Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:30, 22 April 2010

User:Amorymeltzer/wikibreak/status

This is Amorymeltzer's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 12 days

SPI investigation

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 . 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 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is (aside from being hard to judge) only good for judging the breadth of that editor's experience on Misplaced Pages. 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)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 12 April 2010

• Sanger allegations: Larry Sanger accuses Wikimedia of hosting illegal images

• News and notes: Studying German flagged revisions, French library agreement, German court case

• In the news: SCOTUS hopeful edited bio, criticism from article subject

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Motorcycling

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 Misplaced Pages:RTV#Vanishing from Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Signpost: 19 April 2010

• News and notes: Berlin WikiConference, Brooklyn Museum & Google.org collaborations, review backlog removed, 1 billion edits

• In the news: Study of featured article quality, Facebook's integration of Misplaced Pages, and more!

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Environment

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

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)