User talk:Amorymeltzer

I use the Modern skin — if anything doesn't look right to you, upgrade!

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)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

• Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content

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

• In the news: Wikipedia 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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Overlong?

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I'll try to keep my comments shorter. My most recent comment [1] 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. [2]) 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. [3] 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! 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!!!

Workshop talk page

We've been asked to point you at [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 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

• News and notes: WMF expansion, community hires, award for MediaWiki, admin recall

• In the news: Accidentally anonymized donation, democratized learning and more

• Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature

• Features and admins: This week's highlights

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Removing links per WP:LINKVIO from a case you are clerking

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. [5] (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 [6]. 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)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

• UK COI edits: British politicians accused of WP cover-ups

• News and notes: Board changes, Wikimania, Public Policy Initiative

• In the news: Foundation plans, David Barton, dangerous occasional glitches

• Discussion report: Article ownership, WikiProjects vs. Manual of Style, Unverifiable village

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Apple Inc.

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

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)