User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 04 08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

purge edit icons
Archive: Interim • 10/25 • 10/14 • 09/24 • 09/21 • 09/18 • 09/16 • 09/05 • 08/23 • 08/15 • 08/01 • 07/27 • 07/22 • 07/19 • 07/15 • 07/06 • 07/01 • 06/25 • 06/18 • 06/15 • 06/14 • 06/07 • 06/03 • 05/30 • 05/25 • 05/20 • 05/10 • 04/08 • 03/15 • 02/13 • 02/02 • 01/27 • 01/19 • 01/06 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004  edit

Contents

[edit] New user welcomes

Hi Tony. I just wanted to thank you for going through the effort of giving all those new users proper welcomes in place of Karmafist's message. -- SCZenz 04:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I see the RfA on Karmafist... has anyone checked to see if he did or didn't in fact talk to Jimbo about it, and if so what Jimbo said about it? I have no idea either way, but the answer could make a big difference... 8-\ Georgewilliamherbert 08:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The rfa is over, I'm afraid. From what the opposition provided as concensus, It also appears Karmafists actions as an administrator and usage of the mop also contibuted to his desysopping, not just his imflammatory welcome template. I daresay that Jimbo's actions were merely the last straw upon an long list of unacceptable habbits and intolerable behavior. -ZeroTalk 10:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist is the subject of a new application for arbitration, which seems very likely to be accepted. It currently lacks only one further acceptance vote. The cause is his unusual welcoming messages. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of Request for Arbitration

Due to the continued, wilfull violation of WP:NPA and WP:NPOV by FourthAve, I have asked the Arbitration Committee to investigate his actions. I have listed you as an involved party because you have been a target of FourthAve's behavior. The RFA can be found here. Please leave a statement if you are so inclined. - Jaysus Chris 11:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I see FourthAve's been blocked again. Will he be able to respond to the RFAR while blocked? - Jaysus Chris 19:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

He's only been blocked for twenty-four hours. If he wants to respond, he will have plenty of time. --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

I really appreciate how rational you are when dealing with our problematic editors (at least, the ones we've intersected on). There's a calmness and dedication there that I find admirable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 17:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetophone

Hello Tony,

Thanks for the welcome...

I've been using Wiki for sometime now for general research and thought I'd put an article together myself. I've edited it countless times trying to improve it as I learn more about how a Wikipedia article should read and what it should/should not contain etc. I think I've got it to a point where it is acceptable, but with room to improve...the neutrality is quite a tricky thing I've found.

I was wondering if you might be able to tell me how I can get the article looked through to check I haven't made any enormous gaffs in terms of Wiki protocol etc. I'd be very appreciative...

The article is 'Magnetophone'.

Thanks for your time... Matt. Roomfulofechoes 19:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rajput

  • thanks Tony, permablocking individual socks would not help much, as they are on dynamic ISP (which also made it impossible for the arbcom to evaluate how many individuals we are dealing with), but the article does need some admin watching it and keeping things organized (which was what I was doing originally, but I was targetted as 'involved' immediately, and by now I guess I am even though I have no agenda there). Their game is slow revert-warring, without any productive editing or debate, and the occasional outburst of abuse on talk. If you could censor them for that behaviour I think the atmosphere would benefit.
  • Also note that we have Gorkhali, a "Hindu Rajput" editor, which I believe was banned by the arbcom by mistake: He was not even mentioned in the fact-finding part, but suddenly under "remedies" they ban him. I think this may have been an honest mistake on the arbcom's part, what with the large number of confusing usernames involved, but he seems one of the very few good faith editors taking the "Hindu" pov, so the situation is a little unfortunate, the bad eggs get to continue reverting because we don't dare to block their socks, and the honest editor is locked out. But I don't know what could be done about that.

regards, dab (ᛏ) 08:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I did the clerking at the close of that case, so I remember that a lot of people were banned simply because they were on a list in an evidence page. If he's been banned through error, it should be easy enough to get him unbanned. Could you assemble some kind of brief on his case? I'll be happy to support an appeal.
Minding that article sounds like tough, grinding work. --Tony Sidaway 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still watching Tony's talk for some minor issue (...someone might want to complain), so I stumbled on this thread. Out of technical curiousity, "they are on dynamic ISP (which also made it impossible for the arbcom to evaluate how many individuals we are dealing with)"": doesn't it help to get these guys' geolocation info? On most networks, lest they're on AOL or similar, you can be tracked down to a particular, recurring node in or near the city of residence. Should they take to regular switching of providers (home, office, internet cafe, hotspots) it'd be impossible indeed to gather substantial evidence, however, as long as they stick with one or two recurring providers, evidence should accumulate, that over the course of weeks or months should prove good enough. Far better, say, that the one regarding poor POVster Gorkhali...:-) --tickle me 18:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetophone

Thanks Tony...that's good to know...and thanks for taking the time...I feel another article coming on!. Roomfulofechoes 13:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you remember me?

Greetings from an Indian wikipedian. I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2005. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to give here. --Bhadani 15:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah you're doing okay. :) --Tony Sidaway 06:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Bambenek

I saw you voted in the deletion review of this article and was wondering if you'd be willing to comment in the RFC your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. -- Alpha269 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points, but it would take more than a RfC to deal with the brokenness of our deletion and undeletion processes. It seems to attract people who are particularly susceptible to a slash-and-burn approach to constructing an encyclopedia. Rules that were put in place to stop the encyclopedia filling with trivia are used to destroy perfectly good entries about well established experts. The processes to work most of the time but commonsense is severely deprecated by the regulars of DRV in particular. --Tony Sidaway 03:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

mucho snipado para tonio sidawayo

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.


P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Lovely. Moved to User:Tony Sidaway/SuggestBot --Tony Sidaway 15:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cabal?

Hello Mr. Sidaway,

I'm afraid I must believe that your question is a bit disingenuous. As you must (or should) know, every mention of the Cabal by regular editors is a bit ironic -- or perhaps I should take the "I (heart) the Cabal" bumpersticker seen on some userpages literally? Do you take it literally?

Cabal or no, "X is (absolutely) ridiculous" has been my least favorite phrase on Wikipedia since I first encountered it at your October RFC. The phrase tends to demean an opponent's reasonable argument without addressing it, and spoils discussion rather than promoting it. Also, in my experience, its use is a hallmark of the inferior argument.

Elsewhere, since the ArbCom is on the verge of declaring that you have wheel-warred numerous times, I am glad to see that you have seemingly terminated that behavior. It makes wiki-life so much nicer for everyone. Thank you! Best wishes, Xoloz 16:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Be assured that my question was not disingenuous. I find the suggestion somewhat offensive. Do you find that surprising?
Whether or not the Committee may deem that I have "wheel warred", whatever that might mean, I shall never, ever act in a manner that is not in the interests of Wikipedia, nor have I. And that means that my actions will always be directed towards making life, wiki or otherwise, better for everyone. Except trolls. And you don't need a Cabal to tell you that, do you? --Tony Sidaway 16:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Or do you believe that the encyclopedia would be better off without the many articles that I have retrieved, or with the two items that I destroyed? It's all about the encyclopedia, you know. What it must contain (articles) and what it must not contain (poisonous trollishness of all kinds). --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


I do find it surprising that you find a suggestion that your question was "a bit disingenuous" to be "somewhat offensive." Knowing you to be a careful reader, I am at loss how else to explain your inability to impute irony to my mention of the Cabal. I'm sorry to offend, but at a loss for another explanation.
Equally essential to the survival and growth of Wikipedia is a culture of respect among good-faith users. This respect is breached whenever wheel-warring occurs. I suggest you read and ponder the definition(s) offered by the ArbCom in your case. You need to know exactly what "wheel-warring" means, so that you might be sure to refrain from it in future. A disrespectful act, wheel-warring damages the encyclopedia, and tarnishes the reputations of those who engage in it. I do believe, very sincerely, that the encyclopedia would be much better off without the enmity past wheel-warring has sown, including your own past such acts. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If by wheel-warring you mean an administrator undoing an action done by another, this is clearly not an intrinsically damaging action. One could be, to pluck examples from my own past, undeleting an article so that it may continue to be discussed at AfD, to a unanimous vote of keep, or perhaps deleting a template that, transcluded from many pages, is a multiple incitement to vandalism. I *shall* do those again if it is necessary to do so. That I will no longer need to do so, does not mean that I was wrong to do so when it was necessary. Unanimity is about as strong a consensus as one can get, you know. --Tony Sidaway 17:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the definition inserting the word "repeatedly." One undo is alright, but a second undo is very, very bad. If another administrator disagrees with you that strongly, it is always better to discuss than to act straight away; there is never a need so compelling that you cannot wait for a broader consensus to develop, if another trusted user has a sincere disagreement with you. Remember this, and abide by it; if you do, Wikipedia will be happier and better, and you will recover some of the goodwill lost through prior, less thoughtful, acts. Unanimity is no excuse for disrespectful behavior. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to agree to differ with you there. Where an administrator repeatedly deletes an AfD'd article that is clearly heading for a keep result, then it must be undeleted because, whatever that administrator might think he's doing, he certainly isn't acting in the interests of the encyclopedia. When an administrator repeatedly undeletes a clearly damaging page even though it's clearly heading for deletion, then whatever that administraor might think he's doing, he certainly isn't acting in the interests of the encyclopedia. It's a matter of judgement.

I'm not aware of losing any goodwill through my actions. If I had, I wouldn't count it a great loss. Those actions have always been carefully thought out, fully explained, and transparently correct. --Tony Sidaway 18:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made you personally aware that you have lost my respect for your administrative competence as a direct result of "wheel-warring".
The cases you give as hypothetical justifications for wheel-warring are quite poor examples. It is "transparently correct" that they would be best handled through discussion, not "tit-for-tat" cycles of deletion and undeletion between (hypothetical) obtuse, unyielding parties. That you fail to understand this is very troubling, and bodes ill for your future, and Wikipedia's.
Anyone who claims that his or her actions "have always (emphasis mine) been... transparently correct" is in serious danger of self-delusion. No human being takes actions which are always transparently correct, and any such claim is absurd on its face, and evidence of a substantial misunderstanding of human frailty, as well as illogical view of what "judgment" actually entails. Speaking in general terms only, a person who says such a thing is (in high probability) quite foolish. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll pit my foolish judgement against your sophistry any time, Mr Xoloz. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Three days it took you to devise that rejoinder. I always applaud thinking before speaking, so you earn my hearty applause for it. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit naughty. Why presume that I read your comment when you wrote it? --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alberuni semis

He is very, very, very persistent; see User:Jayjg/Alberuni. However, I'll unprotect the oldest ones and see how it goes. Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected several more now. Jayjg (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Birds gotta swim, fish gotta fly. --Tony Sidaway 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing summary skills

I saw you moved the Waya sahoni RfAr matter to a subpage with a "precis" at the pointer. Your summary is simply amazing in its factuality, brevity, and neutrality. I completely mean this, no sarcasm whatsoever. Given the bulk of the comments, the many revisions to Waya sahoni's statement, and all the background issues raised, I would hardly have thought it could be so well characterized so briefly. All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well everybody was saying the same thing over and over again. All I did was remove the repetitions and cut out the detail. --Tony Sidaway 19:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Proto adminship

Those that opposed him are some pretty strong editors with have a long history of doing good work in Wikipedia. I haven't hardly seen Proto at all since, so I'll examine his contributions and see. If it looks good, I'll either support or abstain, depending on the turn around. But I feel that there should be the better part of three months between adminship nomination attempts...ie: Rogerd and Gator1--MONGO 00:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your decision to make the effort. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "locke cole" rfar

Could you please try to keep an eye on this and make sure rules don't get broken, that things progress as smoothly as possible (as much as a clerk is capable of)? It seems to me that things are not going well so far (at least some of this is my fault). What we really can't afford is for disputes to break out on the rfar page. ... aa:talk 05:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked and noticed the fuss over your editing of a section of Netoholic's evidence--obviously a case of a bona fides error ruffling a few feathers. In general the editors involved seem to be in control of their material and capable of telling their story in an articulate (if not exactly gripping) way. I find myself spread rather thinly these days, but do let me know if and when you think something seriously bad is going on. --Tony Sidaway 22:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killing ME v. MS (RFC)

[edit] 3rd update

    • This is third of three posts in inverse order (LIFO) over 11 hours:
  • As of now, no Admin has responded to my request for assistance on this matter. (see below) I surmise the use of your name may have made them shy away? Or my unorthodox method? Mel left me an unsigned note that there was no process to close a RFC. In any event, I'm going to bed and laying this in your lap with this forwarning: The complaintant links I gave are now suspect or broken, as they've archieved their talk page(s) (User:Cmapm at least). You may take that as vindication of my decision to act so boldly (She's ashamed in a word). The bottom of my talk has most of the rest This matter top down FrankB
    • Enthusiasm for 'duly documenting the RFC'(below) has wayned precipitously, but if you deem it necessary as I shouldered that responsibility, I will do so, given a decision as to what you need. Ms. Cmapm's archieved talk is the best quick reference as it's chronological and comprehensive. (She copies back posts from anothers talk with some rigorous dilegence). For the most part that is what I'd thought to use to annotate the RFC before it was archieved or whatever happens to them. FrankB 07:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd update/Bold Action

  • Time having expired the complaintants want this matter to stop cluttering their talk pages, which I will duly document in the RFC I am about to act boldly to Kill. In sum, the matter is dead, but feel free to satisfy your curiosity. If you want to censor me. I have a clear concsience. FrankB

21:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I generated the above note, then killed the RFC and left this which has drawn no attention, or at least no contact. (where you came in this morning, I presume <G>) FrankB 07:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Initial Contact (revised by correction)

Hi Tony:

  • I've been mediating the silliest dispute and think we've got a willingness to bury the hachett re:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Ettis , for which we need enough horsepower. Leaning on Mel for an apology might help as well. He, like you and I, can come off curt and rude as text exchanges frequently do. Shrug. I've spent hours pouring oil OTW, so if you, or someone you can suggest with the power can verify the below stated intentions that this should 'Go Away', I can go out and use the sunny day God blessed me with! I'll await your response as to what further I can do, or that you are taking the matter in hand directly or by delegation. Thanks! User: fabartus, email: fabartus@comcast.net (Gets Audible alarm)
Thread1 main offended party.
Thread2 The co-complainent.
now fixed to point the Archieved Page. FrankB 08:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There're other miscellaneous discussions of course, but this second thread has the most significant statements in chronological order. Both complaintants are newbies of 2 and 3 months respectively.

Correction, second party has more edits AND time than I. (Just can't figure why she...) FrankB 20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
All three now want an end to it. I've suggested that the alledged 'attack page' be embedded in the RFC, satisfying the first party, which is actually just a chronological record as Mel was probably trying to figure what triggered the exchange in the first place. Certainly not the typical attack page!
  • An aside - has there ever been an attempt to have some form of instant messaging within and solely limited to wiki editors? No reason I can see technically that the thread (file reference, s.a. dif. numbers in history/version— the systems storage method) couldn't be saved by session as an autopost by the system onto each users talk page. Could do the same with a chat room. Just a radom bit of thought!
  • If you've not gotten back to me in 47 minutes (I've got 3:13 pm EDST), I'll refer to someone else that appears active. FrankB 20:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Forty-seven minutes? Good grief! --Tony Sidaway 07:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, I suspect that the reason nobody is showing enthusiasm is that you're just shoveling piles of unreadable nonsense onto their talk pages.

Please answer each of these questions, if possible in ten words or less:

1) You want to close an RfC, yes or no?

2) If so, which RfC? Provide a direct link to the RfC and don't waffle.

3) In ten words or preferably much, much less, what is the reason the RfC should be closed?


Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 07:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the above, why didn't you post my talk! Duhhh... Hello. It flashes a banner! RING THE DAMN PHONE! I was sitting here waiting and watching.

  • Don't get short with me when the data is given as a link above. For point 1, the second and third links hit the consensus text. For the RFC, the first link says that plainly. I was returning to patch the link above and then I saw this SHIT your ego feels satisfied with as 'good enough'. C-R-A-P, CRAP!

btw, tough on the 47 minutes... I'd seen you were active, and I had other deadlines and had promised to deal with it. But you were too good to ring the phone? Grow up! FrankB 08:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've had enough.
  • Firstly I was otherwise occupied when you left your message (remember that people you're trying to contact may have lives outside Wikipedia and may well live on a different continent from your own).
    • My last contribution to Wikipedia prior to your message had been at 16:51 UTC.
    • As it happens, I was asleep by 20:13 UTC when you left your first message.
    • Why I was asleep at that time in the evening is none of your business, but since I hadn't been active on the wiki for over three hours you could hardly have had any serious expectation of a reply within 47 minutes.
  • Secondly when I did wake up this morning you may see that my first priority was to pursue an ongoing arbitration case in which the continuing activities of one user are considered by the Arbitration Committee to be a serious abuse of Wikipedia. My second priority was to fulful some of my tasks as a clerk on Wikipedia. Only after some time did I notice that there were any messages on my talk page. I responded to them in order of comprehensibility.
  • Third, I don't normally respond on other people's talk pages. If you want me to do something for you, please check for my response here.
  • Finally, I still have absolutely no idea what you wanted me to do. You have not made yourself understood. And now when I ask for a clear and concise description of what you want done, you descend to personal insults.
That's enough. Go and find someone else to do whatever it is you wanted done. --Tony Sidaway 10:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies for My Temper

  1. The heading - but we crossed and at 3:03 am local I was overdue for sleep. Doubly so, as I was up too late the previous evening mediating this matter.
  2. I will also apologize for successive postings, that 'cluttered' your initial read... I will be careful in the future to totally revamp rather than update like that. It certainly will be briefer and more understandable. Double apologies Squared for being a dumb Polack.
  3. Aware of your 'REP' (800 pound gorilla landing overly hard on Admin's at times) I only contacted you reluctantly. I'd have rather dealt with someone known for being congenial with similar wiki-time and clout (Horsepower). I gather your activity was not as recent as I wanted, and probably misrembered on top of that. The issue was whether it was possible at all to withdraw an RFC, driven by the anxious shame and regret and desire to put it behind them by the two co-complaintants. In sum, having gotten them to realize this was an improper vehicle for their picyune nit, they were getting too many 'support messages for MEL' and wanted out.
  4. I guess my humane side kicked in, as I contacted you after searching for 'activity' in bigshots. That is why the 47 minutes—  I was aware you were likely to be otherwise occupied. It was also so you couldn't abuse an admin. (your Rep, not mine) If you want to hang me, I'll hand you the rope.
  5. If you'd follow this link Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Ettis (from 1st Post) or had even looked its title, the context was plain. The RFC Page was WIPED BY ME (Vandalized?) after the 47 minutes, as you can see by following it NOW, and when I left that update about same. That's the bold edit, and still needs dealt with.
  6. What needs done now? Damn if I know. That's why I wanted the phone to ring. Having taken responsibility for shortcutting the procedure I will take on whatever documentary edits you deem appropriate. As I am merely an editor, Admin 'operations' will have to be performed by you or some designee.
  7. I'd think the note in the Admins Notice Board (WP:AN) needs deleted as well. Or perhaps, just struck out. Not my turf.
  8. Lastly, expecting everyone to know you answer only on your talkpage is incredibly arogant, egocentric, and totally lacks elementary courtesy– how long does it take to drop the line:
'"See my answer on My Talk" ~~~~?'

For some reason, this URL[1] shows the 'Unvandalized' (Interupted) RFC. I see no index number that might distinquish it from the wikified one: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Ettis. Can you clue me in? Best regards FrankB 18:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A FINISH and New Start Then

I may have completely misunderstood you because the only Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Etitis I knowis months old. You appeared to me to be going on endlessly about an RfC that was long dead, and (after months of inaction) demanding that I or someone perform some urgent action of some kind. I obviously had to discount that because it was plain that you hadn't been in contact with Kelly Martin or myself. So your whole request looked like a non sequitur.
Now I look closer I see that there is a subtle spelling mistake in the new RfC. Apparently Mel Etitis is still the subject, but the new one (which you were talking about) is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Ettis.
Anyhow we both got a bit short with one another and I apologise for the snippishness on my part.
I hope you don't mind my decision to restore this section. I'd like to keep the discussion on my talk page. I don't think it reflects too badly on either of us--just a commonplace misunderstanding compounded by early morning/late evening grouchiness. --Tony Sidaway 22:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

FrankBreplys:

    • Thanks, and reciprocated again on the snippiness and apology. NoProb on the rv — it's your page. I was trying to unclutter as you'd complained. All in all, this was a minor thing, except my draconian response/solution. Thus nerves too.
I should have re-checked your activity in the first place as well, and in retrospect, letting those two stew and suffer in their regrets wouldn't have been the worst idea. I guess I just got noble or more likely, more stupid.
In fact, I started to drop this Idea on you yesterday, but you were reverting my special page (Edit conflict) at that moment, so I waited since you hadn't seen the structured message.
Don't like to talk behind someone's back either. On the message 'convention' you follow, I guess it's just a part of the wikiculture that I am just now am grasping; as I only (literally) just now saw a nice rationale warning on user_talk: Lar, that paints the practice/convention (almost) as equally sensible as, and rather than, discourteous. So apologies there as well. See the blue box across from his TOC. Starts "Interpersonal communication does...". Might I suggest a similar notice above, or perhaps a User box (YUCK!) for posting conventions that are wiki wide? (I pretty much think most are clutter, but this would be of use indeed to alert people of your practice.) Do think dropping a quick "See my answer"~~~~ would be courteous.
Hope you didn't mind the additon of the subsection.

I'm assuming the RFC is dealt with. If not, I said I'd help above. Best regards. FrankB 03:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • People are currently posting on this. Please check my email (flagged urgent) on same point. Not actually urgent, but we thought had expired after was re-stored by revert. FrankB 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


From Mademoiselle Sabina: I am one of the co-complainants of the RfC and I thought I should weigh in here (Fabartus has already spent a lot of hours on this!). The other editor making the RfC and I decided, after mediation with Farbatus, that perhaps it would be best if the RfC was closed. We recognize that the dispute over the edit/comments is not likely to be solved, but that perhaps the RfC was not the appropriate forum in which to air our complaint. We've devised a plan to avoid future conflicts with the editor named in the RfC and would like to put the matter behind us.

If there is any way to close the RfC, archive it, mark it as "inactive, please do not comment further" it would be greatly appreciated. There seems no need to keep the RfC open and to have people keep commenting on the issue. I am going to add a note to this effect on the top of the RfC (I hope that is kosher, if not please feel free to revert) but if it could be taken away officially I'd appreciate it. Thank you for any help you can provide here. Mademoiselle Sabina 20:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit war and vandalism on Basij (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Well sourced material is being repeatedly removed. All material on human rights issues is either a direct quote or a paraphrase of sourced material. As the editor even took to vandalizing the talk page, I don't feel it's fruitful to engage in edit war or discussion. Could you please restore these pages? --tickle me 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him against further vandalism. Feel free to restore the information. I will be watching and he knows I will block him if he persists. --Tony Sidaway 07:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Username

Hi. In June last year my username User:Jebus Christ was blocked. I discovered recently that the admin responsible User:Secretlondon was involved in protecting the article relating to the profet mahommed images under the banner of freedom of speach. I personally find this hypocritical.

I've started a petition to get my username back. If you support this can you please sign my petition on my talk page User talk:Jebus Christ.

Thanks Jimididit 12:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion request

Tony, is there a deleted article history at 5th Avenue Theatre? There is a talk page, which indicates there might have been material that looked like copyvio but was being added by the copyright holder. If there is a deleted article there, can you copy it to my userspace? I'd like to work on this article and that material might be useful. SchmuckyTheCat 16:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't copy it because it was a copyright infringement. I can, however, point you at the source of the material, which is: http://www.5thavenuetheatre.org/historyandphotos.shtml
It appears to be a word-for-word copy.
If you could write a clean article about this theater from that and other source material, you would be doing Wikipedia a great service. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I've taken a whack at it. Hopefully this elleviates any laudible cause for complaint. My writing thesis for such things is atrocious, however, so I'm certain it could use some copyediting.-ZeroTalk 19:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rajput

Tony, if you're still watching Talk:Rajput, you will note that the sockpuppetry is reaching new pinnacles of silliness. If you are, may I ask you to block the more painfully obvious ones as they come in? dab (ᛏ) 21:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Dieter, but my eyes were off the ball. I'll see what I can do. --Tony Sidaway 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to say Thank You for doing the needful on Rajput. I hope it helps. Regards, ImpuMozhi 16:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I apologize if I inadvertently vandalized

That wasn't my intention; it simply looked like he was spamming his wiki and posting logs. --BWD (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand why you did it and I hope that this fact came across. But still, allegations have been made about the conduct of unnamed persons with access to very sensitive Wikipedia information, and evidence has been offered. I felt that the unusual step of rolling back that your removal was necessary to show that Wikipedia takes such allegations very seriously.
On removal in general, I suggest that it's probably better left to the clerks and arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 00:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for unblocking me. I have requested my service provider to look into the matter about my IP address. Thanks again, Dr. Sumer Chauhan Gorkhali 22:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replied to your comments on my talk page

...as well as to those from Jimbo which followed on. Also, in answer to a somewhat tardy comment about my alleged spamming, I offered an analysis of the ways in which the UPP was publicised. I'd like you to look it over and give your reaction. Especially, if I have missed something, I'd appreciate you letting me know. StrangerInParadise 03:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


It amazes me the lengths you will go to defend your absolutely indefensible, clearly bad-faith actions in selectively spamming talk pages. I suggest that you stop flogging a dead horse. --14:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, the amazing lengths one might go to defend absolutely indefensible, clearly bad-faith actions...like applying ex post facto principles to justify out-of-process mass deletion of categories and templates, for example, or just an impassioned, hyperbolic change of subject? Tony, have you no sense at all that,
  • Effectively, the vote was stacked in advance as a result of how it was selectively published
  • That proper notice was not given on the WP:Userboxes page, and the page was tampered with so as to make the matter seem already decided
  • If I had wanted to swamp the vote in bad faith, I had much better opportunites that a handful of UN Wikipedians
  • There was a demonstrable likelihood that the policy would be slammed into effect if it had held even 70% support
  • Had the poll been more widely published, the oppose vote would have been even greater
  • If UPP was truly not a binding vote, and the intent was not a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority, then there was no reason that anyone should care
I'm a bit disappointed you didn't comment on my reponse to your initial comments, and Jimbo's recent comments. As much of it is clarification of elements of my position you seem to have misunderstood, the reasoning therein at least merits an answer.
Finally, I had previously noticed your comments on tea above (archived now?). As a former longtime European resident, I had been saying the same thing for many years, so I was confident that, at the end of the day, you were someone with whom I could reason. =)
StrangerInParadise 19:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Because you initially destroyed the poll by selectively publicising it and (deliberately or otherwise) misrepresenting its effect, and since then have repeatedly defended your actions with blatant falsehoods, such as your false claims that it was selectively publicised, I'm not really interested in a dialog with you. That Jimbo has chosen to do so is a credit to his patience--patience which, regarding your conduct, I cannot share. In my opinion it is evident that you have set out to subvert our consensus-building machinery and have consistently defended your actions with falsehoods. I am adopting the charitable interpretation that you are incapable of recognising the harm that you have done and the falsehoods in which you have enmired yourself in an attempt to defend your actions. Dialog with you would probably be futile; you're not likely to prevail. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid StrangerInParadise is correct -- WP:UPP was selectively (and with bias) publicized before he got to it. I think publicizing it prominently and honestly in Wikipedia:WikiProject userboxes and Wikipedia:Userboxes, in addition to publicizing it honestly in the user WikiPoll locations, would have been fair. If he had been more WP:CIVIL, he would have edited the announcements rather than spamming userpages, but the poll was fatally flawed, both for ambiguity and selective publication, before he got to it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
As it stands, I only saw it because of the deletion and recreation of one of the templates in question (MarkSweep was the deleting admin, rather than you). I admit to being more active in trying to maintain article quality than with policy as a whole, but if certain admins hadn't decide to apply the policy before it was agreed to, I would have never seen the notice until my boxes were deleted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it would have been good to edit the announcement on WP:Userboxes. The fact is, I didn't see just how misleading they were until I had carefully studied the history and several related documents towards the end of the poll. I am confused how Tony would say that my documented analysis of poll announcements is a falsehood- did I make something up then? I am also confused that he sees the UPP as destroyed: what does he think the outcome ought to have been, and how much of it has to do with outright hiding the poll from opposers? Finally, it would be helpful to be shown just how I misrepresented the effect of the proposal, or anything else. Tony, your assumption of bad faith is really over-the-top: repeatedly hissing vote-stacker at me does not affect the validity of my arguments. StrangerInParadise 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Arthur, but your claim that the poll was selectively announced is utter and transparent bollocks. The standard places for such announcements are Village Pump and Current polls. Moreover the policy is in effect agreed; that the straw poll was gerrymandered by StrangerInParadise's efforts, is immaterial.

StrangerInParadise, your entire work on this subject from start to finish has been littered with transparent falsehoods. You're obviously not lying, you obviously believe that your spamming was correct and that the statements you made then and since are also truthful. I repeat that I don't see any point in negotiating with you. Jimbo apparently does, so take your proposals, and your evidence, to him. Greg Maxwell's analysis on this subject was pretty damning for the credibility of the opposition to the policy, which I am convinced will eventually be implemented. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to identify a single falsehood on my part. You have yet to prove that my actions resulted in a heavy skew of any kind. You have yet to grasp the simple logic that, if you invite mainly experienced anti-userbox Wikipedians, the anti-userbox respondants will seem mostly experienced. You have yet to acknowledge that the poll as announced resulted in a response far more heavily skewed than any I could have accomplished. You haven't clarified how the poll result was destroyed, or whether it ever was intended as a non-binding straw poll test of consensus.
You cannot show the policy as in effect agreed by anyone but the small number that agree with you that consensus here must take a back seat to your warped, relentless and unsubstantiated view that userboxes are the root of all evil.
Finally, you show no grasp of the difference between evidence, opinion, conjecture and innuendo. If your position has merit, then answering my arguments— rather than pointlessly trying to hiss them away— will do wonders for your credibility.
StrangerInParadise 01:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I intended to say that not placing the announcement of the poll where the people affected would see it makes it "selective publication", but I don't think I did. That the descriptions in those locations were biased to the point that they would be immediately reverted if in an article does make it selective pubication.
I've been WP:CIVIL (with a few exceptions) even to the extent of agreeing with you from time to time, even if I think the effect of that agreement damages Wikipedia. I don't think I've said anything that deserves to be called "bollocks". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scheme Foreign Functions with Chicken

Hi Tony:

I thought your description of Chicken Scheme was well stated. Perhaps a mention of why it is called Chicken would provide further enlightment. Schemely Blog

You know, I have no idea why it's called Chicken. If anybody does know, and has a good source for the information, I hope they will add it to Chicken Scheme compiler. I have read the FAQ on the website but it doesn't say. There was an early Scheme implementation called Rabbit. --Tony Sidaway 00:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Remedies: "Remove the Article" is missing!

The first of the "Motions and requests by the parties" [2] was to "Remove the Article". I don't see that listed under "Proposed remedies" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lou_franklin/Proposed_decision . Why is that? Can I add it, or is that an administrator's page only? Lou franklin 02:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you are not around so I asked the same question here too: [3] Lou franklin 03:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want the article removed, you can do so by getting a rough consensus to delete. This is normally done through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The members of Arbitration Committee themselves decide which proposals to consider, and other parties (with the limited exception of clerks, for the purpose of keeping the page tidy and the case on track) may not edit it. --Tony Sidaway 08:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neuro-linguistic programming

I am getting a bit bothered that this has been protected, pretty much idefinietely...can't the mentors just say that the disputes can't edit, and "new users"(socks) can't revert to old disptuded versions(which would be a giveaway). Locking this up for everyone was OK assuming the issues would be resolved by now, but there is no end in sight. I don't think there is anything I can do though. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 20:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on this is unprintable. The protection is mandated and the mentors have a free hand. Full stop. --Tony Sidaway 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I just hope that it will be re-opened sometime this year...although I cannot even be certain of that...oh well :/.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 20:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like FourthAve is leaving Wiki...check his contributions.--MONGO 04:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh he's been editing today. And he's calmed down and given the Jim Nussle stuff a rest. Apparently he was found another wiki to bother with that nonsense. --Tony Sidaway 09:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case, I think the blanking of User talk:FourthAve per his request should be reversed; the blanking was permitted because he stated that he's leaving. If he's not leaving, the warnings should be reinstated. --Nlu (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Tony Sidaway?...

Ummm, I saw that you deleted the Userbox page. I'm not a complainer, but why did you delete it? Sorry for bothering you. I was a waste of tine. --RAcHeL 23:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FourthAve

I take no position at all in this. He asked me to blank+protect his page, and I did. After discussion on my talkpage, he expressed his decision to remain active after all (although not explicitly, he said "let's work on Corded ware culture" which, I concluded, he could only do if he remained active), and I unprotected his talkpage; so, as an active editor with an unprotected talkpage, he is now free to blank or unblank his userpage as he pleases. If you like, you can revert the blanking and see if he re-blanks it. dab (ᛏ) 12:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RFAr

Thanks so much for the notification. Although it's technically closed, I am still awaiting an official and authoritative response regarding my request to review if it was properly opened. — Instantnood 10:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me to Dbachmann, edited

In the meantime, would you or Tony Sidaway please upload that map found at this copywrite-free National Park site, here, to the Yellow River (Iowa) site. I don't know how to load images.--FourthAve 15:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Page of US House Green Party Candidate

Hello, Just found out my page was deleted for nonsense reasons. Not sure what to do, found your contact.

My name is Kurt Shotko, and I was the only ballot qualified challenger to Don sherwood, 10th district, PA. I recieved 12,000 votes, and proposed many innovative solutions to our problems. My platform is distinct from Green Party National or state policies. http://shotko04.tripod.com

My website is archived with the Library of Congress

http://lcweb4.loc.gov/elect2002/catalog/1050.html

I was published in Who's Who of America in 2002.

I have started several organizations:

" Earth Worship Nation" *Mystical Humanism

"Citizens For Common Sense" Critical thinking based citizenship education.

"Rhythm Against Rage" Violence prevention with drumming

"HERB" Hemp Expresses Rational Balance *A food, a fuel,a fiber, and a friend".

Please help overturn this anti-progressive deletion.

thanks, Kurt

[edit] Jim Nuzzles - todays news article

I noticed you removed the reference - the article refered to an edit which already has been reverted. I have placed the same link on Bono and his Campain (follow link from Bono) if you feel out of place there as well.

Anyway I was looking for the template about an article being featured in the news and could not find it. Maybe you know what it is.

P.S. I did some googling on Jim Nuzzle and divorce in light of all the recent editwaring and this was one of 3 article showing up on google news (one of which was totally unrelated). Agathoclea 23:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed it from the Jim Nussle article because it's a small affair and it isn't really about Nussle, and I feel it sends the wrong message about the role of Wikipedia. In short, we really, really don't want to give these people any publicity, which is all they're after. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that. The content which relates to Jim Nuzzle should be known to editors keeping a watch on the article though, which my putting in on has achived, even if it is no longer there now - I am sure they keep checking the history that nothing will have escaped.
I will leave it at the other two locations until someone removed it (0RR) plus I have put it onto the talkpage of the person that did the last newspage for wikipedia - she might or might not find it newsworthy. Agathoclea 23:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I thought you should know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool_Cat Fad (ix) 01:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Tony Sidaway 01:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
And to add, I think you did the right thing in apologising. Your suspicions and accusations may have appeared justified to you at the time, but they were simply devastating to Cool Cat. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I am so glad to hear about this. -ZeroTalk 04:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meta

I am requesting adminship on Meta for the account m:User:Tony Sidaway. Tony Sidaway 01:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Implementation

There is some ongoing ambiguity among arbitrators as to whether a passing motion requires 7 support votes, or 7 votes (where a 5-2 passes). In general, we avoid a situation where it is unclear, but I didn't think it was worth waiting for two more arbitrators to decide whether the maximimum block should be one week or two. And that's the disagreement: some think that the enforcements should reflect different degrees of seriousness, with one week or two week maximum blocks. I don't think anyone contemplates closing it without an enforcement remedy. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Okey doke. It's all fine with me, especially since I don't have to clerk this one. --Tony Sidaway 23:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batman, Turkey

There is a person here declaring the city "predominantly kurdish". There has been no census determining ethnicity. However the BBC claims the place is predominantly Kurdish. And I simply stated this. Can you please interfere? --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I'm not aware of any significant doubt that it's a Kurdish city in a part of Turkey where most of the Kurds in Turkey live. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe so but there is no census to support the "claim" which is a perfectly accptable tone. Bush claimed Al-quida was responslible for 9/11 attacks deal. With little doubt Al-Quida was responsible. Still it is a perfecly approporate usage of "claim". One cant talk about census data with out a census it is only speculation.
Is it POV to suggest a census didn't take place? Is it also pov to suggest BCC delcared the region predominantly kurdish w/o a census?
--Cool CatTalk|@ 12:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there Tony, I think Cool Cat made a wise move in asking you to interfere in the discussions on Batman, Turkey. It would have absolutely no harm if a neutral and unbiased third party would shed his light on the discussion. So I would like to second Cool Cat's request. Cheers, --Hippalus 16:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia

Looking at arbcom, I noticed that your case is about to close. It looks like this trolling project against several policies ended up getting you in trouble. Howcome the people who restored it didn't use summaries? At least it is deleted now...finally. Try not to let trolls and blatantly ridiculous policy violation pages get you in trouble. This seems to be the main reason good editors ever get blocked/arbcom cases/fail their RfA's.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The undeletions have no annotations because the software doesn't provide for them on undeletion; if you check the deletion discussion you'll see that they all (or nearly all) had their go at dissuading me. I still think that what I did was right in the circumstances pertaining on Wikipedia at that time, but things have changed in the meantime. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I see...someone should fix the software. As long as the explain. I would have undeleted several times too, though I think you 3rd delete (2RR I guess) should have been the last. After that, just let AfD run through. I suppose being put on admin 1RR is not really that bad.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 20:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole of Wikipedia is, in effect, running on administrative 1RR. I'm very happy with that. --Tony Sidaway 20:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] faithfreedom.org

Please show me the rules that says that the websites that I choose to link to from my own usespace have to be NPOV or approved by Tony Sidaway. I am not making a personal attacks, and I am not trolling. I am linking to a page that I appriciate, and that I honestly believe a lot of people could benefit from visiting. -- Karl Meier 22:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The contents of your userpage mustn't be offensive. Your userpage contains a link to an offensive anti-muslim website, and invites Muslims to visit it. I'd call that trolling. You know what you're doing. You're using Wikipedia to attack muslims. You're not allowed to use Wikipedia to attack anyone. It's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in. Wikipedia:User pages clearly states that off-topic content (i.e. not directly related to Wikipedia) on userpages may be removed at the community's request. (If the community lets you know that they'd rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. ) There are several people who have stated that they dislike the information in question, so it would really be best if you respected those opinions and removed it. It would be unfortunate to have this sort of thing distract from real work you could be doing on the enyclopedia. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

The Arbitration Committee has reached a final decision in this case. Crotalus horridus is prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage). If Crotalus horridus edits a userbox, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be one year. Crotalus horridus is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If, in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, it is found that he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Tony Sidaway is prohibited from reversing any administrative action more than once. Each reversal shall be accompanied by an explanation in the appropriate venue, including especially a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review in the case of a disputed deletion.

Should Tony Sidaway or Crotalus horridus violate any of the remedies in this decision, they may be briefly blocked, up to two weeks in the event of repeat offences. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney talk 00:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! I still think Crotalus has been whacked a bit too hard. --Tony Sidaway 01:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is perfectly appropriate. -ZeroTalk 06:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
How's that? The general probation was enough; the ban from working with userboxes is overkill. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the record

Hello Mr. Sidaway,

Notwithstanding your declarations to me at our last conversation (some of which I took to be defiant), I assume that you will abide by the restriction now imposed by ArbCom. Am I correct in this assumption? Best wishes, Xoloz 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You were incorrect in your reading of my declarations. I have never knowingly expressed defiance of the arbitration committee or of any Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 16:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
So, you do intend to abide, then? Xoloz 16:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Xoloz, I think that it is a failure to assume good faith to press for an answer to this question. I expect Tony to abide by the decision. Certainly, the ArbCom expects him to abide by the decision. Baiting him in this manner is not polite. Please stop. Nandesuka 16:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I was not attempting to bait him. I only wish for a direct answer in light of our previous conversation. Nor do I think my remarks, very brief and direct, to be improper. I will respect your opinion, however. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As a Wikipedian I uphold and abide by every single Wikipedia policy and arbitration ruling, without exception, and have always done so to the best of my abilities. --Tony Sidaway 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. I anticipate, then, that every source of friction between us has been removed, and I look forward to a calm working relationship between us in the future. You are an asset to the encyclopedia. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I doubt very much whether the friction you are obviously feeling for and openly seeking to exacerbate here can be excised until you examine and completely overhaul your attitude towards your fellow Wikipedians. --Tony Sidaway 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I always welcome suggestions for improvement if you wish to provide some, though these are probably best left at my talk page. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspamming IP

The IP 88.134.8.243 has been linkspamming several nissan related pages with a link not relevant to those pages. (It is a link to a owners club for a specific model, being posted on the Nissan Motors page as well as several non 200SX car pages. All but one of these users edits have been reverted (the one actually on the 200SX page) but the user at the ip is being quite persistent. I feel a temporary block (probably no more than a week or two) may be in order but I am not sufficiently aware of how this process is to be carried out and if taking that action would even be appropriate. As someone with a great deal of experience I am wondering what your input is on this. This user's contributions are all along the exact same lines.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 21:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Does this answer your question? --Tony Sidaway 22:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Do Anonymous users actually get the message notice when the enter wikipedia? I was under the impression that they didn't.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do. This can also lead to other people recieving the messagge if the IP is a shared one. This is most promonient in school and AOL IP's. -ZeroTalk 04:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This user is repeating his/her actions after being warned. They restored the link to two pages [4] [5] at this point it might be a good idea to block this IP temporarily to make sure they get the message. No other edits besides this link addition seem to have been made fromt he account, so blocking it from editing for a short time will be unlikely to do any adverse harm.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 03:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unblocked

HappyCamper has unblocked SPUI...now what? I don't care at this point if he is blocked or not...but I think that you have been overridden in your block which was agreed on by at least two other admins.--MONGO 12:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

He isn't so much blocked as banned. If he tries to edit again he can be blocked for breach of the ban. --Tony Sidaway 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I see...I am learning everyday. Seems lately, all I do is stir up trouble.--MONGO 12:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking SPUI

Yes, I know of the gravity of the situation, and I appreciate your concern regarding the consistency of actions taken towards this user. I'm still writing my reasoning here, and I will post it first on his talk page as soon as I'm done. Could you please wait a little bit? In the meantime, if you feel more comfortable reinstating your block, please feel free to do so. In that case, I will simply modulate the message that I will leave for SPUI a little bit. How does this sound to you? --HappyCamper 12:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I do think it's fairer to SPUI to remove ambiguity, and avoid further mischief, while we discuss this, so I will block him again as you suggest. --Tony Sidaway 12:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem - I fully support that. I know you appreciate a certain level of transparency regarding actions like this - I need to get off the Wiki now, because I am being distracted from writing what I consider to be quite important. I'll be back later. --HappyCamper 13:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tony, I've left a rather lengthy post here. In summary, I think you did everything right in your capacity, and I hope SPUI appreciates what I am doing here. I wish there was a better way to communicate on the internet, but I've decided to give SPUI an opportunity to show that he can edit constructively. I'm satisfied that what can be done has been done, so if any mischief continues, I would not hesitate to extend his present block liberally. Again, if after reading my post you feel it is necessary to reinstate or extend his block immediately, please feel free to do so - my latest unblocking of SPUI will definitively be the last and I will not override any of your decisions regarding that user. I do hope another block will not be necessary though, so I am simultaneously advocating restraint on SPUI's behalf. Today was rather unusual, but I do hope that something good will come of it. We'll wait and see, and hopefully, neither of us will feel compelled to act first. Let me also take some time to apologize to you for overriding your initial blocks - it is rather awkward for me to do so, and I hope it did not come across as being unintentionally rude or disrespectful. For a number of complicated reasons, it just so happened that I felt an inclination to follow through with SPUI's request, although, what I did not anticipate properly was the other distractions that occured to me while on and off Wikipedia. At least for myself, I can say I was able to take away something meaningful from this entire sequence of events, so in the long run, I hope it would be something healthy for Wikipedia. All the best, HappyCamper 18:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for going the extra mile for this editor. I'll suspend the bans for now. If'll lift them entirely if he makes it through the weekend. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I hope that my absence from Wikipedia during the past few days didn't leave too many things hanging in the air. Now that the weekend has passsed, what are your thoughts on SPUI's behaviour? --HappyCamper 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you made the right call. His behavior since then has been broadly good, and not what I would consider a matter for action under probation. --Tony Sidaway 22:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That's good to know. Sometimes, I'm not quite sure what the result of these long posts are, but I'm glad to hear something good came out of it. I'll let SPUI know that these changes are really appreciated. Thanks again for your vigilance. --HappyCamper 22:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

SPUI is mass page moving and noone is doing anything about it. Could you take a look? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be doing a good job. --Tony Sidaway 06:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Even though he does not have consensus? And is not willing to resolve this dispute? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
See discussion on WP:ANI. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Rajput editor

Hi Tony. You blocked 10 000 thundering typhoons as sockpuppet of a former Rajput editor. I believe he started editing again as 202.142.101.75 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) who has contributed to the Rajput talk page before, and now has started an account Kashyap mer [6]. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. -Tony Sidaway 20:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudowallerian degeneration

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudowallerian degeneration you linked to the same Medline abstract twice. It's from 1976, a translation from the French original, and no other Medline article contains the terms "pseudo-Wallerian degeneration" or "pseudowallerian degeneration". I believe the authors of that article were describing a phenomenon similar to Wallerian degeneration, so they simply used "pseudo-Wallerian degeneration" without really intending to create a new technical term. Nobody else seems to ever have used the term (searching through the neuroscience textbooks at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Books gives nothing), but now Google is littered with 170 hits, all tracing back to us (and all using a definition that doesn't even match the usage of the Frenchmen). I think we should renominate for deletion, maybe we can get this thing back in the bottle. AxelBoldt 04:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free. --Tony Sidaway 10:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning for foul language and misrepresenting facts

Furthermore, wikipedia policy is no personal attacks, and you used foul language and threw mud misrepresenting facts. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have apologised and withdrawn the statement. --Tony Sidaway 17:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting verification

Hi, the links are [7], and [8]. Thank youZmmz 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a lot of evidence there but my first response is that, if I were an arbitrator, this is precisely the kind of well presented evidence that I'd like to see. This is first class presentation. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your time and help.Zmmz 22:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected template

I just noticed that the templates for unsigned comments are protected. From discussion over the last week or so it would seem to serve best if the Template:Unsigned was reverted back to its original state. I was wondering, if you are not opposed to changing it back, if you would either make the edit, or unprotect it so that the edit may be made.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Well, perhaps nevermind, it looks like I'm not the only one who mentioned it to someone.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Databot - misleading user name

I don't agree with Databot's user name for the reasons mentioned on his talk page. IMO his reply is not proper. --tickle me 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scarlet

It might be an idea if you took a look at what Captain scarlet is doing or trying to do to UK railway station names. (Eg. this edit.) The tone of his contributions to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations) does not suggest someone dedicated to the Wikipedia spirit! -- RHaworth 18:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2006_04_08_1f1a.html"