they do not get a veto over consensus. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The issue is one of judgement in two regards. For the sake of space and time, I will be pointed, especially since you have much experience and hence thickened skin, here goes:
1) Since you and the voters on this AfD feel able to judge its suitability, perhaps members of the voting group would like organize an article on triethyloxonium tetrafluoroborate. Inconceivable? Then why is this voting group recommending its deletion with limited consultation with the project?
2) In terms of your concerns for my potentially offending Ephemeronium, my statement is a reflection of the diversity and depth of this editor's work. As an administrator, you are expected to some extent to analyze an the voting groups's ability to pass judgement. In highly technical areas such as this one, contact with the project would be an obvious recourse. In the case in point, the relevant page would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry.
Of course, administrators and editors have only limited time and resources, but I feel that the incident raised some questions of process. Thanks,--Smokefoot (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. First off, I did not voice an opinion - I carried out the will of the other editors following a consensus.
  2. More to the point, the "voters" are perfectly capable of judging its usability - the encyclopedia is not aimed at catering to people well-versed in the field, but rather to everyone. Nobody is less or more qualified to determine whether something is useful than anyone else; that rests in the community's consensus.
  3. WikiProjects are loose associations of editors that, while providing the backbone for our fantastic content, have no authority; WP Chemistry does not own any articles.
  4. The breadth of an editor's experience on Wikipedia is (aside from being hard to judge) only good for judging the breadth of that editor's experience on Wikipedia. Would Ephemeronium be my first choice for a discussion on the/an implementation of Flagged Revisions? Probably not. But when it comes to voicing an opinion in a discussion such as the RfD in question, his/her opinion is neither more nor less valid than my own. Consensus is not driven by experience but by consensus.
  5. Contacting the project could have been a good idea, yes, but this wasn't a particularly technical issue. The target article is pretty clear, the difference between the two molecules was pretty clear, and the only confusion I saw in the discussion was whether or not the redirect in question was even deserving of an article in its place.
Everyone has limited time, myself increasingly, but do you think that I or the other editors did not put in an acceptable amount of thought? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, let's not worry about it, I gave my speech and you didnt yell at me. Thanks again for all you and your fellow administrators do.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Yell? You must deal with some cranky folks, my friend! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration

I must retire right now. The reasons? Yes, that's the outing, combined with continuous harassment by SPAs and others. I did not join this project to be a victim and victimize others, even though I completed my Evidence section for the sake of fairness. Please issue and enact all appropriate sanctions regardless to my retirement because I do not want this to be seen as a "trick". I am sorry for contributing to this disruption and wasting time of busy people. Biophys (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I am going to retire not because I want to retire, but because I was forced by my harassers to retire. But I will delay the retirement until the end of this case to see what Arbcom has to say about this. I need a favor from you. Can I expand my evidence section to properly respond? Should I file an official motion to ask about this? I promise to keep my evidence as short as possible. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I just sent an email to an approriate person at Commons asking them to remove/supervise their records mentioned by Vlad. Is any way to also supervise the outing record in wikipedia made by la Poet? I asked previously Thatcher about this, but he did not do it. Should I make an official injunction about this to Arbcom? I would rather not, for privacy reasons. Thank you. If you could also contact someone here or at Commons to removes all these records, I would greatly appreciate this. You know what I am talking about (if not, I can give you a diff from workshop talk page). Biophys (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I see you have already massively expanded your evidence section to include this information. Please cut it down to size. You are free to include any evidence you feel is necessary and relevant to the case at hand, although remember - the Arbs are not interested in hearing old evidence. They have already stated they want this to focus on new disruption and want to avoid rehashing the old. Regardless, you are free to respond to other evidence by providing your own, counter-evidence, but keep it under the size limit. If you haven't shortened it within 24 hours, I will do so for you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
All right, I will trim this down as much as possible. The problem may be resolved by creating sub-pages in my userspace and linking evidence there. Except I am not sure if Arbs will look at these links...Biophys (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Just remember, you are trying to provide evidence. As I recently stated elsewhere, the evidence section is not for arguing one way or another. A short, simple statement with diffs is all that is necessary. If you link to other pages, that is generally allowable, just keep it focused and on-point. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I finished with edits for clarity and brevity. I mentioned also some older evidence which is closely related to the recent events. If you feel it should be modified or trimmed down, please do. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting at my talk page... Although I am going to retire, I feel it's my duty to provide fair Evidence statement. Please feel free to inform me again if I am doing anything wrong.Biophys (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) In all fairness, I think Biophys should be allowed to expand his section beyond the accepted limit of 1000. After all, the rest of evidence seems to belong to the accusers of Biophys and their combined volume of evidence well exceeds the 1000 limit. Of course, Biophys' statement should remain short, concise and to the point, but to respond to evidence by his several accusers he may have to exceed the limit. (Igny (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

I actually already answered this (albeit not very visibly), and Shell has stated on the Workshop talk that it won't happen. Essentially, there's no need for long evidence sections. Evidence is a few (dozen, perhaps) diffs, not a long rambling argument. Anything over 1000 really is excessive, and Arbs don't want it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I reduced Evidence section as you asked, but it does not make any sense, because I had to remove some segments that have been already responded in the Evidence by other users [1]. This only makes Evidence much less readable for Arbitrators. Could you please consult someone else about this? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the effort, although it's still very large. And yes, I had noticed your issue. If you want my honest opinion, your "responses" section is disproportionately large. Why not just put back that evidence and remove or extremely shorten your responses? You're clearly already "analyzing" it on the Workshop, but my advice is to let your evidence stand for itself. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
There's no need for long evidence sections? But this is a complicated case, that unlike some other cases involves at least thirty articles. Yes, I absolutely must provide my explanation and interpretation of the diffs.Biophys (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I can not reduce my Evidence, and it is now less readable than it was. Could you please ask drafting arbitrator what he wants?Biophys (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
All right, I did my best.Biophys (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a note here, we really don't need any of the parties to "analyze" the evidence for us - we do that ourselves regardless of what else might have been said. If we have any questions about why someone did something, we'll ask. If someone's evidence isn't supported by the diffs they give, we do notice. Shell babelfish 04:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. But I must provide an explanation and context for many diffs. I submitted a motion about this to be properly responded.Biophys (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood. What I said was that we do not need your explanation and context except in rare cases where something would not be immediately obvious; we will review the diffs provided (and quite a bit not provided) independently - whether or not something is edit warring or POV pushing or incivil is immediately obvious. Shell babelfish 14:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what most administrators think. If someone makes reverts, he is an edit warrior. This way you consider only formal behavior of people but dismiss all content issues, although everyone of us ultimately exists only to create good content (WP:IAR). From the content perspective, it does not really matter if someone makes 2 or 20 reverts, but it matters if someone damaged or improved the content (something that you usually refuse to judge). Same with "productive socks". From administrator's perspective, they must be blocked on spot. From the content perspective, one should look what the sock is actually doing (usually nothing good, but there are exceptions). And remember that I am not an administrator. This is not to whitewash anything I did. A well-intended violator is still a violator. If you think it was me rather than Russavia who created battlegrounds, please do what's the best for the project.Biophys (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Sock

As I do not deal with socks I do not know how to fill out a SPI. So I was wondering if you can do it for me, or at least help. MS (Talk|Contributions) 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me a little more information as to the situation? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Well User:Madz67 was blocked for uploading COPYVIO images. Then he created a new account under the user name User:Madz76 and was blocked for being a sock. Now he has created a new account, User:Madz6776. Although unlike the previous to accounts he has uploaded any COPYVIO images yet (I say yet because that seems to be his MO). He is still evading his block, which is against policy if I remember correctly and should be blocked for block evasion and being a sock. MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 Done Blocked, pretty obvious. You might want to read WP:DUCK, it covers this stuff well. Also, I see you use twinkle - did you know you can use it to file an SPI report? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I know I can use twinkle to make a report, however; I wasn't sure if I was going to do it right since it asks for the user name of sockpuppeteer and since he was already blocked I didn't know if was going to matter or something like that. Lol. Thanks again. MS (Talk|Contributions) 03:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Help with RTV

The WP:RTV page does a good job of explaining what RTV is, but it doesn't say how a user would go about getting her account vanished. Do I just go find a bureaucrat and ask them "May I please have my account vanished?" or is there a special page like there is for name change (WP:CHU/S)? I realize that I'm not currently logged in. --67.71.37.26 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:RTV#Vanishing from Wikipedia section tells you how. Basically, yes, you'd have to request at WP:CHU. RTV is a courtesy if your account is in good standing and you never ever want to return, and is in my opinion wildly unnecessary and overwhelmingly excessive in all but a few rare cases. You're better off using {{db-user}} on your user pages and just throwing a {{retired}} template up on all your pages. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --67.71.37.26 (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

Hello, Amorymeltzer. You have new messages at Kaldari's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Amorymeltzer. Thanks for the note. I'll be moving evidence around between: 1. the evidence page, 2. my user space and 3. the "findings" of fact sections. Please feel free to "trim" my evidence section any time you want. I can recover it from the page history. I will limit myself to about 5 thousand words and 500 links altogether (since I'm simultaneously seeking arbitration regarding 3 or 4 users and a previous RfAr). But, obviously, I will keep the evidence section itself down to 1,000 words and 100 links. It should take me about 2 weeks. (I'm moving house, making a submission, and taking time off during that period.) I don't mind giving everyone else an extra week to try to find some evidence against me. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've gone and just removed the Summary section - remember, arbs want evidence not argument. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Thanks for that tip. It will come. I'm moving house this weekend. I've got a lot of evidence to present ... eventually. Most people know where to find it already.
I removed some stuff from the bottom and added back the summary. If I'm over the limit again, feel free to trim again. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for giving me rollback rights --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 14:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether rollback reverts all the edits on the article by user or a chain of edits? --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 14:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It will revert all the edits done by a single user in a row. For example, you just edited this page twice. I used rollback which reverted both of them. Rollback is only for vandalism so make sure you're only using it for those purposes i.e. NOT content disagreements. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah understood. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback rights.

Hello. I read the reasons why I was not granted rollback rights. I just want to ask if you can take a second look. My edits are mostly for Television and Music related articles. I often assume good faith in most reverts I do and discuss them with the editors. I have also experienced a lot of vandalism of late to a large number of articles, the edit summary in question was one amongst so many edits. That came about after I continually provided reliable sources to prove a fictional characters name, but fans of the show thought otherwise, I continued reverting, but it made no difference, others intervened too to keep the article factual.. So the constant name changes continued and removing of sources, then I was tired of reverting so I edited and put 'EVA EVA...', oddly enough that was the end of it. I've never made a habit of it as I'm sure you noticed, in the past four years of my edit summaries. Every situation and all. Also I didn't ask for rollback rights on a whim, I read up about this a while back but I felt it was necessary that I try to get them, as I do spend a quite a bit of time watching many articles in the field of entertainment and of late there is so much vandalism happening to soap opera related articles, that we in the wikiprojects are spending so much time on trying to make them viable, full of factual information, from an out world perspective. With fans of these types of serials coming on, not all are tended to be malicious but plenty are having a good go of adding spoilers with no sources, adding strange quotes, calling characters names. There is one case that is concerning me and another editor that someone changed infoboxes for around 200 characters, which will inevitably need to be reverted as the infobox doesn't look like it's going to hold the community approval... this has already happened twice in one month (that being March), then there are nonconstructive edits from bots, one of which began linking certain articles to their ES language article, only it made a link error. I'm very keen to move foward in improving and completing tasks assigned in various wikiprojects, but a lot of my time is given on comparing revisions, then finding unconstructive material, which otherwise could just be one click away from correcting. Also I did not request this for some power trip as I've stated that I only really do have one area which covers masses of articles, which gets my editing time. Also if you are too busy, (As I know it can't be easy looking through all the requesters editing histories and juggling your own life) I can always talk with another admin, only by your say so though.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 21:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up, allow me to clarify. That edit summary wasn't the main issue, it was just something that stood out. The reason I declined your request was because I don't actually see a significant amount of vandalism reverts in your recent history. Most appear to be good-faith efforts by editors, and it's not obvious that those aren't just content disputes instead of plain, pure vandalism. You spoke of your edits as if you had made tons of vandalism reverts, when most of it is content stuff; rollback is not appropriate for those types of edits. Take as an example the above - you mention some new infobox that may or may not take hold. Rollback should definitely NOT be used in that situation. And besides, you still have to compare revisions for rollback to make sure it's vandalous - that part doesn't change. If you really want it, check out twinkle, which approximates the tool, and maybe head over to recent changes patrol and revert some vandals. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Vandalism

How is the Wikipedia policy on vandalism? You said "rollback is only for obvious, clear cases of vandalism". If a vandal changes one number, no summary, no reason, no reference... It could be a good faith edit, but it could be destroying the dataset as well. It could be the revenge & hate of a vandal trying to avoid the tag filters... So normal undo? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, pretty much. Try to figure out using the references on the page, or by reading the context - sometime it's clear from the editor's other edits - but yes, you've got the right idea. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Another question, Katmai National Park and Preserve. IP one, wrote "I like zebras", IP two, wrote "I <3 zebras", I compared both and choose rollback, but in the end only one of the edits was reverted. How does it a sysop? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Different IPs count as different users. Rollback will rollback all the edits of one user. For that sort of thing you have to either a. rollback then manually go in and remove the other one or b. manually remove both. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thx :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I apologize for the length, did not realize 500-word limit. Skywriter (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock

Just noticed a new possible sock of User:PankuThu {who was blocked by you). Is it appropriate to draw your attention to a particular page in order for you to form an opinion? My only evidence is a number of edits to quite disparate articles common to both and a level of technical competence unusual in a new ed. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be fine. I can definitely review it for you. I won't be able to respond in less than 14 or 15 hours, so if it's more urgent I'd take it elsewhere, like WP:SPI. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at the editor's contribs at Revision history of Template:SACC to see if anything strikes you as indicative. One editor seems quite obvious to me, but I'd appreciate your input when you get the chance. RashersTierney (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Bullseye! RashersTierney (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed! I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tasbian to check on the account used to create the template 'cause the connection seems clear, and I wanted to be sure if possible there. Nice find, though! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Clerking of Arbcom cases

Hi Amory,

Are you keeping an eye on all the cases you are clerking? I thought only Arbitrators are allowed to edit the proposed decision page. --Martin (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, thanks for the notice. I check everything since the last time I checked, although today I seem to have forgotten what time I went to bed last night. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Well where are we supposed to post such things? Can you please post what was removed in the right spot for me. Cheers, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The correct page is the workshop page, where you previously requested a motion; I've moved your proposals there.. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah ok, thanks, when I was a party to WP:EEML, there wasn't a workshop phase, so of course my initiation to ARB was an unusual one. Thanks for moving it to correct spot. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom case + topic bans

Hello Amory, I see from this edit [2] that you were discussing participation in the current Biophys/Russavia case with Martintg (talk · contribs), encouraging him to post something to the case pages. Question: in doing so, were you aware that Martintg is under two relevant topic ban restrictions from the EEML case? Russavia just raised that issue on my talk page. Apparently Martintg is topic-banned from "all Eastern European related articles" including "all process discussions" relating to them, and additionally restricted from commenting on Russavia anywhere except in "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". My own reading is that this would exclude him from commenting on this case, except if it were to touch on incidents directly related to him. Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

?? Shell has already replied to my proposals and comments on the ArbCom case page. I don't know why Fut.Perf has not asked the Committee directly, so I have done so here. --Martin (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

  • You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  • Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell that was fast!

Great work! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Think of it as a tiny bit of retribution for beating me to pretty much all of the WP:PERM requests. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
E-E-E-EDIT CONFLICT... Paradiso (disambiguation) style! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Lol, I'll leave you a few in future! ;) Nice workin' with ya! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

SPI diff

This diff [3] may be of some interest to you, related to this SPI that you recently closed. Shadowjams (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I go to bed and look what happens?! Sheesh. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Freakee73

I don't know if this is worth filing a new report on, but 213.239.192.110 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is clearly another another sockpuppet of Charles Groves (Freakee73 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)), as he went and undid most of the edits you made regarding the blockage of his latest. I've undone all of the relevant edits, but you may want to look into the situation further. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 06:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged. Hopefully that'll keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
AK isaprick (talk · contribs) seems to be another one. --Ibn (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Block Reason for Example

What does "1-2-3" mean? I saw that you put is as Example's block reason. Boygirl22 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Good eye! If you look at my full log on User:Example, you'll see I first unblocked with the reason "Testing." Testing, testing, 1-2-3. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Hello ! Can you add the {{SPI|WikiLaurent} tag on the sockpuppet investigation page please ? I cannot do that but i created the page. Thank you very much. Jpggjpeg (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

documentation at {{preload}}

thanks! Andrew Gradman / talk. See User:Amorymeltzer as of 19:35 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Rollback

Thank you very much for the advice... I completely understand your reasoning and don't disagree at all. I'll be sure to contact you in a week for further review!  :) ElationAviation (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A Promise is a Promise!

Twinkle Barnstar
For helping out on WP:TWINKLE by writing documentation, and always gently prodding me when I change things for the worse, I decorate you with this specially crafted Bronze Vitruvian Barnstar with Twinkle Head (and for what it's worth, it's only the second barnstar I've ever given out, so feel free to feel special). Amalthea 10:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks gorgeous, thanks. First is the worst, second is the best! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence

Thanks for your note, analysis moved to a more appropriate location and evidence stated as such. Best regards,  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw, thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

IP and Socks

I was reading the sockpuppet policy and the found a link to the investigations. Seeing that IP addresses can be blocked as sockpuppets,can an investigation be made of only IP addresses? wiooiw (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not usually. If you show up with a bunch of IPs saying "I think they are the same person" it is theoretically possible that someone is on a range with changing IP addresses. Rangeblocks are possible, but are not often done due to collateral damage. We don't file WP:SPI reports to go hunting for something though, so they're only for the strongest evidence. If someone is using an IP address to evade a block, they can be blocked, but the connection isn't usually confirmed by checkusers per the privay policy. Is there something you want me to take a look at, or where you just curious? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Just getting more familiar with the policies, Thankyou. wiooiw (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...For semi-protecting Human evolution! Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Senior center

Hi, thank you for closing the RFD and I agree with the close. However, the discussion was around the original target of Old age which was always a bad idea. Late in the discussion I created the DMB Seniors centre and I should like to recreate the redirect, pointing there, as an editorial action. Are you OK with that? Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's okay, just make sure you put a general description of what a senior center is on top. "A senior center is a place where...." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now that's a good idea; thanks (now added). Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Template talk page deletion??

Hello! I see you deleted the talk page for Template:BethelThreshersFootballCoach but did not delete the template. I'm curious about the reason behind it... if something was really bad on a the talk page, couldn't it just be blanked out?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing bad, just not needed. User:WildBot had found a link needed disambiguation, and once that link was fixed, it blanked the template and requested speedy deletion under G7. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparent banned Ip

79.76.190.131 is apparently the ip of a banned user (dont know who). What caught my attention is that User:WitPitter decided to remove that comment and also add an inappropriate thread, the same one as the ip did earlier. Can a banned user make another account (and still edit inappropriately)? wiooiw (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they can, thus the need for the sockpuppet investigations page. It's pretty easy to block the accounts or addresses, and although finding them can sometimes be tricky usually vandals are pretty obvious. I blocked the account as vandalism-only, and set the autoblock - that will automatically block any IP addresses used. That should help, but we'll see. Thanks for being so vigilant, though, and for the report! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

SPIs

Hi - if you're around, there 3 waiting clerk attention, one being mine. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you were spot on. No need for a CU there, pretty clearly him/her. The whole "blahblah , blahblah . blahblah" thing really seals it. I don't have an opinion on the user subpage, but it could probably be done away with if you don't feel it's notable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there's copyvio there, I may just delete it on those grounds. It was a pretty obvious case but as I'd been involved in editing some of the same articles I didn't want to use my tools. And thanks for the reversions. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The right decision. I took a moment to look over the article - it's completely useless. I thought there was some actual content there but no - it's just a holding pen for sources. S/he won't be needing it, and there's no need to keep a copyvio history. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You beat me to it again. I've been editing in between making orange cinnamon rolls and moving stuff to the attic - we are rewiring and almost everything we own is being moved at least twice. Then plastering and redecorating, a nightmare, although that comes after the US trip (if we go/return without ash problems). Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Oy, good luck with all that! Going away sounds like a brilliant idea, avoid the stress/inconvenience of it. I'm actually heading over the other way, toward the ash cloud. Maybe I'll pas you in the air... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

List of charcters in the Old Kingdom Trilogy

FYI, I've RfD it. I mean, the typo really looks pretty ugly. :) Kayau Voting IS evil 13:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Solid. I've !voted. I didn't see the typo when I said it was good, sorry 'bout that. That's what I get for editing in the wee hours! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Dshepx

Hi Amory. I saw you're (the only it seems) online sysop and need some help. Can you please revoke his email access? He's sent me an unhelpful, rude email. Thanks. Tommy2010 19:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that okay? Tommy2010 19:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Is what okay? The difference between "Hey you're mean" and a bunch of obscenities is an indefinite block. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It was an email, more along the lines of "who do you think you are?" Tommy2010 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, okay. Not the worst thing in the world. It was probably bad form but I reset the block. If you get trouble once it comes off, let me know. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Will see link too above Tommy2010 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
(forwarded as requested, with a comment) Tommy2010 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

An editor has filed a request for enforcement of discretionary sanctions against User:Igny arising from alleged misconduct at this case's workshop. I am referring the matter to you as case clerk for consideration of sanctions/injunctions/etc. The request, and further details, can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Igny. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed at with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated. When I've sorted out the grub for Saturday, I'll get on with the dishes!

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

the single greatest image currently hosted

Is there a story behind this: [[Image:Fée.svg|thumb|left|Consensus has determined that this is the single greatest image currently hosted on Wikipedia.]]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)

Sure! It was uploaded almost three years ago and was almost instantly recognized as the most bitchin' image around. You disagree? I mean, just look at her - pretty sweet huh? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree. It's special in a way that is hard to explain. Just wondering if there is more commentary to be read somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Haha no, it's just my personal opinion, which of course is 100% accurate. Actually, commons is currently voting on a picture of the year if you're interested. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Clement , 1st Earl Attlee of Walthamstow, Viscount Prestwood Attlee RfD

Thanks very much for dealing with this. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I fixed the script, but only because I'm a sysop. And stop wiki-stalking me. ;) Seriously, I'm glad you like it, and it was well worth taking a look at anyway. I fixed the bug, cleaned things up, and tried to make it less fragile. To use the new version immediately, clear your cache. Superm401 - Talk 06:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're amazing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Joehazelton back

Hi, can you compare the contributions of Joehazelton's most recently blocked incarnation [4] to this new user? [5] Thanks. — goethean ॐ 14:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lost at Sea Records

Can't believe you deleted my Lost at Sea Records page! How very anal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peggybrainchild (talk • contribs) 14:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Peggybrainchild, perhaps you should read WP:NOTADVERTISING. wiooiw (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Uw-ublock's unblock request

Why did you intend to remove Uw-ublock's unblock request if the user has not received a response? (See page history in case you are confused.) 3-5 file (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Request to open a SPI case

Hi I had a look through the WP:SPI page and found you amongst a list of active clerks. The question I would like to ask is how do I open a case for a user who I suspect have been sockpuppeering recently. The case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ARTEST4ECHO. Donnie Park (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, but you haven't added a letter: "## Codeletters are:
      A - arbcom ban/remedy evasion
      B - Ongoing serious pattern vandalism
      C - Vote fraud, please wait until after vote closes
      D - 3RR with socks
      E - Evasion of community based bans or blocks
      F - Other, please explain why a check should be run "

Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, well, there is no appropriate codeletter for this case. The closest would be C, but even if it were socks the votestacking would not have affected the result. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 10:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It was going to be a C but that unfortunately have been declined. Donnie Park (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I couldn't figure out what code or I would have added it. (I've never used the tps template but it's nice, so I've added it to my first post here). Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't around to help Donnie Park, but thanks Doug and Shirik! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Tootie Ta (69.23.112.164 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

What is the criteria for a particular source to be reliable? I already have cited as many sources as I can find. My article has been declined 3 times and I feel like I am getting nowhere. (69.23.112.164 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)) Monday June 7, 2010.

Thanks for the note, I can understand your frustration. Have you read the guideline at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? That gives a thorough overview of what makes a source reliable. The main issue is the very first sentence, namely that articles must be "based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The problem with the links you provided is that they aren't particularly reliable and just show that this song exists. For inclusion, an article must be proven to be notable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Thanks

Arb inactivity

I think perhaps you got the two arbitrators we were talking about earlier reversed. Risker (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Bah! You all the look the same. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! --Chris Bennett (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No sweat! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

CC case

Per Newyorkbrad, no formal list of "parties to the case" is required, yet you added it. I think this is a mistake ? Cenarium (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just the list as filed with the original request. My interpretation of the votes to accept and procedures was that Climate change was accepted as the omnibus case, with the others rolled into it. NewYorkBrad and the other arbitrators are merely making the point that, in the end, it seriously doesn't matter who is called what as long as they know they are being reviewed, and lengthy discussion about who is party or not is rarely truly productive. Everyone was notified, so it doesn't really matter. That being said, there gotta be some statements on the main case page, and those names gotta come from somewhere. There is no particular significance to them. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I changed the title to Involved editors. I'm not sure how I feel about that atm, but I'll sleep on it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
'Involved editor' is disingenuous, there are several uninvolved administrators like me. I never edited those articles besides maintenance, I've just made a few comments in a 10 day period on two or three enforcement requests and on procedural aspects as uninvolved admin, and didn't get involved in any of the peripheral disputes. In any case, NYB's statement "preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required" seems clear to me. Cenarium (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you're doing exactly what NYB said not to do - trying to apply labels like "party" or "involved." Your name is on that list because it was on that list when Ryan Postlethwaite filed the request. Your name is not there because anyone is considering or even cares how involved you may or may not be. You are not required to participate, and if you don't feel involved then don't be. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, let's be honest, your efforts working on Pending changes are probably a lot more helpful at the moment. You are definitely not being dragged in. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI of User:Imadmrad1

Hello. I used Twinkle to report User:Imadmrad1 to SPI, but it's not appearing on the list of open cases on the main SPI page. Should it be appearing there? When I try to edit the Open investigations section, it shows a section that's not in the page about checkuser requests unrelated to sock-puppetry, so I can't add it. Do you need to add it or something? Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 20:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

New cases have to be manually added to the main WP:SPI page. It's not a huge deal, but sorry for the delay - Elockid took care of doing so yesterday. You're all set ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FT2's input

Re this edit... I agree those are not questions but he raises good points. Where would be good? Just move to talk? ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's up to FT2 where (if anywhere) to put the text, but those do look more like the normal sort of proposals one sees on a workshop page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
No, not really. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Sorry, yes

I did not mean to edit ZP5s comments and cannot even find which previous version I presumably reverted him to, and thanks for fixing. I did not touch his text in the edit box so I guess I must have opened an old version by mistake. --BozMo talk 06:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)--BozMo talk 06:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay found it. I reverted his section to [6] for some reason. I guess I must have opened a version on the page history without realising it. It was late... --BozMo talk 06:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Arb case

I think Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible. is a good idea, and you now have a chance to show whether you mean it or not. ZP5 has now submitted 70 (!) diffs, most uncommented William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a bit of unsolicited advice - my sense from watch (and, sadly, getting dragged into) these back-and-forths is that the best thing you could do is to shut them down as soon as they veer off course. Many people don't have the good sense to quit while they're ahead. If what I'm saying is either incredibly obvious or dumb, my apologies. Guettarda (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. There are a lot of editors, and they have this nasty habit of doing things while I'm out trying to work or give blood. Anyway, it's not dumb, but falls pretty squarely under the list of "things I do as a clerk." There's no need to question people's sensibilities, but suffice to say I believe I am, for now, on top of things. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Re [7]. Can I ask you to be more careful in your "closing down" statements please. You are wrong (Weakopedia's statemetn clarifies nothing and is in fact incorrect); this isn't a good start William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I for one find it rather amusing you would hound an admin over them referring to one of my statements as a 'clarification' (heaven forbid!) but rather than 'muddy the waters' any further for you I've replied on your talkpage. Cheers for that. Weakopedia (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You appear to have a rather low threshold for "hounding". If AM thinks he has been hounded, I am happy for him to complain at me. Until then, I dnoo't think you're being helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Enough, people. I think we may need to establish a rule that any questions get posted to the case talk pages themselves, and not to the clerk's personal userpage. I do not want to see another post from anyone on Amorymeltzer's talk page about whether or not people's evidence should be accepted as they present it. That is, properly, a question for the arbitrators. Risker (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to do your homework. The post above isn't about evidence William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"ZP5 has now submitted 70 (!) diffs, most uncommented " is most certainly about evidence, WMC. Now take it to the talk page of the case, please. Risker (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh sorry. I assumed you were talking about "Re [8]". But as for the rest: in the past, asking clerks on their talk pages about possible infringements of the rules has been commonplace, and is generally less drama-inducing thatn a mixed discussion on the talk page. Why do you want to forbid it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

ZP5 over the limit again

A quick wc puts him over the limit again. Do you check this stuff?

Also... does arbcomm / clerks offer any guidance as to whether evidence may be back-and-forthed? It seems unreasnoable to try to respond to evidence that may not even be there the next day William M. Connolley (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes in fact I do, and have. ZuluPapa5 is only over the limit (which is being enforced flexibly this time around) if you count all the text in the diffs, which the Committee specifically requested were left in a helpful, readable format. There is no need to worry about others' evidence size - the other clerks and I are more than capable of performing our tasks - especially as you have been asked already not to comment on others' evidence here. Evidence is a process, and can take people longer than expected, so they are often wont to add or subtract as they see fit. I understand your frustration, and if evidence is removed you can remove your response or link to the removed text in a diff if you feel it is still relevant. Once evidence has ended in about 12 days, no major alterations should be made. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Manual talkback

Hey Amorymeltzer. I've responded to your comment to my talk with a clarificatory question. If you have time I'd love an answer. Thank you.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ Talk! or Diannaa TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! Diannaa TALK 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding scrutiny in arbitration

I'm (more than) a bit concerned about these edits, and your response.

I believe that the ArbCom has generally discouraged (and indeed barred) the use of floating IP addresses to participate in Arbitration cases. (An exception likely exists where a small, readily-identifiable IP range has a history of logged-out participation in a particular area — is that the case here?) While I encourage you to seek clarification on this point from the Committee, my understanding is that as a clerk you should be removing such edits – perhaps after asking the author to identify himself – rather than signing them and leaving them in place. Particularly in a case which is likely to touch on questions relating to sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and ban evasion, it strikes me as more inappropriate than usual to allow anonymous comments. Anonymous posts suggesting the direction a case should take are prone to serious abuse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Email. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change case question

I notice that I was not listed as a party to the Climate Change case initially, [9], but that I was advised of the case on my talk page, apparently because I posted a statement. If I comment on something on the workshop page, do I put my comments under "parties" or "others"? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Great point - we're not trying to draw attention to those party or not in particular, so I've removed the different sections, which I had meant to do earlier. Please comment in the "comments by others" section. Thanks! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

New sub-issues have been added [10]. Could you clarify whether the case deadlines mean anything? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I added one myself just now, after the deadline. I had noticed another late filing, so I decided to weigh in. Actually I only noticed there was a deadline after it had expired. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
So, clearly the advertised deadline was meaningless, and all those who bothered abide by it were fools. The interesting question, is there a "hidden" real deadline, or will stuff be added to taht section indefinitely? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Self-deprecating comments aside, as stated above if you want a response I would suggest posting to the workshop talk page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
As you like. I've asked if anyone over there knows William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I can delete my questions if the feeling is that they are out of order, and the other latecomer can also be deleted too. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Polargeo

Re [11]

I am confused as to why my very early statment stands where I simply said the arb case was premature but my second statement that actually tries to deal with an issue has been eradicated. I would be happy for my procedural statement to be removed if my later statement can be reinstated. Polargeo (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that my first statement is simply saying the arb case was premature at the time, as it obviously was with two RFCs running. Why this needs to remain in the case when my second statement is removed I fail to understand unless this is some sort of arbcom censorship. Polargeo (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're well aware that saying this is censorship is patently absurd. Your other statement is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Comment by uninvolved Polargeo here. It was part of a different request which was grouped in to this single case. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:::That is not what I meant. Where is this one [12]? This is the one I regard as critical. Polargeo (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC) okay I am confused by all the pages I have never dealt with an arb case before, sorry. Polargeo (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it can get a bit unwieldy. You got everything you need now? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration can be pretty helpful. Let me know! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong date

I believe you changed the wrong date, here, the opening date of the case does not change. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Section too long

When I copy the Hipocrite section into my text editor, I get 1325 words. While section numbers probably should not count, so my count may be off a bit, I don't think we are talking about a close call. My understanding is that evidence is limited to 1000 words.--SPhilbrickT 19:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. [13]
  2. The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner
  3. For this case, it's not a huge deal. If it gets larger, I may do something about it, but that isn't germane at the moment. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note I've responded to you on my talk page. I intend to add some to my evidence section, but will ensure that my evidence section is not the longest on the page. Hipocrite (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may ask, how long do ArbCom cases usually last?

If I may ask, how long do ArbCom cases usually last? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It usually depends on the editors and how clear/straightforward the issue/s is/are, but it can vary widely. Sometimes two weeks, sometimes much longer. The pace this time around is mandated. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Overlong?

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I'll try to keep my comments shorter. My most recent comment [14] was also long, but I didn't see a way around it -- I'm trying to show something that is complex, so a number of different elements need to be shown at once. I may be doing it wrong, and I've noted at the top of the post that I'm happy to accept advice about that. I don't want to make your job here harder, but any advice would be appreciated. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed most of it. You said yourself that it follows from your evidence; there's no need, then, to restate any of it. A diff or two never hurts in a proposal, but you should not be posting evidence on the Workshop. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised at your explanation. I'm entitled to show how the evidence should lead to particular conclusions. That is what the workshop page is supposed to be for, isn't it? (The Workshop subpage allows the parties, the community and the Arbitrators to analyze the evidence, offer suggestions about possible final decision proposals, and receive feedback. [15]) I was analyzing the evidence. (3. Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page. Linking to the evidence page or a few of the best diffs illustrating the point is helpful.) If there's a better way of doing it, I'm all ears, but you haven't told me that, you just removed nearly everything. I posted the comment above to your page and put a note at the top of the post you gutted out of a sincere desire to do it the right way and to get some feedback, not be told, in effect, not to post my analysis. I really don't understand why you (a) didn't just tell me the right way I could do this; (b) removed so much information but didn't remove Guettarda's response to it -- since you removed what was being responded to; (c) removed analysis that wasn't in the evidence. Analysis involves pointing out how the evidence violates policies and I thought I needed detail to do that. Your response says, in effect, that I shouldn't say anything at all, and that seems disruptive and unresponsive. You do say, A diff or two never hurts in a proposal, but you should not be posting evidence on the Workshop. Well that post of mine combined several findings of fact from different incidents because it seemed like the clearest, most concise way of doing it. I said right in the material you removed: I can only show WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior worthy of ArbCom action by showing a pattern. As an alternative, I could break this up into three different findings. Why don't I split it up and repost it that way with only a few diffs per individual finding of fact? Would doing so still violate some rule? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you are mixing some things up. You are more than welcome and in fact encouraged to present your proposals, and to back them up with evidence. That evidence, however, should be on the Evidence page; that's what that page is for. Most of what you posted indeed appeared to be evidence. I also believe you missed the Analysis of evidence section. Here's what to do: If you want to present evidence, it should be on the evidence page. If you want to analyze evidence, do so in the analysis section. If you want to refer to all of the above in your proposals, briefly reference it with a link or diff. The idea of the proposals is not to show a pattern, it is to present relevant principles, and proposed findings and remedies. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop could be clearer, but does this help? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
If I simply moved it to the "Analysis" section, would there be a problem with that? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a largely pointless and purely academic response given your most recent post but yes, that would would have been nice. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. [16] Thank you, I thought that was very helpful. I'm sorry I expressed so much anger on the workshop page. This case has brought up a lot of bad memories for me, and I've lost some sleep over it in the past few nights, but I'll try to keep cool. I'm trying hard to keep within any rules for the ArbCom pages (it's changed a lot since the last time I commented this much on workshop pages), and I understand what your objective is. If I step over one again, please just let me know and I'll do my best to fix it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:GLAM/SI invite

Hello, Amorymeltzer/Archive 2! We are looking for editors to join the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

-- Sadads (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Workshop talk page

We've been asked to point you at [17] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence deadline

Hi - I was trying to figure out whether I should still present evidence for the climate-change case. Your note sounded pretty definitive in that it's too late. If that's the case, then I understand - my fault for missing the deadline, which was clear upfront - and I won't bother. On the other hand, if the Arbitrators will still consider additional evidence, then I would like to submit some. Would you mind clarifying for me whether I should still go ahead? I'm fine either way - I just don't want to waste more time compiling evidence if the deadline is a hard-and-fast one. MastCell Talk 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you keep it simple and concise, I won't stop you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. I will present evidence by this evening, US time. I will make strenuous efforts to be concise; if I fail, just let me know and I'll trim it further. MastCell Talk 17:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added it. It's a hair over 1,000 words (I think), but I've tried to be as focused and diff-heavy as possible without sacrificing coherence. Anyhow, please let me know if there's any problem with it. Thanks again. MastCell Talk 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I was on vacation for two weeks and have just now returned. I plan on adding some evidence to the evidence page unless an arbitrator tells me not to. Please don't revert me. Cla68 (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not. Evidence was supposed to be all in five days ago, and you have been editing plenty in the past few weeks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
See this ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Climate change

Make sure you read the stmt posted on the ev and wkshop talk pages yesterday. Ev still okay. I also sent it to clerk-l yseterday. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup - that was me who replied! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

SPI WikiLaurent

Hello, I noticed you deleted the SPI case against WikiLaurent because it was being abused by a vandal/sock but since I was mentioned in it, I was just wondering if I could take a look at the "evidence" presented. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It was total BS - nothing of worth. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Boxxy

Hi! In December of 2009 you redirected Boxxy to List of Internet phenomena#People. The People section of that page has been removed, and Boxxy is now listed on List of YouTube personalities instead. Can you fix the redirect to lead to that page? I would do it myself but it is protected. Thanks! --Captain Infinity (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To avoid contributory infringement and per standard Wikipedia policy, I have removed a few links from another editor's evidence section at the Climate change arbitration case. As the clerk you should obviously revert my removal if you think that this is out of bounds, but copyright is really an issue about which I feel strongly. There is simply no reason why any page here ever should link to illegal content. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Word. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Rethink that, please

Are they simply in agreement? Simple coincidence?

"But there are situations in life where the behavior you see seems to demand the conclusion that some kind of coordination is likely, whether or not it's the case here, how could we ever prove it definitively? The "GOOSESTEP" test?" What else could you conclude from looking at the picture? It makes the point that simply looking at public behavior does, in theory, allow one to make reasonable conclusions. I explained in my comment that that was the extent of what I wanted to say. The picture says it very powerfully (of course, I didn't want to load up the page with the pic itself). You really went too far there. Please restore it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And you've already caused unnecessary confusion in the thread. [18] (I take it he's made an honest error about what the "GOOSESTEP" reference was all about. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it is sweet that you've shown your hand. But there is no need to protest any more. You've already caused enough pointless disruption William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It was completely pointed and unnecessary. You made your argument, but the visual aspect added nothing and only served to further prod other editors. Anyone who doesn't know the term can just look it up on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with people misinterpreting your comments, I would suggest you chose your words more carefully and avoid terms often associated with Hitler. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
That is completely false. If "anyone who doesn't know the term can just look it up" then there would be no benefit to having pictures in Wikipedia. I wasn't just responding to reasoning, I was making it harder for readers of my comment to dismiss what I was saying. avoid terms often associated with Hitler. You looked up Goose step on Wikipedia and edited that article immediately after removing the link to the picture. You know that it's been used across the planet by militaries that have nothing to do with Hitler. You know that. You also know that Hitler had absolutely nothing to do with my point. You also know that I explained my point in the comment that linked to the picture. If I needed to avoid terms often associated with Hitler then you should have removed the word, not just the picture to goose stepping soldiers on the other side of the planet and half a century removed from the Nazis. This is failure to assume good faith on your part. I was no more alluding to Hitler than any of those military organizations are, throughout the world, that goose step. Extreme uniformity of action -- the physical coordination of human beings in time, place and "position" is what I very obviously alluded to: To be fair, I think no editors are in perfect lockstep. Whether or not ArbCom might find either "cabal" or "faction" useful, I don't know. But there are situations in life where the behavior you see seems to demand the conclusion that some kind of coordination is likely, whether or not it's the case here, how could we ever prove it definitively? The "GOOSESTEP" test? Do you have any particular reason to think that I was comparing people to anything else in any way related to Hitler (or Nazis or Fascists)? Was there anything at all that I said that gave you that impression? Look at the freakin' picture, Amory. Look at it. It helped to get my point across: A certain level of uniformity of action requires prior coordination. It's harder to deny that statement once you look at the picture, which was why I linked to it. Look at my comment again. I was very clearly making the points that (a) we don't know enough to say people are in a "cabal" and (b) we do know enough to be suspicious and (c) here's an idea about how we might test accusations rather than just make them or deny them. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This is excellent stuff. Keep going, don't let me interrupt you William M. Connolley (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

Hi! This message is just a friendly reminder that you signed up to participate in the GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive. I noticed that you haven't logged a single copy edit yet. We'd love to see you participate! The drive runs three more weeks so there's still plenty of time to earn barnstars. Thanks! --Diannaa (Talk) 22:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence?

How much are we expected to use the "analysis of evidence" section, and how much use the "comments by others" to introduce evidence on the workshop pge? I would have thought the former; ATren is using the latter [19]. Could you advise? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody should be using either one to introduce significant new evidence. If a response warrants bringing something up it should be fine if within reason. The analysis section is obviously for analysis. I do not know why you are pointing me to that diff, though. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Email

You have some from me. Not terribly important, so feel free to respond whenever you have time. Best, NW (Talk) 03:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your implication that you are not the most important thing in my life right now is highly insulting. I am clearly working day in and day out solely to please you and have been trying for weeks to get your attention. It is as if you haven't even noticed me sitting outside your window, staring longingly inside your bedroom. You are a coward of the lowest moral order, and would do well to forget this incident. Also, you left the oven on. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to be such a creeper. kkthxbie! NW (Talk) 12:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think this comment of yours is a really interesting one. It's highly bureaucratic, but I'd love to see a discussion on it at AN or some venue. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, might as well ask the arbitrators: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration#Administrators without the bit and Discretionary sanctions. NW (Talk) 23:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Solid, but you may want to move that to WT:AC - Wikipedia:Arbitration is the description of the process, whereas the committee focuses around WP:AC. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

RfA

I totally missed that you missed it. Just blame it on the dramaout or something, no one noticed :P. —fetch·comms 21:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was so committed I even missed the dramaout! Congrats again, very well deserved. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Climate change Iphone troll

What should be done about edits by 32.173.72.178 (talk · contribs) and 32.173.28.92 (talk · contribs), obvious trolls on their iphones, to the case pages? I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to revert them, and I'm well aware that no non-clerk admin would semi the case pages. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, 2/0 got it. Semi-protection wouldn't be appropriate yet but if I see reason to do so I will. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI Clerk

Hi Amory,

I'd like to be a trainee under you if you'll have me. Please reply with {{tb}} on my talkpage. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit tied up with other things at the moment (as the notice up top implies) and I don't think I've even touched SPI in the last month so now is not the ideal time. If you would like to clerk, I would post here with your intentions or ask one of the other, more active clerks. Sorry. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok, could you please do that for me? Thanks Amory! Hopefully the 4th person won't be busy :D Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me
Let me rephrase that - That's what I would do if I were in your position, so I suggest you do it yourself. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks anyway. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Note

You might wish to be aware that SlimVirgin has undone your hatting of a section on the climate change arbitration - this undoes this. Is it appropriate for parties to be reverting clerks? Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted SV before seeing this. Well, I'll leave it to you to sort out any resulting mess William M. Connolley (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
But then I did it again. Ah well, I'll leave it alone from now on. I did leav SV a message William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See post on arb case

See what I just posted on the ev and wkshop talkpages. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, saw it on your talk. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing my evidence

You may wish to do something about [20]. Hipocrite (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Newsletter

GOCE July 2010 backlog elimination drive chart

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have now passed the halfway point, so here's an update.

Progress Report - Progress toward the targets has been good. 751 articles out of the approximately 1,600 we would like to get completed by the end of the month were done by July 15, so we will be very close to meeting the target for volume. However, we would like to clear all of the 2008 articles from the backlog, and there are still 892 left to do. Please consider choosing one of these older articles when looking for something to copy edit. If we focus our firepower we can completely wipe out 2008 from the queue.

Participation Report - 95 people signed up for the July drive. This is a great result compared to May, when we had 36. However, in May only one person that signed up didn't do any copy edits, and in July only 59 of the 95 have posted any copy edits on the big board.

The task may seem insurmountable but please remember that if all 95 participants copy edit just one article a day from now until the end of the month, we will eliminate 1,300 more articles from the backlog. So please consider participating at whatever level you can! All contributions are appreciated.

This newsletter was prepared for the GOCE by Diannaa (Talk), S Masters (talk), and The Raptor Let's talk.

-- The Utahraptor at 18:08, July 18, 2010‎ (UTC).

CC Workshop full protection

I full protected the page to enforce Risker's decision to close the workshop page. Feel free to revert my action without consulting me should do wish to do so. Best, NW (Talk) 05:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Email me. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I of course mean read your email. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I sent you an email (I mean, I did, but not until now)? Or do you mean that you sent me an email? Or am I just forgetting something? NW (Talk) 12:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Brain fried all day in the sun + late at night after work = poor English. You know what you need to... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Please open investigation

I would do it myself, but I am baffled.

Thank you kindly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that. I think I've figured it out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I listed it on the main WP:SPI page for you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. What happens when a new suspected sock is discovered who's first edit predates the sockmaster? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line on CC

Just posted on CC evidence talk page: " Bottom line: If the users on BOTH sides of this would BEHAVE, SirFozzie wouldn't have felt compelled to try to stop the THIRD edit war in less than a week -- which is also the SECOND in 24 hours. Therefore, I'm telling the clerks to clamp down on this atrocious behavior by both sides. And yes, this is being discussed on arb-l but the edit wars are breaking out faster than arbs can respond. If any editors can't shape up post haste, as far as I'm concerned the clerks and other unvolved admins can take any measures necessary to put these fires out." — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Climate change case

Hi, I have been following this case and was wondering as it seems to be getting close to completion of personal statements are there any estimated dates for outcomes and closure, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposed decision is expected to be up within the next day or two. NW (Talk) 02:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed - there is quite a lot to read and make sense of. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thank you, I thought it was getting close. As for reading and making sense of - there are 750 diffs on that page, phew. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Undid your evidence contribution

Eh, fine with me. Looking it over, in retrospect, that was more of a rant than anything useful (and not so much the individuals involved as a general issue). Changing WP:SOCK policy will be more effective anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Teeth

Does this have teeth? IF so, what happens if people ignore it? Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not an issue if nobody does it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you reviewed the various pages recently? If your argument is "it takes two to tango," that should be made clear. Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
What are you referring to? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Post the warning, we've had a user reinsert a copyvio image they were indeffed blocked for previously for inserting at Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Another user has stated "For skeptics, self-published blogs are apparently a reliable source (and if not, a single link to a major media reliable source "negates" any BLPSPS problem). For GW activists, op-ed pieces in a major newspaper are not reliable sources (even when backed up by 4-6 other mentions from major media reliable sources, the material is somehow not acceptable)," on the evidence page, right below your warning ... more on request. Hipocrite (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the editor received a one week block for an unrelated issue which was then extended for talk page abuse. Your current avenues seem appropriate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence closed?

I'm puzzled by your deletion of evidence [26]. The case is still in progress. Why is evidence closed? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a question along similar lines. The Workshop was closed on 7/19, with your edit summary saying it would be closed for a period of 48 hours, which has now passed and the page is now no longer protected. The talk page post from Risker indicates a more open ended closing. Is it now open for posting again? While I can understand your interest in imposing "cloture" on freewheeling discussion, this is now the dog days of summer, people are away, so some of the later proposals, some of which were draconian, did not get the kind of full airing as earlier proposals. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Workshop has been closed permanently for this case, to the best of my knowledge. NW (Talk) 14:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The Proposed Decision replaces the Workshop once it's up. And while we plebs cannot edit the PD page (generally a Good Thing), the talk page is available (normally) for comment on the proposals. Which may, or may not resemble the workshop proposals in any shape or form. Guettarda (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

@WMC: We've been through this already. The normal progression of a case is Evidence -> Workshop -> Proposed decision. Everyone posted Evidence. Lovely, except there was a lot of it. Everyone posted Workshop proposals. Lovely, except there was a lot of it. The Arbs need time to read the evidence, read the analysis, read the proposals, and work on their own. If you think more evidence is needed, the proper place now is to ask on the talk page - the Arbs need their time.

@ScottyBerg: If you read the note on the Workshop closure, you'll find that it does indeed say "minimum 48 hours." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarifications/replies. You may want to re-protect the page/pages so that people don't stumble in there. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If you think more evidence is needed, the proper place now is to ask on the talk page - well, it isn't my evidence. So, if you want to add evidence, it is now necessary to ask on the evidence talk page, and await a reply from... you? an arb? what? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The arbs, as stated weeks ago by Carcharoth. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually I didn't have time to post much evidence, and I never had a chance to post my Workshop proposals. Between the World Cup and real-world work that got put off because of the World Cup, I wasn't able to participate in a meaningful way. But such is life and the vagaries of the arbcomm. Guettarda (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please comment

Could you please comment in this thread User talk:NuclearWarfare#Amending evidence. I would like to bring misstatements about my behaviour to the attention of arbcom, which I was unaware of until now. Verbal chat 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Please protect the page

A request to please stop further evidence creeping into the page such as this Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence#More edit warring, thanks Polargeo (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hell. i have just realised it is just the talkpage. I will be bold and collapse as you have done previously. If you disagree with me then I have no complaint. Polargeo (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but in the future, please do not. You are heavily involved here, and while I appreciate the effort snippy comments are not helpful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
What snippy comments? This comment by you here classifying my comments as snippy does seem to suggest I am tainted and really prejudges my motivation. Polargeo (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like to know which snippy comments you refer to. Hipocrite (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I will explain my motivation for a bold collapse. As I hope you have noticed these things tend to quickly escalate into major incidents involving many editors. My previous incorporation of comments into your intended collapse [27] also prevented this escalation. That previous collapse is something you have not commented on, but is something I had to deal with on my talkpage User talk:Polargeo#Mind_reading. When you are not about I have tried to do my best to stop the all out war (that has been present on CC RFE) breaking on these pages, whilst not overstepping the mark. As these pages seem to have been generally abandoned then I consider that what I have done has been constructive in stopping this, believe me these trivial aguments spread like wildfire if not stopped quickly. Polargeo (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not criticizing the intention - it was well placed. However, if something is going to be collapsed, participants in the case should not be the ones to be placing value judgments on other participants. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe I have placed any "value" judgements. I was just trying to stop escalation based on the judgements you had already made completely evident. Because you are the only clerk about and have not always been there quickly I took a couple of very minor decisions and nipped some stuff early before it became all out war. Obviously on your request I will not do this again. But I feel it is your loss rather than mine. Polargeo (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It is everyone's loss. You helped stop an escalation, which won't occur in future, because the clerks don't pay close attention the way participants do William M. Connolley (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Polargeo, if there is something you don't like on a case page and it's more than just a typo, then post a note here for the clerk. The clerk may not get to it for a few hours, but I think we'll be ok. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The inevitable dig at me from Cla suggesting I collapsed something because I didn't like it. Of the two threads I collapsed in an honest attempt to stop them blowing up there was one on "each side". I won't do it again but the assumption of bad faith and partisanship I have recieved, particularly from Cla, from the outset really irritates me. Polargeo (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd revert

Can you explain why you reverted Lar [28]? His question is entirely reasonable, and indeed is one that others will be thinking of asking too. Leaving the question plus your edit comment as a reply would be more useful than stripping the text. What you've done makes it seem as though arbcomm is embarassed by the delay and trying to hide it and any "inconvenient" questions William M. Connolley (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Was this necessary?

[29] The Arbs may well be aware, but it could be helpful for other editors to know that the question has been asked.

It's obvious that Lar wasn't trying to skirt the intent of the restrictions on new evidence/workshop/discussion with his post. While I'm sure it wasn't your intent, the appearance of your immediate revert of his question suggests that the Arbs aren't comfortable with other editors noting that the proposed decision is running a long way behind schedule. In the spirit of transparency – and to save you having to revert a series of similar posts in the future, why not put his legitimate, non-disruptive, politely-phrased, constructive, reasonable post back? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Was there something unclear about "Clerks have been advised that they are to remove any and all posts to either page until an arbitrator reopens them?" The issue has been raised, far more appropriately, on the PD talk page. There is no implication that ArbCom is "embarassed" nor is this an act to hide or remove transparency - the instructions are brutally clear. Obviously participants are a little frustrated, which is why the discussion on the PD talk, if it can remain civil and appropriate, can be a healthy one. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You may want to work on your phrasing of things, it tends to be too blunt and insufficiently assumptive of good faith in others. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you are mistaking being succinct for being curt. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
"brutally clear" ... no, I don't think I'm mistaking being succinct for being curt. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"They are aware" ... of what? Where do you suggest that my request for an update be made if not on that talk page? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I see now (after rooting around) that there is discussion on the proposed decision page. Would it have been such a bad thing to reply to my post saying that instead of just removing it with an obscure and unclear edit summary? It's usually good advice to not use edit summaries in lieu of conversation. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I indeed should have given a link to the discussion, I apologize for not. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence

Constructive commentary and feedback is welcome, but infighting is unacceptable

[30] You sure? (<-not rhetorical) 'The arbitrators' seem pretty happy to have ongoing edit wars brought to their attention.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So bring it to their attention. But don't attempt to post evidence outside the limitation. As previously instructed, ask on the talk page. Don't use it as Evidence Part II. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Calmez-vous. This was an attempt at bringing it to their attention. Stymied, obviously. Others, including standing arbitrators, have done the same without issue. (one, two, three)
This is the first arbitration case I've looked at. In this, the first case I've looked at, arbitrators have asked for evidence of edit wars occurring during arbitration. I'm trying my best, and am continually learning what's expected of me.
I understand this is stressful for you, only remember that just because one is 'party' to a case doesn't mean one isn't an individual, practicing.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anything I did was in anyway inhuman. As I said, I have no issue with you asking if it can be included - just say "Hey, what about this? It'd be good evidence. Here's an example: **COLLAPSE** Stuff **UNCOLLAPSE**" ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I've only recently learned about collapses. They seem to make sense sometimes.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer: You may want to work on your phrasing of things, it tends to be too blunt and insufficiently assumptive of good faith in others. As I said before. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Likewise! You are starting to sound like a broken record, and you are playing a crappy song.
Lar, of all the people who should know how to read instructions and not post in the inappropriate section, I thought you would be top of the list - alas not. Somehow you read the simple instructions which said Clerks have been advised that they are to remove any and all posts to either page until an arbitrator reopens them. and you thought that they instead said Post here, the clerks won't mind....
Understandable if it were just one mistake, but you have chosen to compound your arrogance by harrassing the clerk who followed instructions correctly and removed your post. That's not a single mistake, that is you, an admin, trying to get around clear instructions to have your say.
And we have a direct example or two to show what I mean when I say arrogance - as an "uninvolved" admin at Climate Change probation you have been at least twice involved in (albeit brief) edit wars to remove comments from the Uninvolved Admin section and you know perfectly well why it is sometimes necessary to limit discussion to the correct venue, yet when told to do so yourself on the arbitration page you refuse.
You ask the question, Where do you suggest that my request for an update be made if not on that talk page?. Ha! So what, your question is soooooo important that the rule which Risker posted saying don't post here didn't apply to you? Oh, here's a crazy option - why didn't you just ask Risker?! He was the one that advised everyone NOT to post on "that talkpage", so the first and obvious step would be to ask him your question. Or just shut up and wait.
Lar, your 'warning' to Amory was inappropriate. As an admin you should have more integrity than this, although I would note that that integrity has been repeatedly called into question at the probation page and it remains to be seen if the arbs or the community considers you fit for the task you have undertaken at CC probation. In the meantime, try following the very simple instructions that accompany the various arb pages if you can. Weakopedia (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for archive

Amory, where can I find archives of requests for arbitration clarifications? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If they have a larger purpose for the case, they get archived to the talk page of the case. If they have a larger purpose in general, they get archived to WT:A/R archives. I was pondering whether or not to, and have just done. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Found it. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody!


Stats
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the May 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, your word totals are cumulative for barnstars (not the leaderboard). Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars.

GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 July
  • Eight people will receive The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Barnstar (100,000+ words): Chaosdruid, Diannaa, Ericleb01, Lfstevens, Shimeru, S Masters, The Utahraptor, and Torchiest.
  • Bullock and Slon02 will receive The Order of the Superior Scribe (80,000+).
  • The Barnstar of Diligence (60,000+) goes to Derild4921, GaryColemanFan, kojozone, and Mlpearc.
  • The Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (40,000+) goes to A. Parrot, AirplanePro, Auntieruth55, Bejinhan, David Rush, and mono.
  • Nobody will receive The Old School League of Copy Editors award (30,000+).
  • The Tireless Contributor Barnstar (20,000+) goes to Backtable, Cindamuse, dtgriffith, Duff, e. ripley, Laurinavicius, NerdyScienceDude, and TEK.
  • The Cleanup Barnstar (12,000+) goes to Brickie, Casliber, cymru lass, December21st2012Freak, Nolelover, TheTito, Whoosit, and YellowMonkey.
  • The Working Man's Barnstar (8,000+) goes to Bsherr, Duchess of Bathwick, HELLKNOWZ, Mabeenot, noraft, Pyfan, and Richard asr.
  • The Modest Barnstar (4,000+) goes to Adrian J. Hunter, Airplaneman, Annalise, Camerafiend, Cricket02, Fetchcomms, Gosox5555, LeonidasSpartan, Paulmnguyen, Piotrus, SuperHamster, Taelus, and TPW.


Gold Star Award

Gold Star Award Leaderboard
Articles Words 5k+ Articles
1. Diannaa (248) Shimeru (200,392) Shimeru/Ericleb01 (13)
2. Slon02 (157) Diannaa (164,960) Chaosdruid (8)
3. GaryColemanFan (101) Chaosdruid (130,630) Derild4921 (7)
4. Torchiest (100) The Utahraptor (117,347) GaryColemanFan/Slon02 (6)
5. Shimeru (80) Ericleb01 (114,893) Bejinhan/The Utahraptor (5)

Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

Clamp down?

As you have apparently been instructed to "clamp down on this atrocious behavior by both sides," I'm interested in what you think about the recent editing history of [31] on Aug 2, [32] on Aug 2, and [33] on Aug 2. I thought I would bring some possibly atrocious behavior to your attention. Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on those pages but I do not think there is anything worth clamping down on yet. I see a (relatively) normal editing process (albeit a bit long-winded). Am I missing some details? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
revenge tagging? edit warring? Engaging in deliberatly provocative edit-warring (removing tags whilst the entire process is hamstrung by the same instruction telling you to clamp down? Imagine this - instead of restraining myself and coming to you, I instead chose to revert all three of those article to the status-quo ante. Would that have then evidenced "atrocious behavior by both sides?" If an action by me would have caused there to have been "atrocious behavior by both sides," wouldn't a removal of actions by only one side have made it so there was "atrocious behavior by one side?" Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
More edit warring. When is the behavior "atrocious?" Hipocrite (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, phew, now that someone who might be argued on my "side" has stepped in, we're fully at the stated "behavior from both sides," that needed to stop - [34]. Hipocrite (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not alone here

I'm troubled by the edit summary that you used when you closed this discussion. While I agree with you that some of the thread had gone off the rails, I don't think it's helpful to tar everyone with the same broad brush. It is far from true that all of the comments were "passive aggressive, off-topic and out of scope", and that sort of edit summary is going to be read as insulting. My sole contribution to the thread was a clear, concise explanation for why a proposed decision sooner rather than later might be a good idea, to allow room for open discussion and amendment. I thought it might offer a useful perspective to Arbs in considering how long to spend on preparing and massaging a proposed decision before presenting it to the community; I didn't deserve to be tagged as passive-aggressive and off-topic.

Believe me, I sympathize with you — the duration, complexity, and breadth of this case – and, in no small part, the sometimes irritating behaviour of some of its parties – all combine to make clerking a challenging and (as is usual) largely thankless task. Nevertheless, venting in your edit summaries won't do anything to make the parties more tractable. If you want to blow off steam and call editors names, then do it some place private and out of sight, where it isn't going to further inflame the case pages. Talk to other clerks, or even the arbs, if you need to. If you aren't able to stay utterly cool while clerking this case (and I certainly would understand why), there's nothing wrong with stepping back for a bit to take a breather — ask the Arbs to assign a second clerk to help out and share the load, or just take a short spell away from the morass. (That would be good advice for nearly everyone involved, really.)

I think Lar's observation in the subsequent section of the same page is most astute. Like a bubble under a poorly-laid carpet, stomping down in one spot will just lead to a fresh bulge somewhere else — even if you stomp down really hard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Again. This warning on Hipocrite's talk is the worst sort of kicking an editor while he's down. I've commented further there, but I would strongly suggest that you ask another clerk to spell you off this case for a bit; you're getting way too quick on the trigger. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for your personal concern, but repeatedly telling editors to go fuck themselves will never be appropriate. As for your first post here, I don't think you need to take personal responsibility, or that I was trying to get you to. There was plenty good in that thread, including, perhaps, your comment, and I'm sure the next one will have plenty good in it too, but once things start getting out of hand I'd rather a new bubble start then let one fester unhealthily. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the clerk shouldn't editorialize when he hats a discussion, but in this case I honestly don't mind because it probably made it more likely that other editors would open up and read that thread to see what about was causing such emotion. Anyway, I don't see a problem with Amory's warning. Upset editors are still expected to obey the rules. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(As an aside, I think that "Go fuck yourself" is an entirely appropriate response to an editor who mocks another's disability, and I believe that the project should be willing to stand behind that. I'd go a bit further and say "Go fuck yourself, and don't let the door hit you on the way out!" — but I digress.) I'm willing to extend GregJackP the benefit of the doubt here and assume that he didn't know that Hipocrite was dyslexic — but it remains that his post which set off this mess was clearly intended to be mocking. The fact that GregJackP's post was orders of magnitude more offensive than he might have intended is careless negligence on his part, not some innocent error. (I also haven't seen him offer an apology to Hipocrite.)
Once it was established that there was a level of serious misunderstanding here, did you think it would be helpful to show up on Hipocrite's talk page and threaten him? The guy's hurting, he lashed out, he probably does feel a bit silly about it (or hopefully will be able to in a few days), but the way you phrased your message was callous: "if you cannot keep from letting your emotions get the best of you and behaving incivility, I will enforce that wikibreak for you." Amory, the problem isn't that your intentions are bad, it's that you're coming across as downright rude in communicating them. This is twice in one day where I've seen you make some really poor choices of phrasing. The edit summary I mentioned above was needlessly insulting, and the post on Hipocrite's talk page was needlessly cruel. As a clerk, you've got to be able to communicate clearly and coolly, even when things get tense. You haven't been doing that.
Are you willing to make more of an effort for the rest of this case to communicate clearly and courteously with other editors — even if they really, really, really piss you off? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ten, the comment was directed at ChrisO, who had stated that another editor's knowledge "appears to be well below high school level". Are you sure you're lecturing the right person here? Cla68 (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This was GregJackP's comment. It was mocking Hipocrite's misspelling of 'quorum'. I certainly don't dispute that GregJackP might have intended to be offensive towards more than one person. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding? I've seen you people devote entire threads to mocking (my spelling, other people's intelligence/education, etc) - often from people who make quite a few of their own spelling errors or who demonstrate a fundamental ignorance in certain scientific fields. I guess I should've said I was dyslexic and told people to go fuck themselves. You guys blow things way out of proportion when one of your own is involved, but grossly encourage each other when mocking others - either grow some thicker skin or file down some teeth. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I still don't understand how or why you take personal offense at that edit summary. Hatting paragraph-by-paragraph would have been unhelpful for everyone - are you suggesting then I should have called out each disruptive editor by name? I don't think that's productive. As for the other post, it was due to the acknowledgment of the circumstances (perceived insult, ragequit) that Hipocrite was not blocked right there. Clerk or not, any sysop not involved in this mess should have made that post. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Minor4th has taken the present state of affairs as license to accuse Hipocrite of being a "drama queen", and suggests that he's feeling sorry for himself, fishing for pity and sympathy for something he "can compensate for", and declared he would have "a serious problem with [his own children] if they behaved this way": [35]. I have asked him to withdraw that incredibly insensitive and inflammatory remark, and I would ask you to endorse my request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand I think TOAT is way out of line and needs to be told to stop by someone he listens to. He's not listening to anyone that's not egging him on. The Proposed Decision can't come soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 06:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Now there is something I can agree with. I checked out all the pages to do with civility and community interaction and there isn't a clause that says that telling people to fuck off is fine in certain circumstances. Actually when you think of it in those terms, there is never likely to be - what are we gonna have, a list of behaviour that is not acceptable, but then a separate list of behaviour that becomes acceptable if you feel you have been wronged? Ten seems to be suggesting that escalation of arguments is fine so long as you are really, really justified in doing so. The problem is that he consistently applies this only to one 'side' of the debate. We had CC articles, which turned into a battleground. Then we had CC probation which turned into a battleground. The we had the arbcom CC case, which turned into a battleground. Now we have waiting for the arbcom CC proposal, and editors are trying to turn even that into a battleground, with Ten defending their right to do so. Somebody point him in the direction of admin school please. Weakopedia (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Please, everyone, escalating dramaz by lurid edit summaries is a Bad Thing, more restraint all round will be a very good idea. Abwarten und Tee trinken. . . dave souza, talk 09:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI re page protection

Hey there, I saw you are the clerk at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change, just thought I would give you a heads up:

  • From a request from WP:RFPP, I full-protected the page Michael E. Mann, for one week, with the note at RFPP that other admins can feel free to change this.

However, of course, this change to the protection level, should only be done by other previously-uninvolved-admins. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 11

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)11:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Afghanistani

An IP is trying to re-start this page after you re-directed it. Can you please keep an eye on that as well as Afghanistani people, "Afghanistan" is a made up word and not in any use. Thanks.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Soooo...

I'm a bit confused here. You say evidence is no longer being accepted, yet every page in the case says it's still open and is being accepted. If it's closing, or worse, if it's been closed, the pages really should dictate as much - at least to prevent someone from unnecessarily spending hours composing a submission that cannot be heard.
--K10wnsta (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest reading this section, namely the comments by Carcharoth and NYB. Where on the case pages do you see a call for evidence? Did you see the last few of sections on the evidence talk made? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, opening the main case page, the huge green box at the top stands out saying:
"This case is currently open;...if you have evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider, post it at the evidence page."
Following the link to the evidence page, the first sentence reads:
"Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page."
Additionally, I did see Newyorkbrad's comment about a soft deadline for the drafters reading statements, and then there were the evidence page's instructions which stated evidence would be accepted for 15 days following the open of the case. (I'm also certain I read somewhere about the Evidence having been closed and then re-opened due to the scope of the anticipated case, although I can't remember exactly where).
Collectively, all this information was rather ambiguous, so I decided I'd better just ask what the status was on the Evidence Talk Page. The only response my query suggested if I had evidence I could leave it, but there was no gaurantee the drafters would read it at that point (which was the way I had sort of interpreted the collective instructions).
I was late to the game because, following an extensive (tl;dr) review of the state of the subject 9 months ago, I resolved to avoid all topics relating to it for extended periods (8+ weeks) at a time until a healthy dose of objectivity was injected back into everything going on there. I check back from time to time (most recently at the Climategate article), but not frequently enough to have caught wind of the pending arbitration. I'm glad you said something before I posted the 947 word summary I'd assembled from the mountains of data I collected for that review (and on subsequent visits to the pages), because a reversion of that magnitude would have felt like pie on the face...I just wish you'd said something 3 days earlier when I started assembling that summary. ;-)
--K10wnsta (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, I did see the last few sections of the Evidence Talk Page, but they appeared to be posts by folks who had already submitted evidence asking to append further evidence about very recent incidents.
--K10wnsta (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up Question

Now that it's posted, if I have a comment on the merits of the proposed decisions, would it be acceptable for me to post it or is the discussion limited to only involved parties at this point?
--K10wnsta (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind...just saw you're far happier than me (hope you have/had fun). I'll defer my query to the other clerk.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive invitation
There are currently
2,481 articles in the backlog.
You can help us! Join the
September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive

The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles.

Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.

Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive!
— ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 23:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

Vandalism at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

In the absence of the assigned clerk*, and because it is quicker to do than to ask other Arb Clerks, I have semi protected the above Proposed decision page. I have sprotected indefinitely, but as I am an involved party I suggest that someone "take over" the responsibility of the protection and the appropriate duration. I have also RevDel one of the vandal edits, but since this is more difficult to assign to another editor I shall desist. I am copying this to all drafting ArbCom members, and the Clerks talkpage.
*I have seen you about, but why interrupt someone's vacation... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Public domain and Wikipedia.

Wikipedia and public domain for upcoming edits.

Please discuss seriously about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia_and_public_domain_for_upcoming_edits. Rishikeshan (talk) 05:45, September 2, 2010‎ (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Please block me for the period of five years.

Thanks. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

are you alright? you seem to have snapped or something. all of a sudden your trying to get your article deleted and your account banned for five years; whats up? btw, kudos on the rather elaborate fake (as you claim) article, this name provides no relevant hits on google except the wikipeida article you made. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DC Meetup #12

An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.
—NBahn (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.

Restore Deleted Page to Userspace?

Hi, could you restore whatever was at Opie Winston to some subpage in my userspace? I see that the Sons of Anarchy template has links to separate pages for the characters, except this one, which was deleted. If you could restore it to my userspace, I'd like to see what I can do about fixing it up and throwing it back out there, to complete the template. (Sorry, I just randomly picked a name I recognized from Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles) Thanks! jheiv talk contribs 06:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done @ User:jheiv/Opie. You may be interested in the AfD, if you haven't already seen it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section on Jeffrey Hyland's page

Hello there Amory. I'm not really sure how I'm going to start getting this section resolved. There's a part in this article section that I thought does not seem to have a NPOV. The first sentence that says "In April of 2006 Hyland sold a 16-acre estate in Malibu to Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, a highly controversial political leader and the quasi-prince of Equatorial Guinea. There's a reference article but reading through it, I've found some points in contrary to what the section editor tried to put out. There's a part in the article that said ""the malibu city or organization didn't know who was the buyer either", so if the city didn't know about it, then that only means Jeff knew less, or no clue at all. How do I go about this? I'd truly appreciate your inputs. Thanks very much. Jxc5 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Seasons Greetings

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amorymeltzer/Archive_2&oldid=1144608587"