User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 06 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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] StrangerInParadise motion

This motion already has more than enough votes to pass for the past week or two, yet has been "sitting there" without anyone formally implementing it. Is it now time to formally implement it? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.7.84 (talk • contribs) 20:32 UTC, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the arbitrators will close that motion. I obviously can't because it's obvious what I think of StrangerInParadise's behavior. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 03:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Template:User Zoroastrian

Dear Tony. I think you deleted this userbox and I am kinda hurt by this action as I see that other religious user box templates still exist e.g. Template:User muslim . Was there any specific reason why it was deleted and not others? Thanks, --- K a s h Talk | email 10:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a button on my sysadmin console to reliably identify and simultaneously delete all deletable templates, so I do them one at a time. --Tony Sidaway 11:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure and I support your actions Tony but my question was that a one off deletation or will the other boxes be deleted, etc? I am guessing they are and this was not a matter of religious discrimination of any sort, yes? --- K a s h Talk | email 13:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The other boxes will be deleted, but a mass deletion of all of them is not envisioned.

As an alternative to expressing a religious belief, you might consider creating a userbox that says something like "I am interested in Zoroastrianism". This would enable those with expertise or interests in the subject to advertise it in a relatively neutral manner. --Tony Sidaway 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting so the problem is with the userboxes not looking neutral?! I did not realise that they are offensive. --- K a s h Talk | email 14:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not vandalise destroy the userboxes, Tony &mdash whether they be about Zoroastrism, Sikhism, or whatever your next target will be. (Sorry, but I fail to see any grounds to assume good faith in these cases.) If you think the userboxes in question should be re-phrased, feel free to help out. If you undelete the two religion userboxes you recently deleted, there will be a chance of working on them (with or without your help) to find a way to make them less “offensive”. Not that there really was anything offensive about them in the first place... -- Olve 17:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't use the term "vandalism" to describe deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
As long as the deletion is contested, I have no choice but to stand by my words. -- Olve 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC) (see below)
You are using an incorrect definition of the word "vandalism" and at the same time are calling long-standing respected members of the community "vandals". For your own good, please desist. --Cyde Weys 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
OK — I hear your threat and choose to retract my phrasing. I am at a loss for ways to describe what is currently going on here... Speedy, un-substituted removal of perfectly unoffensive userboxes meant for user pages only while it is quite clear that there is no consensus to go to such drastic measures (I apologise in advance if anyone should find the phrasing “drastic measures” to be objectionable). I realise that Tony Sidaway has been with this project for a long time. But exactly because of that fact, I would also have expected an ability to act with more restraint in a matter of such lack of community consensus. -- Olve 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
From my careful soundings, I believe that we have a strong Wikipedia consensus for the removal of userboxes that serve little or no purpose than to cause contention and exacerbate the unimportant differences between Wikipedians. We all subscribe to the Neutral point of view policy, we all attempt to leave out personal views behind when we come to Wikipedia. While it's sometimes good to put a note of one's biases on one's userpage, celebrating those differences in the manner that many userboxes do is never compatible with the Wikipedia project to create a high quality encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for entering the dialogue. :) I do agree with part of what you are saying. for instance, “I hate communists/capitalists/porridge eaters/Martians” is not a constructive message. But banning messages of the type “I am a Sikh/Zoroastrian/rabbit rescuer/vegetarian/meat eater” does not necessarily have such flame-war-reducibg effects that it justifies that limitation of fact-builder networking it creates... Personally, I actually find these boxes useful for actively pulling in people of different perspectives. My interest in Wikipedia is to build open, multi-perspective and strictly fact-based encyclopaedias. I know from my work on the Nynorsk Wikipedia as well as the Bokmål/Riksmål Wikipedia that an openly multi-perspective encyclopaedia model works and earns its respect. What I and many others am/are seeing here, is a process to make this aspect “invisible”. The various points of view and biasses are still going to be there, but in a less transparent way, and therefore also much more difficult to balance out. -- Olve 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Olve, religion has caused more and bloodier wars than pretty much anything else in the history of mankind. Religious userboxes, of all the userboxes, represent to my mind the most deep-seated and pernicious form of bias on Wikipedia. And I speak as a practicing member of a religion. There is a difference between professing a faith and proclaiming it, and Wikipedia is not the place for proclamation. Just my € 0.0156. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote to have this added to admin buttons...a delete offensive userbox tab....what a great idea...just think how much more professional we'll look when we identify ourselves solely as Wikipedians...that would eliminate many concerns about us being biased. Wikipedia is better off if we eliminate the barriers that divide us...at least while working on the project.--MONGO 17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I still have not been given an answer why this template was deleted and not Template:User muslim? Even after I pointed it out? --- K a s h Talk | email 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't try to rush us. Template:User muslim will be deleted in due course. --Tony Sidaway 00:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This comment by Tony Sidaway is the key to resolving this dispute, and to avoiding hundreds of potential future disputes: "As an alternative to expressing a religious belief, you might consider creating a userbox that says something like 'I am interested in Zoroastrianism'." Why not, instead of continuing to generate ill-will and arguments like the above with continuous deletions, instead convey the message very clearly regarding what is or isn't appropriate, by moving and rewording the templates to make them appropriate: rather than simply deleting {{user muslim}} and potentially angering hundreds of valued Muslim contributors to Wikipedia, why not move it to {{user islam}} and reword it to "This user is interested in Islam." (possibly after substing its current form to the pages of the users using it, if you think that it would be a bad idea to assume that belief is probably indicative of an "interest")? This will solve three problems, and do so in a relatively simple and efficient way: (1) it will eliminate POV-expressing userboxes, in accordance with T2; (2) it will eliminate most of them in a relatively subtle, graceful, inoffensive way, rather than the violently abrupt change of a mass-deletion (or, even worse, the arbitrary and offensive bit-by-bit deletions currently generating such conflict); (3) it will prevent endless DRVs over the POVed userboxes, such actual deletions won't be involved for any of the moved templates. Obviously this can't work for every POV-expressing userbox: many, like "This user is religious." (which already has an "interest" counterpart at {{user religion interest}}), will simply have to go, if T2 stays as-is, though judicious use of template redirects and substs can still help minimize a conflict. But for a large number of POV-expressing templates, a move to interest/expertise-expressing ones is not only much more beneficial for Wikipedia in the long run than simply annihilating everything, but also will be infinitely less controversial and divisive than explicitly deleting the templates. In other words, it's the most practical way to go about implementing T2, both in terms of editing the encyclopedia (it'll convert relatively useless boxes denoting "This user happens to believe in alchemy" to much more useful boxes denoting "This user is knowledgeable or interested in alchemy-related articles", and do it all in a consistent and simple manner that will be much less time-consuming and damaging than deletion-and-recreation) and in terms of keeping the community from going nuts and starting another all-out war over these silly little boxes. Thus, it diffuses the problem in an elegant and relatively inobtrusive way, turning what is currently a hindrance into what could be an advantage with time. What do you thinke? -Silence 07:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've thought a lot about this, and I think it's best to make a clean start rather than doctor templates in-situ. For a start, the people who transclude the current template would probably rather simply have the contents of that template included by a "subst" than have the content and the meaning changed to make a completely different statement. Secondly, as you seem to recognise above, there are often many templates involved.

There will be cases, perhaps, where all those transcluding a template can agree to a neutral version, but this is going to be the exception rather than the rule. I see no reason not to just get rid of the offending templates while development of different, more neutral, templates proceeds in parallel. --Tony Sidaway 12:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A fair point, but I disagree, and I think that attempting to "make a clean start" is actually the opposite of what we should be aiming for. Also, in case you didn't notice, my newest proposal is not that we simply "move-and-rewrite" all these templates (based on the assumption that Muslims, for example, will be "interested in Islam"), but that we "subst-and-move-and-rewrite" them: the substing will give all the people using the old version what they want, and the moving and rewriting will give the template a more appropriate name and text for future users, thus killing two birds with one stone. So I think that takes care of your concern that some might not appreciate having the rename forced onto their user pages: by mass-substing them first, then moving them, we circumvent the deletion and deletion-review nonsense while simultaneously eliminating T2-violating userboxes and creating suitable replacements for users who really want to express their Islam-interest with a userpage template. Win-win-win. Additionally, I think that the "make a clean start" strategy (a.k.a. a "great purge" of almost all userboxes :)), even if it seems appealing now, will ultimately turn out to be a lose-lose situation. The following problems arise with trying to simply purge the userboxes, rather than attempting compromises and less dramatic ways to eliminate the problems. The following negative consequences, among others, will ensue from a mass-deletion:
  1. Lots and lots of time-consuming and divisive warring and fighting and lasting bitterness over the deletions. The above and past complaints are just the tip of the iceberg.
  2. We'll have cluttered up the template namespace with deleted pages and protected-deleted pages, rather than the much cleaner and more accessible tact of cluttering it with redirects. :)
  3. Dozens of talk pages and hundreds of significant edit histories will be lost, even when a page-move to a non-POV-expressing version would have been extremely trivial and easy to do and would have preserved both the history and the talk page, while eliminating all unacceptable aspects of the box.
  4. Starting over from scratch, as I've noted, will be immensely time-consuming in the long run, forcing interested users to waste hours recreating userboxes when they could instead be working on Wikipedia articles. Even if a mass-delete is appealing right now because it seems simpler, in reality, it'll just cause much more complication and bureaucratic haggling than the quicker and easier task of converting inappropriate templates into appropriate ones where possible. A little finesse and template-rearrangement smooths the acceptance of policy changes like T2 infinitely more than harsh and aggressive actions like deletions do. So, the subst-and-move will be much more useful for Wikipedia, in my view, than the subst-and-delete, both because it will save time that would have been wasted on pointless arguing, Deletion Reviews, hostilities, and conflicts, and because it will save time that would have been wasted on pointless redesigning and recrafting of userboxes which we already have plenty of. For example, why force users to design a whole new "This user is interested in Islam." template when we can save their time and energy for more encyclopedic concerns by simply using the raw materials available to us (the unacceptable POV-accepting userboxes) to quickly and easily craft such a template? It's easiest on all sides.
Obviously, this subst-and-move isn't possible for all of the religion userboxes: for example, I see no problem with just substing and deleting {{user relirespect}}, {{user Liturgy of the Hours}}, {{user hell atheist}}, {{user Lapsed Catholic}}, and several other religion-related templates, where a conversion into a more acceptable format isn't feasible. I'm fully willing to create a list of which templates should probably be deleted and which should probably be moved (and where), if there's interest; I'd even be willing to simply do it myself, if there's any interest in such a move, and if I could get someone or a bot's help with the task of mass-substing these templates (the task of moving and rewriting the templates, on the other hand, I can do on my own quite easily indeed, and would actually have done a while ago if I'd been able to get clear support for doing such). But I feel strongly that a subtle conversion from POV-expressing to interest-expressing will be much more effective at minimizing controversy and conflict, and smoothing the T2-derived userbox transition (by empasizing much more clearly and consistently than a mere mass-deletion would that relevant encyclopedic interests, not POVs and ideologies and bumper stickers, are what templates are for), than crude deletions would be for most cases. -Silence 23:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

2353. that's the number of words spent so far on this disucssion of whether this userbox is inflamatory or divisive or violates this or that policy. these words could have been put towards building an encyclopedia! instead, they were spent on dividing and inflaming the community in an argument over what is little more than a harmless bit of digital bric-a-brac. solution: leave the userboxes alone. build and encyclopedia instead. frymaster 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Peppers

Tony, your deletion of the Peppers talk page was obviously inappropriate. I ask you to go ahead and undo it yourself, or I'm taking it to DRV. Everyking 05:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I used to think it was worth having an article on this guy, but over time my opinions have changed. Just let it go. He's non-notable, and unlike many non-notable people, there's nothing he's ever going to do from now on out that is going to increase his notability. Five years from now no one will even remember the name. Let it go. --Cyde↔Weys 05:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't even have anything to do with the issue of the notability of Peppers. This is about the existence of the talk page. Everyking 05:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is about administrators who think they own the project. --70.213.172.86 05:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, that's true. Everyking 05:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Spare it, please. --Cyde↔Weys 05:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it would be right to undelete that page for a while, but I could well be wrong. Why not take this to WP:DRV? --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the highly unusual nature of such an action, and the general importance we Wikipedians place on talk page discussion, your action was clearly not endorsed by the readers of the talk page, since a vote to shut it down resulted in a definite "no consensus". So how do you justify it? There has to be something more than your own wish, I would hope. I will list of DRV if necessary but I'd rather appeal to you to be sensible first. Everyking 06:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I justify it as a furtherance of Jimbo's intent, to give us all a good long rest from the issue so that we can come back in a year or two's time and decide whether this subject really needs an article. We cannot really do this while some editors insist on agonising about it for months on end on the talk page. ---Tony Sidaway 07:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Then you can blank and protect. Destruction of the public record is not acceptable. Personaly I prefer to know where complaining is likely to take place but I understand that not everyone shares this view.Geni 08:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was not cool. I'm sorry, but destroying public record of what's very evidently a contentious topic is not the way to douse any controversy that's arisen. It's actions to quash comments like that which make rational, rules-respecting people like me wonder why we should dedicate time to this project. --Bobak 17:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My action seems to enjoy very strong support in the review. We have to balance the potential alienation of people like you (whose work is, I assure you, greatly appreciated) with the alienation of people who, looking at the extremely trivial nature of the subject matter and the intensity of the discussion for months on end over a matter that Jimbo himself has asked us to put aside for one year, decide that the site is not for them. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
If that is the kind of thing that will drive them away then I think theywould not last more than say 30 seconds on our colour articles 20 on the articles of a few elements and the whole what to call various cities in non english speaking coutries thing would probably have a simular effect. Can you even show that such people exist?Geni 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Those subjects differ from the Brian Peppers nonsense in a very simple and important way. Colours, elements and foreign cities are of worldwide interest. Brian Peppers is of no interest to anyone, apart from Farkers, SA goons, Newgroundlings and general assorted nerds. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Well see the rest of WP:LAME then.Geni 17:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit late getting to you about this, but I'm saying this as someone who wants the debate to end with both sides happy. I can assure you (if you read my comments) that I do not support the recreation of this article in any way, shape, or form, but shoving a sock in people's mouths, particularly those of us who were against the talk page deletion AND do good works around here, such as write and source articles, look to improve articles, and revert vandalism, and telling us that we're in a tiny minority of crazy Wikipedians (such as one particular admin (not you) who shall remain anonymous because I believe in WP:NPA) is just insulting. And insults are against policy last time I checked. I agree wholeheartedly with Jimbo's intent that this should be set aside, but forcing Jimbo's doctrine down our throats is not the way to go, and Jimbo himself has said this many a time. People like me, User:Bobak, and User:Everyking (the latter two seem to think it's okay to remake the article; I just think a redirect to Internet phenomenon is all we need) make useful contributions just like those who are for the deletion. It's insulting to us when people think otherwise, which some of the deletionists seem to think. Crazyswordsman 15:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Before you describe me as a "deletionist", you should be aware that I created the original version of the last incarnation of the Brian Peppers article after the previous incarnation has been deleted after discussion.
I deleted the talk page because I think this is the only way to ensure that we do really have a chance of forgetting the subject and thus come back to it with fresh minds at some point. --Tony Sidaway 15:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] divisive and inflammatory

i oppose your decision to remove {{User anarchist}}. i feel inflamed by this move and a deep sense of division from you over it. frymaster 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What part of which article on the wiki was it part of? How did it help you to write better articles? Have you thought of just writing "I am an anarchist" on your user page? --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey Tony, that argument of "What part of which article on the wiki was it part of?" seems a little bit silly, unless there was recently a policy to get rid of userboxes all together. You're obviously against userboxes, but I suggest (being that your an admin, and expected to higher standards) that you be sure of specific policies to get rid of certain userboxes before you do that, and not just say it doesn't help write an encyclopedia. Just some advice, --User:Chcknwnm 22:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
As it happens, there is a policy to get rid of divisive and inflammatory userboxes. As it happens, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (yes, most of our policies, astonishingly enough, reflect this unavoidable fact!), so unsuitable templates don't belong here and will be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
as it happens, this whole userboxes-are-evil purge fest causes more inflammation and division than just about any given userbox. and, as for the purpose of wikipedia being an encyclopedia, i have to say that i rather resent the amount of time i've had to invest in figuring out where my userboxes have gone. this is time i had earmarked for working Holden Caulfield. frymaster 15:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I too oppose the deletion of {{User Anarchist}} There are still userboxes relating to political parties, and to delete a userbox which expresses a similar personal belief is discriminatory, unfair, and frankly, just plain fucked-up. I wish to have such a userbox on my page, and I would appreciate it, if you will not restore the box, if you would give the the code for it. I have no access to the code, since I am not an admin. Canaen 01:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Something like this:
(unsightly mess deleted--see history)


[edit] Sorry to again bugger you

But I'd like your reasons for the deletion of template:user cannabis as well as Template:User against fox hunting. While they are POV templates I fail to see how they met the T1 criteria. Please elaborate. CharonX 00:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

They were both divisive. To describe that as "POV" is to miss the point. "I like oranges" is expressing a point of view. Both templates take positions on hotly debated ethical issues; when presented as templates, they encourage Wikipedia editors to take a position on these issues, which isn't what writing an encyclopedia is about at all. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that they were controversial. Still I would not call them divisive. "I prefer using Windows" and "I perfer using Linux" or "I only use IE" and "I only use FireFox" could probably ignite similary strong debates in the right cicles. I understand that our Point of View are too different on this issue to be bridged. Thus I will list them on DRV, and let the community decide. Best wishes CharonX 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well that's the idea. I have no problem with reviewing a speedy. --Tony Sidaway 01:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
However, the T1 criterion states: "divisive and inflammatory." Unless it meets the second requirement it should not qualify. —David618 t 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
No, that's nonsense. Why would we leave an inflammatory userbox hanging around? "Oh it's inflammatory and everybody is equally repelled by it, so you can't speedy it because it isn't divisive!" Ridiculous argument. Same goes for divisive templates. They're shit, too, so they get deleted. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a reason that the criterion says and. I do not consider cannabis particularly divisive or inflammatory but I believe that some people would and will not support undeletion. —David618 t 01:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So if I have this right you are now saying T1 is not the basis of your actions and you are acting outside detailed policies like T1 because there is an overriding policy - making a great encyclopaedia. Stephen B Streater 16:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have it completely wrong. Obviously we all work towards making a great encyclopedia. By permitting the deletion of divisive and inflammaotry templates, T1 helps us all in that task. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Obvious but wrong, as they say. My copy of T1 WP:CSD#Templates allows removal of userboxes which are divisive and inflammatory. Not the removal of divisive userboxes and inflammatory userboxes. As it happens, I am happy with removing userboxes which are divisive or inflammatory, but this is not allowed by T1. Stephen B Streater 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, historically, doesn't get very far on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out why people are giving you so much flak - you are not implementing T1. It's a pity this issue wasn't nipped in the bud before userboxes became so popular. If it is not agreed soon, the only consistent solution is to ban all POV userboxes. And obviously all decorous sigs too, though these I find can add to the visual appeal of a long debate. Stephen B Streater 18:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"the only consistent solution is to ban all POV userboxes" ... I used to be on the other side of the debate you know, but at this point I'm starting to think there is no other solution. Ban them all. And stop buggering Tony! (unless Tony LIKES being buggered...) But do feel free to keep bugging him as needed. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I started off in favour of anything goes. But the more I see of this debate, the more I want to keep things focused on the encyclopaedia and not allow irrelevant rubbish, even if it is non-offensive. I might even change my Green Energy vote if someone (perhaps a new ++Admin) feels inclined to include the userbox so I can see it. Stephen B Streater 22:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Was code copied into the discussion... not sure where it went after that, it seems to be gone again. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hi Tony

How are you ?

I am trying to understand this edit: [1] (Now understood. it was amove to the right place)

Please also read this : Talk:Israeli_apartheid#Disruptive_editing_.2B_violations_of_WP:Point_.2C_WP:3RR.2C_WP:SP_and_admin_abuse and if you have extar time:-) : User_talk:Sean_Black#May_I_suggest

Best Regards, Zeq

Sorry to bother you again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsraeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=56085333&oldid=56084831 . also you may want to rad before that edit how Homey represent your actions (moving his request to the right place) as endorsment of his rediculus accuastions against me. I urge you to review his actions in light of all his 45 edits to this article and in light of his over all violations of many policies and false accuastions he made against several editors (including other admins: Humus, Jayjg) Zeq 06:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Hi Tony, intersted in view on this . best, Zeq 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorted. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Just curious

Why did you change my sig on this talk page to a generic [[User:---]], as it is considered rude to alter other people's comments on talk pages, regardless of spelling or grammar or formatting problems, etc..? User:Chcknwnm 07:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring to make the page easier to edit by removing large and unnecessary material. Don't edit Wikipedia if you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly. That applies especially to huge and unsightly signatures! --Tony Sidaway 10:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, since it is my signature, I am kindly asking you to now stop changing it (even on this talk page). I have a link to my userpage, my talk page, my contributions page, and my esperanza page. Those are the pages that are useful links for people. Also, there is a lot of unnecessary comments that people write on talk pages that, without them would, be easier to edit, but we can't just go factor them out. My signature is barely larger than the example sigs at WP:SIG#Customizing_your_signature. As a matter of fact, when seen on the page (not the edit page, but the actual one), my sig is the exact same size as User:Chcknwnm. Thank you, Chcknwnm 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh don't be such a silly sausage. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Louisville, Kentucky dispute

Hi - I need some clarification. Should links to categories that are lists of users be included in the main Article space? ...

I've protected this article. --Tony Sidaway 13:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure protection is really necessary - as I am not planning on reverting anymore. I'm just looking for some clarification - since it seems so obvious to me that the style guide states that self-references are not to be used and Stevietheman (who I assume read the style guide links I provided) disagrees. Thanks for such a quick and decisive response! Trödel 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Please apply for unprotection as soon as you think it's ready. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Will do - thx! Trödel 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Template:user liberty

Although it doesn't fall into T1 or T2, the fair use image mandates deletion. However, the image is clearly allowable on my user page (as descriptive) and on that of the Party. Could I have a copy of the template for inclusion (not transclusion)? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem with letting you have a copy, but if the image is only a "fair use" one how can it possibly be permissible on a userpage? --Tony Sidaway 14:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I asked about this on the admin channel and someone explained what you probably meant (it was a new idea to me). He said you should probably read:

  • [User:Durin/Removal of fair use images]]

The content of the userbox when deleted was as follows:

(ugly code removed)

An earlier version was as follows:

(ugly code removed)

It had an inclusion of Image:Statue of Liberty icon.png sized to 43 pixels.


NOTE: as far as I can ascertain, that image is freely licensed, not fair use. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the discussion involved it being a trademark fair use (which is allowable when referring to the entity), rather than it being a copyright fair use (which would only be allowable in article pages where appropriate). Nonetheless, I found a copy through links in the DRV, and copied that copy to my userspace. I'd prefer to convert it to the {{Userbox}} template than the existing HTML, but we can't have everything. (If you're willing to excise this section of your talk page, so am I.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Especially since I duplicated a previous section head. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] user satanist

"Closing this because such a template would obviously bring Wikipedia into disrepute."

I think you need to add the reworded {{user cannabis}} to your home page. That seems the only thing that can account for such an absurd statement. It's hard to imagine any self-identification with Satanism is bringing "Wikipedia into disrepute", except in regard satanic cults. Now, some of the redirects which I've suggested be deleted would bring Wikipedia into disrepute if anyone knew they were there....

(Yes, I'm assuming good faith and lack of judgement.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I could put it better than I have. There isn't going to be a satanist userbox on Wikipedia, no matter how many people vote for it. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a rather blatant rejection of the validity of religious freedom of a fair number of devout satanists, some of whom may be Wikipedia users. I don't think you are or should be in a position to be deciding whose religions are ok for userboxes, Tony. Georgewilliamherbert 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I have ANI'ed this. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tony Sidaway unilaterally cancels satanism userbox restoral discussion. Georgewilliamherbert 20:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Which redirects, by the way? You can send them to me in email if you prefer. --Tony Sidaway 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you opposed to all religion userboxes, or are you opposed to the Satanism one in particular? Andjam 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Every single one, including the atheism one. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Aww, HEC

Your recent behavior at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_3 has been very far from what we expect of harmonious editors. Specifically, you reverted more than once [2] [3] on a silly formatting issue, and your civility was lacking in the very same edit with your "disgusting mess" comment. More importantly, I think you're utterly failing to abide by the spirit of the "Request input from the wider community when necessary" HEC guideline- many people have asked you nicely to stop, and you've responded with scorn. I'm bringing this to your attention as per your preference. Please, tone down the combativeness! What you're doing is quite unharmonious. Friday (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but I'll have to completely disagree with you there. I reverted once and will not revert again. Please stop being so disingenuous, and remember that a considerable doubt hangs over your own head as to your civility. --Tony Sidaway 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[4] I believe it is going to far to change my signature on an endorsement. Chcknwnm (Chuck) 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It would help if you could just explain why this is a problem. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Point?

Tony, I know you realize that many different editors have asked you to stop with your signature editing. Your continuing to do so sure looks like an act intended to annoy, rather than intended to improve the encyclopedia. This is called harassment and disruption of wikipedia to make a point, and it's not a helpful thing. You're a big boy, you shouldn't have to be told this over and over. Stop it. Friday (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see what the problem is. What I do doesn't harm them in any way, and it vastly improves the editing environment. Moreover if you actually read the document you have cited you will realise that it doesn't say what you think it says. You're not the only person to think that something is automatically disruptive because it annoys some people, and you're not the only person who either hasn't read WP:POINT or has read it and didn't understand it. So no problems there. You'll get over it.
Moreover you've seen that at least a dozen other editors see nothing wrong with this kind of refactoring and think it improves the environment. From my conversations with others not involved in this infantile RfC, I'm convinced that the claims of disruption are completely unmerited. --Tony Sidaway 22:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If you'd try listening to people outside of your little fan club, you might get a different story. Oh well, I'm done trying to talk sense into you. If you're determined to go the way of Ed Poor, be my guest. Friday (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you've completely flipped on this one. You seem to think I'm out on some kind of crusade. The opposite is the case. Any editor can improve the environment. One doesn't require permission, or a fan club. --Tony Sidaway 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comment

Tony, I believe you have some sort of pathology that requires you to look for trouble. You are not content if things are peaceful. You need to be right all the time, and you need to be the center of attention. This is the only explaination for your behavior that I can come up with. Your actions during this nth RfC have been single-mindedly disruptive. I don't think you are even trying to prove a point, but are trying to continue your joyride of being right there in the middle of controversy. I ask you to take a look at yourself and see if my words are true. --User:Fang Aili 00:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just a puerile complaint uninvited by me and taken to excessive lengths in the face of quite sensible support for my position by some well known and well respected editors. This seems to happen a lot. Perhaps a pathology of Wikipedia itself. I can give you a long list of people who have experienced this kind of silliness at RfC while doing nothing that need bother any reasonable person. --Tony Sidaway 00:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There is another possibility- the people trying to get you to cut it out might be reasonable people with a legitimate concern. If you were a tad less convinced of your own infallibility you might be able to recognize that possibility. There are those who agree with you that certain signatures are annoying, but I suspect those who support your handling of this debacle are growing fewer by the hour. Friday (talk)
I suspect that you're trying to whistle up a wind. The RfC has failed because the complaint is transparently fatuous. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"Failed"? Your adversarial outlook is showing. RFCs don't succeed or fail, they're used to invite further input on an issue. This one's gotten quite a lot of input so far. Friday (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes of course they succeed or fail. They succeed when legitimate grievances are aired and a dispute is resolved. The current one has signally failed to convince me (and, I notice, a large number of other editors) that there is any real dispute here. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
How many people have had as many RfCs as you have? (Apart from RfCs from people who went on to be banned) Look at it this way: I don't use POV userboxes, or have a fancy signature, but I dislike the way you've handled userboxes and signatures. Doesn't that mean anything? Andjam 00:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I do a lot of controversial stuff. This means I'm a little unpopular. But quite effective, just the same. You might like to actually look at all those RfCs some time. All of them. There's really not a lot of substance there--if there were, I wouldn't have prevailed. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who talks about "prevailing" at a RfC has the wrong attitude. Andjam 00:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about prevailing at RfC. In fact I've been quite forthright about the RfC's failure. I see that quite a large number of other editors share my opinion about the appropriateness of refactoring, and those who have complained about the practice have not proven able adequately to explain the problem. There has been no meeting of minds; I sincerely doubt that such a meeting is possible. I still think the complaint was without substance. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway said;
I do a lot of controversial stuff. This means I'm a little unpopular. But quite effective, just the same. You might like to actually look at all those RfCs some time. All of them. There's really not a lot of substance there--if there were, I wouldn't have prevailed...
Then he said;
I haven't said anything about prevailing at RfC.
Sorry, but something seems very wrong with the above sentences... User:Master of Puppets 01:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't confuse him with facts. :-) Nandesuka 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the fact is that I haven't said anything about prevailing at RfC. There seems to have been some kind of leap between what I said (that I have prevailed, which is historically quite true) and what someone else claimed I said (that I "prevailed at RfC", whatever that might mean). --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok guys, grammar lesson! First, we have the sentence;
You might like to actually look at all those RfCs some time. All of them. There's really not a lot of substance there--if there were, I wouldn't have prevailed...

Now, lets dissect that sentence.

You might like to actually look at all those RfCs some time. All of them (the RfCs). There's really not a lot of substance there (in the RFC)--if there were (substance in the RfC), I wouldn't have prevailed... (in the RfC)
See? The english language can be fun!
So it could be a simple misunderstanding on my part, but the way your answer is worded implies that you prevailed on the RfC. User:Master of Puppets 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that you have misread what I said. I could only reiterate what I said above. I think there's a subtlety of meaning that's eluding you, and for some reason you're seeing what is not there. --Tony Sidaway 03:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what there is to misread... care to tell me what this subtlety is? All that I can get out of it (and I don't mean this incivilly) slightly boasting about how you "won" an RfC because they had nothing on you. Which in its own doesn't seem right, for some reason. User:Master of Puppets 03:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is one of those problems that one sometimes gets into on an electronic forum. There is a quite odd sense of hostility about the early complaints on this page that, eventually, seems to have filtered into the RfC itself. Once it went that way, perhaps in a reaction to the quite strong support I received or possibly because I wasn't exactly diplomatic about what I saw as the failings of the complaint, there developed a kind of antagonism. I would hazard a guess that a pugnacious and antagonistic reading of my words, which mean what they say and no more, has in this case led to a misunderstanding. Perhaps it would help if, whatever the meaning of "prevailed at RfC", you were to cast it out of your mind, for it is not mine. Then perhaps the meaning of my sentence will stand out clearly. --Tony Sidaway 03:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you did not just Jedi Mind Trick me; cast it out of your mind, for it is not mine... Well, I'm not being hostile, or antagonistic; I'd simply like to know what you mean by you prevailing at RfC. However, you interestingly managed to dodge that artillery shell, so I think I'll give up before this escalates. If you choose to answer my question I'd be greatly appreciative. Thanks, Master of Puppets T 03:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Try this way around: I do a lot of controversial stuff. This means I'm a little unpopular. But quite effective, just the same. You might like to actually look at all those RfCs some time. All of them. (the RFCs) There's really not a lot of substance there--if there were, I wouldn't have prevailed. (with the controversial stuff)
Or to put it another way, the RFCs reflect that the controversial stuff is unpopular, but don't actually prove it's uneffective.
Also, if this is a "refactored" section, wow. It's such a huge difference editing this and looking for comments up above. Yikes. --InkSplotch 03:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that Master of Puppets still thinks that I said above that I prevailed at RfC. We'll just have to leave it. --Tony Sidaway 09:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Userboxes

Hi Tony. I have a problem with your constant speedy deletion of userboxes. While I understand that you may not like them, they are useful to many others, and some of us just plain like them.

You deleted {{User Anarchist)) while myself and others were using it. I get the feeling, from scanning your talk page, that you've done this with quite a large number of userboxes. The big problem is that we like them, and we made them. Now, they're gone without a trace, because you didn't give reasons. If you wish to delete such things, I suggest in the interest of fairness, that you open full debates on the matter. This is an unfair conflict, as you are an administrator, while I and others who've portested your actions are not. I don't think that that's what administrators are for. Thank you. Canaen 01:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you like the political userboxes; however they are not suitable for Wikipedia and tend to be speedy deleted under the T1 criterion. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think they are perfectly suitable for Wikipedia. What is this "T1 criterion" ? Canaen 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I've read through the criteria for deletion here, and I think they are helpful. Generally speaking, an Anarchist know more about Anarchism than a Fascist, or another Totalitarian. I'm more inclined to be helpful in actually improving anarchism-related articles than most people.
I'm also a Vegan, and because of that, I know a lot more about Veganism than most Omnivorous humans. Therefore the Vegan userbox is useful. Parallel, though not under scrutiny at present. I think that the Anarchism userbox is useful, and Anarchism includes a rather wide range of articles, therefore is fairly notable. Canaen 02:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is why some userboxes are being changed from "This user is a foobarist" to "This user is interested in foobarism" Will (E@) T 11:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Response to the response

I'll concede to your point that there is a very large difference between the two RfAs that you have presented to me, and that in the edit mode, the one from last year looks much cleaner too. I'm not sure if it's me being relatively new to the game, but I've never found it hard to navigate discussion pages to add my comments in where I found it needed. Using section edits and being able to easily pick out changes in list markup and noticing keywords such as [[User: and timestamps I've found it to be relatively simple to navigate in edit mode. (I'll also give you that my argument here can be viewed as flawed, because it supposes that people treat wiki markup like programming languages and have the ability over time to develop an eye for such patterns).

With reference to the ongoing discussions on analogies, I would like to try my hand and put forth an argument for equating a signature to one's personal appearance. In my experiences with business environments for day to day environments, when we interact with coworkers we wear clothes and our hair in ways we like to be comfortable, while conforming to (imho) rather loose but pratical restrictions and our coworkers are influenced by both our choice in appearance and in our words. In a formal business environment (like shareholders meetings, executive presentations and similar events) we are expected to conform to much tighter guidelines (but still have a choice as to what color tie to wear). (They say purple is the new power color... but that's very much off topic).

I'm thinking that perhaps there could be a compromise in this. What would you think to having a software change to add a new "magic word" that would automatically be substituted with one's username and talk page link, and we made a policy that instead of using the 4 tildes, we would be required to use the new magic word on official operational pages/votes (such as RfA, RfC, etc) but would be free to use their signature in the community (i.e. talk pages). This way you get the benefits of having clean operational environments, and we get the ability to style our personal appearance how we see fit within reason. (And you'll still be allowed to change signatures to how you see fit on your talk page too).

I'd be interested in your feedback on this. Regards User:Charlie Huggard 02:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

PS... Lisp? I must applaud you sir. From my limited experience with it, that's a rather difficult language. (Try doing foreign function invocation using CLisp. *shudders*) User:Charlie Huggard 02:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a software solution is necessary or practicable. For serious signature problems there are the guidelines. For less serious problems a quick refactor is always a possibility.
Lisp is actually much simpler to use and more expressive than any other language I've used. It just took a lot of getting into. --Tony Sidaway 03:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll give you that it may not be necessary, but I think it would enable what I think could be an agreeable compromise for all involved parties. Furthermore, a quick hack would only involve the addition of few lines of code to the Parser::pstPass2 function (base code is taken from MW 1.6.5, but I don't think it has changed much since then):
# Signatures
+ $username = $user->getName();
+ $userpage = $user->getUserPage();
+ $unText = '[[' . $userpage->getPrefixedText() . '|' . wfEscapeWikiText( $username ) . ']]';
$sigText = $this->getUserSig( $user );
$text = strtr( $text, array(
+ '~~~~~~~' => $unText,
+ '~~~~~~' => "$unText $d",
'~~~~~' => $d,
'~~~~' => "$sigText $d",
'~~~' => $sigText
) );
proof of concept. A better solution would be to actually code up a few more hook points and create an extension, but this would be a fix that could probably be implemented within a matter of minutes (+ whatever required change documentation and propagation time). Regards, Charlie 04:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Jamaat-e-Islami

Hi Tony. You unprotected the Jamaat page a while ago:- Talk:Jamaat-e-Islami#Unprotecting. There seems to be another edit war developing again with User:siddiqui blanking referenced content without discussion or even any use of the "Edit summary" box. There has been an RfC about this but it doesn't seem to have made any difference:- Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Siddiqui#Jamaat-e-Islami. Could you keep an eye on the page please? Veej 05:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Watching. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed U.S. Law - Would it Affect Wikipedia?

There is yet another bill proposed in the U.S. congress that might have an affect on Wikipedia. My highly uneducated guess is no - assuming no amendments. You are better positioned than I to pass this along to whomever might be appropriate to have look into it. Here is a link to a copy of the bill.[5] GRBerry 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tony will have his opinion, by my opinion is that it will have no effect on Wikipedia, unless Wikipedia is receiving discounted rates for being connected to the Internet. That's what the bill affects. Further, I also don't think that Wikipedia would be considered a commercial Web site. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in a good position to make a judgement on this; I'm British and I never heard of DOPA until fifteen minutes ago. With that caveat, here is my response.
As I understand it, DOPA applies only to schools and libraries and the like that receive US Federal funds. Wikipedia is a private website operated by Wikimedia Foundation, which I believe is a private not-for-profit incorporated in Florida.
As a potential networking site for pedophiles, Wikipedia could possibly be blocked by such institutions under some interpretations of this legislation. But it's quite likely that many schools and other such institutions block Wikipedia already as unsuitable. --Tony Sidaway 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Metrocat"

Not sure who this is (or whose sock he is), but as you were mentioned by name, thought I'd keep you up to date if you weren't already aware. [6] See ya. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh nothing much. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Banned user Terryeo engaging in personal attacks

Terryeo attacked myself and several other editors on the talk page Talk:Suppressive_Person#.22What_consensus.3F.22. "Wikipediatrix, Stollery and Fahrenheit might attempt to bully an editor into accepting a lower standard in a single article,"--Fahrenheit451 23:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some evidence that this is Terryeo? Anything you have, please, so I can take a look. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question about userboxes

Tony, hi.

What do you think of Wikipedia:The German solution? In particular, do you agree with allowing advocacy userboxes, as long as they're in user space? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've no grave objections to it in principle. In practice I think the English and German wikipedias are different environments and we cannot predict whether applying the German solution here would work. I'd like to see how the proponents intend to treat the problem of use of userboxes for campaigning, vote-stacking and the like. This may not be a problem on German Wikipedia but is a serious one here. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Christian template

I saw where you reprotected the template.

Do you think that it would be a reasonable idea to bring the issue to arbitration? Enough administrators have made it clear by actions and by statement that it doesn't matter what the DRVU consensus is, the userbox is going to get deleted as soon as it gets recreated. Would it be reasonable to bring the issue to arbitration where one way or another, it would be settled finally? Regardless of what the decision is, at least the wheel warring would stop. BigDT 07:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the term, which I believe is ambiguous, but no admin activity on the template at any time qualifies as "wheel warring" under any definition adopted by the arbitration committee or the community. There was some bad edit warring on the template a few weeks ago, but this was resolved. Arbitration isn't used to determine content matters so I don't see what use it would be here. I'm reasonably happy with the situation at present though I was very concerned at the questionable edits last month. --Tony Sidaway 08:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
When you say that you are happy with the situation at present, are you referring to the fact that the template is currently deleted and protected or are you referring to the current cycle of deletions, undeletions, and DRVs? BigDT 08:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Neither. I mean that I think that the wiki is operating as intended and there is nothing to stop the normal decision-making processes. The final disposition of the template itself isn't a cause for concern. My personal opinion is that it's obviously unsuitable for Wikipedia, but its presence on Wikipedia, per se, doesn't pose a life-or-death threat to the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 08:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hey, I emailed something to you, might want to check your inbox :) --Cat out 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Saw it. I'll take a look. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chooserr

You may also want to look at the top of his Talk page. Al 14:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I already spotted it and removed it. Now to check his contributions to see if he has spammed it elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway 14:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you were a step ahead of me. I don't think you'll find any spam elsewhere, though. Al 14:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] More troubling comments from Terryeo

Take a look at Terryeo's recent response to Anteaus Feldspar at Talk:Narconon#.22beam_intention.3F.22. ("Those people whom you refuse to address are observing you, too.") Given his recent history of "keeping an eye on you" threats against Antaeus, this struck me as rather unsettling. BTfromLA 15:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at this but looking at Antaeus' comment I feel that Terryeo was goaded. I will warn him to remain cool but I have also warned Antaeus and I will not take action against Terryeo on this occasion because of the extenuating circumstances [7]. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, and thanks for your response. I'm all for more civility on all sides. I do, however, think there is a qualitative distinction between rude or unecessarily harsh remarks (quite common on all sides in the neverending wrangles over the Scientology pages, alas) and this "you are being watched"/"hivemind" stuff which, in my view, crosses the line between simple rudeness and harassment, the latter being a much more severe offense. BTfromLA 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's especially important that Terryeo be careful about his choice of words. I have warned him and he has read and says he understands. I've asked him to come to me if he feels that he's being goaded; this should provide a way of dealing with it, without further raising the temperature. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks again. BTfromLA 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Syzygy

Tony, you and I haven't agreed on much, but it looks like the planets have aligned on the matter of Chooserr's anti-abortion donation ads. When we actually agree on something, I suspect that means something. In any case, I was glad to walk away and let you handle it, as your sysop bit protects you against random threats.

However, you should know that I got a random threat from an uninvolved admin (well, uninvolved with the Chooserr incident anyhow; we have an ugly history together), accusing me of vandalism. Not asking you to do anything about it. Just keeping you in the loop as a matter of courtesy and record. Al 18:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this edit was out of order. Please don't do stuff like that. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I already talked to GTBacchus about it, and you made the whole thing irrelevant, anyhow. As far as I'm concerned, the real issue is that Nandesuka is beating a horse that's not only dead, but fully rendered into glue and dog food. Al 19:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My User Page

Tony Sideways, I don't usually reply to other peoples comments on my own talk page - check Timothy Usher's talk page for my reply.
As for the content its self all anyone had to do was show me the place where it says that it is in violation of wikipedia policy and I would have taken it down myself. From what I'd been told on my talk page was that it was "unacceptable", which could have been a reference to the person's personal beliefs on the issue rather than wikipedia policy. So please in the future at least talk to me before doing anything to my user page. Chooserr 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and please don't "warn" me. I told you above that I hadn't been informed as to how it was in violation, and hadn't in my mind at least been "abusing wikipedia". Chooserr 19:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You've been told now. Happy? The other content of your user page is borderline and I won't do anything about it unless you step over the line again. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks!

That's very fair and reasonable. Thanks a lot for that. I am very pleased that I don't have to spend more time on that issue. -- Karl Meier 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, thanks both for this action and for that referenced in the section above. It's nice to see someone restoring some wan semblance of sobriety to user space.Timothy Usher 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I really thought the issue was solved, but unfortunately that didn't do it.. -- > [8] -- Karl Meier 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stay away and I'll deal with it. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Great. Thank you. I'll do as you recommend and stay away from this issue for now. -- Karl Meier 20:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
There, I used my evil Cabalistic rouge admin mind control powers to get him to revert his edit [9]. --Tony Sidaway 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that User:Ibrahimfaisal is, like the original poster of the attack and the admin who has been restoring it and threatening Karl Meir not to remove it, a member of the Muslim Guild, where Karl Meier has been singled out for scrutiny[10].Timothy Usher 20:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The individuals involved are accountable individually for their actions. --Tony Sidaway 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Brian Peppers, but not the usual

Could you change the link to Jimbo's page to either be Jimbo Wales or Jimbo Wales instead of the current cross-namespace wikilink? Kotepho 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably not the right person to do that. Please ask on WP:AN and I guess it'll get done if it needs to be done. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be fixed now. Tony, well done for nuking the Talk page. It needed doing. Just zis Guy you know? 22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Blu's arbcom

Well, I'm not sure if I violated any protocol, but I added Blu's statement with his permission and then I read that only involved parties should edit the page. Oops.--User:Ikiroid 22:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your addition was perfectly in order. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy and there are no unreasonable rules against doing sensible things. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A question

How is the signal to noise ratio of this sig? ILovePlankton (T—C—U—L)

It's good for editing, but not without its drawbacks.
  1. no timestamp is visible in edit mode
  2. See WP:SIG#Transclusion.2Ftemplate
I appreciate your consideration in trying to find a more satisfactory signature. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I just forgot to put 5 tildes to make a timestamp, but I guess it doesn't matter anyways. ILovePlankton 13:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Ban

You notified me about the notice you've put up on the administrators' noticeboard, and invited me to respond there. Yet I was banned shortly after your notification on my user talk page, before I actually responded there. Is it legitimate for administrators to ban a user based merely on materials presented by one side of a dispute? I am awaiting explanation and illustration from you. Thank you. — Instantnood 11:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Under the general probation you can be banned by any three administrators. While your input might have been useful, it wasn't necessary. --Tony Sidaway 13:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yet the three administrators must be impartial, neutral and unbiased, and should not have merely relied on evidence submitted. They have the full burden to collect all necessary materials to ensure the decision they make is fair and just. In my case it was apparent the decision was made based only upon submission by user:SchmuckyTheCat, who has a record of mispresenting facts (as I've detailed at WP:AE, like what I did to his every single submission about me). — Instantnood 14:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop wikilawyering. --Tony Sidaway 14:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Is this what victims who're defending their interests should expect from some of the administrators? It would be disappointing if fairness and justice is not considered important on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You have been through three arbitration cases. At the third you were placed on general probation. You were recently blocked for two weeks under that general probation because your activities have been disruptive. It was hoped that you would learn from this. Please try to do so. --Tony Sidaway 14:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The first and second cases are actually the same case. Whether the third case was appropriately and properly opened was questioned. It was for that reason I requested for reconsideration of its opening, and also for that reason it was not possible for me to submit anything to the case until the matter was addressed. My recent edits were considered disruptive because only user:SchmuckyTheCat's submission was taken into account. — Instantnood 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please understand the following:
  • Three administrators have examined your edits and found them to be disruptive.
  • Schmucky the Cat cannot stop us looking at whatever edits we like. He isn't in the frame here.
  • You may appeal the arbitration case to the Arbitration Committee or to Jimbo.
--Tony Sidaway 15:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no clue if they've examined all necessary materials [11]. The one who cast the third vote (and didn't sign) was user:SchmuckyTheCat's advocate. I requested for reviewing the opening of the case before the case was closed. Obviously they didn't care. — Instantnood 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Administrators wield delegated power under the general probation. If you think we've treated you unfairly, please take this back to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
At this moment I want to know how much evidence they had actually examined when they made the decision. I'd also want to know why you invited me to respond there. It seemed to be a good sign that you're dealing with it seriously and in a unbiased manner, but it turned out to be a bad one. — Instantnood 15:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] explain

Please explain yourself? --Irishpunktom\talk 12:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean this? See this. --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Moby Dick

See here. -ZeroTalk 15:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My personal taste is for applications with a bare minimum of brief comments. It shouldn't be necessary to add more than is present. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks (2)

Thanks for Fixing my comment[12] I made a few more changes in light of you edit [13]--E-Bod 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Tony Sidaway 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Userboxuser

Well, if you're going to block userboxuser, then you might as well block User:Templateuser also. --GeorgeMoney T·C 19:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do it yourself. --Tony Sidaway 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin. --GeorgeMoney T·C 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Userbox not in metric

Is there a specific reason why you have speedy deleted this user box. I thought the first time that maybe because the userbox name contained the word sucks. Now I am just puzzled by it. Can you please explain?—MJCdetroit 02:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reported this to vandalism. This is clearly a POV delete of a userbox that isn't exaclty new that wasn't put through the proper channels. Nova SS 03:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. They were deleted because they are divisive and inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

They most certainly were not. I have seen silimar boxes for British/American English and the Metric folks not wanting to use Imperial measurements.—MJCdetroit 03:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Please provide links and I'll delete any such divisive and inflammatory userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I am doing it by hand

it isn't automatic, and I had no clue there was a rule against it, so next time please assume good faith. ILovePlankton 04:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm assuming good faith, but your edit summaries tell me that you used a tool called "VandalProof" to perform the edits. --Tony Sidaway 04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I did, I am saying WP:AGF the fact that I didn't intentionally abuse it, and that I had no idea I am not supposed to do that. ILovePlankton 04:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you try to avoid using shortcuts as jargon? It's intensely irritating. --Tony Sidaway 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I can vouch for the manual nature of it - I didn't receive a thankyou for my contribution. Stephen B Streater 18:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] delete userid

Thinking I needed a second userid in order to have two simultaneous sessions of Wikipedia up at once (to read and to edit), I created hmains2. I now know I do not need this. Can you delete hmains2 for me. Thanks Hmains 05:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In general we do not delete usernames. If you want to stop using the account, that's fine. Perhaps it would be courteous to redirect the user and talk pages to your main account. --Tony Sidaway 12:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Natalie Merchant article

Hello there. I didn't know where to bring this, and decided to search for a long standing member of the community.

There is something very irritating in this article: people keep reverting each other about the fact that she is married and has a daughter, but never as often as to break a 3-revert rule. In just the 50 item history page there are changes on April 27, April 29 (where it is commented that someone has deleted it a half dozen times now), same day, again, and again on 29th, May 1, May 14 (again on 14th), May 16 (again) May 17 (again), May 18 (again), May 20, May 21 (again and again), May 22 (blanking threat?, another revert by bot, again and again).

Currently it is reverted whether to name the husband and child or not, as happened on May 31 (again and again), June 1 (again), June 2 (again and again), June 3 and June 5.

IPs (a few times the same one, then apparently dynamic ones) were first removing the reference to the marriage stating it is personal life information, and now removing the names. In the talk page there is a discussion with a link that back ups claims the information is public as it was given during an interview with her.

Sorry for bothering with all the diffs, but I want to stress how serious this is, and I am not sure where to inform this. What should be done in this case? -- ReyBrujo 15:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It seemed to me that some recent edits had the nature of vandalism rather than genuine attempts to improve. Definitely there has been a lot of warring so I have semiprotected so that, if we do see further edits, at least we'll see who is making them. --Tony Sidaway 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Logging blocks for people on personal attack parole

Tony, I just saw your message on WP:AN about Xed, and it reminded me of a message from Jnk that I hadn't got round to answering. I blocked Boothy443 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) on 3 June for this edit, and also for being abusive towards the people who had warned him about it. It was a three day block. I did it without any awareness that he was already on parole, but just after the block, Jnk informed me of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443. Should I have reported the block there? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would help if you did. Some enforcement regimes are progressive (the arbitrators decide on this in their final decision in the arbitration) and administrators take the history of past infractions into account in calculating a reasonable block period. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] you asked us to tell you.

User:MarkGallagher's sig is confusing. I couldn't tell it was him when he voted my RFA. ILovePlankton 22:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's borderline, but I'm not convinced that people shouldn't use easily distinguishable nicknames and the like (I have issues with people who insist on aliasing their username to something common like "Pete" of "Jack", but fuddlemark is fairly unique). --Tony Sidaway 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. By the way, you know I do respect you, but sometimes you can be far too stubborn. ILovePlankton 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It's my fourth best trait. After intelligence, charisma and sexual magnetism. --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Not that I mind the initiative...

...but, just so you know, I do usually carry out the closings I make. Pleased to see you on the ball, though! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 :) --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Any opinion on this?

Hi Tony,

Wondering if you might offer an opinion on this[14].Timothy Usher 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Silly. Deleted the db template. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It didn't seem silly to me at all. What am I doing wrong? Is there some other procedure I should be following?Timothy Usher 00:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is complex and, although it may succeed, it doesn't seem to be a good argument for speedy deletion. For instance, if you disagree with the use of the word "Allah" why not use the talk page to discuss the possibility of removing it? If this fails, try tfd. --Tony Sidaway 00:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem, as I've just posted on talk, isn't that it says Allah per se, but that this word is well-understood among Muslims as a marker of sectarian identity. The English hand writes, "This user edits Islam-related pages", while the Arabic hand writes, "This user is a Muslim". That's plainly deceptive and, according to proposed T2, inappropriate.Timothy Usher 01:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, this is a complex argument and unsuitable for speedy deletion. You need to make it on the talk page and have the image removed if your argument prevails, or at tfd if you decide that the template needs to be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I get it now: it's not deletion that's the problem, but speedy deletion. I've only been around for a few months, and am still learning about such processes. Thanks for indulging me.Timothy Usher 01:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hi

How do you know they were trolls? Metrocat 01:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Good to see that thewolfstar is back. How long does she get to stay this time? --Elkman 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Personal External Links

I asked Timothy Usher whether or not the link on Nick Gorton's user page is appropriate or not. He asked me to ask you so that is what I'm doing. Chooserr 06:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We need a fatwa on this. It's not solicitation, but it is an external link with some promotion, both on the user page and on the linked page. Personally, the user page gives me the creeps, for whatever that's worth (probably not much).Timothy Usher 06:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a perfectly normal user page to me. If it gives you the creeps, you should probably get out more. --Tony Sidaway 11:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in.Timothy Usher 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Drastic refactoring

You say "a few users seem to be suggesting that signatures should be drastically refactored every time they occur"

Who says this? --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "every time they occur" was too strong, and "drastically" was a poor choice of words. But you're one of the people who wants to refactor signatures because they're too hard to edit. That's why we had the debate in the first place.

--Elkman (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "every time they occur" is too strong. And of course this is about refactoring signatures to remove unnecessary formatting where they interfere with editing. --Tony Sidaway 13:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I admit I was wrong. Wrong, wrong, inexcusably wrong. So, go ahead and apply the well-deserved block for disruption. --Elkman (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"Blocks are preventative, not punitive." --Cyde↔Weys 14:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User talk:Metrocat

Would you mind swinging by his page and further explaining his block? He has requested an explanation. It won't take but a minute or two. I'm sure you can spare it, and I think I can handle it from there. Thanks, Tony. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unblock Metrocat

I suggest you to apply the Wiki's rules first, you can't block someone if you don't have solid proofs. I want to see the CheckUser report that Metrocat is vandal. Otherwise I sugesst you to apply Wiki's rules. Without any ArbCom you can't block someone. --193.227.206.157 17:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Trolls are blocked all the time. No arbcom required. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I'm completely wasting my time

There is a request for you to respond at User talk:Metrocat. Apparently, I made a response to something she wrote, but she wanted your response, not mine. Now, she's pretty angry at me.

On an unrelated note, are my contributions actually valuable here, or am I just wasting my time on Wikipedia? I'm not sure anyone really wanted to hear about historic places or bridges in Minnesota. --Elkman (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) 22:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about Metrocat. Your work on Wikipedia is appreciated and if I didn't say so earlier that is my omission and my fault. --Tony Sidaway 23:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] naturalhomes

Hi,

How about that then...

Regards, Oliver Naturalhomes 09:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Much better. --Tony Sidaway 11:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Formal notice

With the amount of nonsense you are dealing with, I thought a Thank You would cheer you up a bit. :) --Cat out 12:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's very sweet. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Manchester bombing

I've reverted your edit because there has been much debate in the past as to whether the bombing was a terrorist attack or not. The best compromise was to say it was "seen as" terrorism and to cite a source. Best leave it like that, to not open the debate again :) -- 9cds(talk) 13:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see my discussion of this on the talk page of the article, Talk:1996 Manchester bombing. In particular, "seen by many" is classic weaseling. --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Lauder-Frost

Tony, regardless of whether individuals said "keep" or "delete" there was a broad consensus among the non sock puppet editors in the AFD that Gregory Lauder-Frost is too long, too laden with filler, puffery, flattery and unencyclopedic details etc. Don't know if a reference to that can be included in your finding (it would make it easier to edit the article properly given the strong resistanced by GLF and his friends). I'm wondering if you could look at the article yourself and see what you can do in cutting it down to a more readable and encyclopedic form. Your doing this would produce less resistance than any of the editors who have thus far been involved. Homey 13:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Anybody can go in and edit the article--which I agree probably needs to be trimmed a bit. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2006_06_15_c273.html"