Misplaced Pages

User talk:Amorymeltzer: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:53, 4 August 2010 editWeakopedia (talk | contribs)2,597 edits →You're not alone here: oo, we can tell people to f. off if they really really deserve it? in that case, ten of all trades....← Previous edit Revision as of 09:25, 4 August 2010 edit undoDave souza (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators48,749 edits →You're not alone here: patience is a virtueNext edit →
Line 206: Line 206:


::::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. ] (]) 08:53, 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. ] (]) 08:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::Please, everyone, escalating dramaz by lurid is a Bad Thing, more restraint all round will be a very good idea. Abwarten und Tee trinken. . . ], ] 09:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:25, 4 August 2010

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

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!!!

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 , S Masters (talk), and The Raptor .

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 . 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 Misplaced Pages Signpost: 26 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please protect the page

A request to please stop further evidence creeping into the page such as this Misplaced Pages 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 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 ? 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?

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

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 Co-coordinators: Diannaa and S Masters (talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor /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 on Aug 2, on Aug 2, and 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 - . Hipocrite (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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)
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 if they behaved this way": . 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)
User talk:Amorymeltzer: Difference between revisions Add topic