Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:57, 2 July 2010

Amory has a very distracting family and will likely be editing erratically until the kids stop being cute.

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

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, , 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 . 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 ? 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? Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages Signpost: 21 June 2010

• Sister projects: Picture of the Year results declared on Wikimedia Commons

• News and notes: Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more

• In the news: Misplaced Pages better than Britannica, Pending changes as a victory of tradition, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject U2

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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)

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)

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  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  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  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)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 28 June 2010

• Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content

• News and notes: 2010–15 plan, Smithsonian outreach, Teaching Misplaced Pages, brief news

• In the news: Misplaced Pages controlled by pedophiles, left-wing trolls, Islamofascists and Communist commandos?

• Public Policy Initiative: Introducing the Public Policy Initiative

• WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Ships

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Overlong?

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I'll try to keep my comments shorter. My most recent comment 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. ) 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. Misplaced Pages: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. 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 04:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:GLAM/SI invite

Hello, Amorymeltzer! 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 Misplaced Pages. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

Workshop talk page

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