User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 07 06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Tony Sidaway

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

[edit] Good Faith

To prove I have only the best of faith, I have recorded some of your talk page. I have done my absolute best to vary my tone and thus keep the listener engaged. Please visit Image:Tony Sideways.ogg

Love,

Willothewisp

Stop it, you're killing me! You have an amazing set of voices there. --Tony Sidaway 02:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious! That makes your page the first (user) talk page on all Wikipedia to have a spoken version, no? Kimchi.sg 02:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess so. It may not last long, but for now the mere fact of being blind isn't sufficient to spare anyone the horrors of my user page. --Tony Sidaway 02:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Awe, too bad it's only the beginning! I was really looking forward to listening to the discussions that took place in the last couple days... any chance you'll record more? Romarin 03:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the recording. The voice apparently belongs to a fellow called Willothewisp. --Tony Sidaway 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I gathered that; I was actually just checking out his userpage. Hmmm, interesting... well my comment was actually to him, since I figured he'd be checking this section. romarin [talk ] 03:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you chaps - it may take some time, as audio work is surprisingly time consuming. I'll keep you posted (although if it's vandalism, not straight away ;)).

Best Wishes,

Willothewisp 01:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr Infinity0

This seems to have fallen into disrepair. since the nominator (quite unrelatedly) has announced an intention to leave Wikipedia, I suppose that's probably no bad thing. ElectricRay 21:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's in voting, so you won't see much action but there is a lot happening behind the scenes as the arbitrators make up their minds. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Proposed decision.

So far, three out of the five proposed principles have passed by a majority vote (5 votes). Three out of the six proposed findings of fact have passed, and one out of the five proposed remedies. There's nothing about this arbitration case that anyone not actually a member of the arbitration committee itself can do, and I'm sure they're capable of managing their own affairs. --Tony Sidaway 21:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{ArbComOpenedParty}}

Should this template be subst:ed? If it's not, attempting to edit that talk page section brings one to the template itself. Kirill Lokshin 01:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I boobed. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blu Aardvark Arb case

Hi Tony. I'm not quite sure how the numbers rules work in cases like this. The "mentorship" remedy is currently 5-0-1. Given the numerics at the top, there are only 10 active Arbs on this case. With 1 abstention on that motion (rather than an opposition), it has quietly passed, I think, since if the other 4 active Arbs all opposed, there'd still be a 'support' majority, across the whole of the active Committee. On the other hand, ther would still be less than the 6 for majority given at the top; I'm not clear on how such things are split. -Splash - tk 12:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration cases normally go for a "hard" majority, so we'd count the mentorship motion as having passed only if it had (in this case) six or more supporting votes. However it may be a good idea to ask for clarification on the talk page of the proposed decision. --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I copied the above to the talk page, just in case. -Splash - tk 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linuxbeak

Actually, it might be interesting to see what Linuxbeak can do. I don't have a strong opinion, but it might be interesting to discuss the matter sometime soon, I suppose. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kim Bruning (talk • contribs).

Oops, sorry, that was me. Do you have time on irc sometime soon? Kim Bruning 13:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This section probably needs some help to get archived. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:So-and-so Wikipedians

Though not a userbox, it would seem to me that such categories as [[Category:Muslim Wikipedians]] perform exactly the same non-encyclopedic purpose. Any ideas on this?Timothy Usher 07:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PP

You may be on 1RR, but there are a LOT of stale protections up there, I'd likely back you up if anyone wanted to accuse you of wheel warring, or mention the "tony sideway pro/unpro ratio".Voice of All 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeq

Zeq, I've removed about half a dozen sections from this page because you're overloading me. Writing lots of material on my talk page is a good way of ensuring that I'll throw up my hands and say "enough." That's about the stage I'm at now. Now on Homey's edits, if he's doing something wrong then the thing to do is to follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. It is because somebody else did that in your case that you are now on probation. I suggest that you work on this together with SlimVirgin, who knows much more about this subject than I do. If Homey is causing problems (and at first sight it does seem to me that he may be) then you should be able to use that process to make sure that he stops or, if he won't, gets stopped.

The bans on Zeq have been announced in eight places:

WP:AN
WP:AE
User talk:Zeq
the talk pages of each individual article (four in all)
On IRC, on the administrators' IRC channel

They have been logged on the arbitration page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq.

They may be discussed on any of the discussion pages and, in the case of the arbitration page, on the related talk page.

My problem here is that one editor is persistently flooding me with vast amounts of impenetrable counter-arguments. I have therefore cleared them from my page. Some of the removed material was from Homey, others from Isarig, Ramallite or SlimVirgin. They are all accessible in the history of this page. This ban should probably be discussed now on WP:AN if you're really sure that it was inappropriate.

Accusations that I have abused my administrator status will not be met sympathetically. These bans are in order under the probation applied to Zeq by the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK

I will not bother you again. Do your work as you see fit. Zeq 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RickK

{{award2|image=Barnstar_of_Reversion2.png|size=100px|topic=The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|text=I, [[User:John Gibson|John Gibson]], hereby award you the Vandal-fighter Barnstar for your tireless work to keep Wikipedia clean and correct.}}

Thank you. Moving it to my awards page. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From User talk:Tony Sidaway/No refactor

Is there a User:Tony Sidaway/Refactor coming soon where I can say that you can do whatever you want with my signature, as long as you still attribute my comments to me? ;-) --Lord Voldemort 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to create one! --User talk:Tony Sidaway 20:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

When you say, don't give instructions, do you mean like using Chuck 05:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

(I am assuming I can reply directly here; if not, please feel free to move -this) This recent change to the page is bizarre to me - if this page wasn't meant to avoid refactoring the signatures of those who didn't want them refactored (irrespective of whether you thought they were too long in HTML or not), what was the compromise? AySz88 06:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean "don't give instructions." It's a list of people whose signatures I'll try to avoid refactoring if I think it's reasonable to do so. It's not a list of instructions from Wikipedians to one another. If you want a certain edit to be done, it's probably better to do it yourself. -User talk:Tony Sidaway 12:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If people want an easy way to find their own comments, all they have to do is write dsjjsdfjsfksdh, and customize that specific id in their own css file. --GeorgeMoney ^{(talk) (Help Me Improve!)} 19:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That's probably not a sensible thing to do in a discussion--it would only add more clutter. If you use a simple signature showing your username preceded by "--", it's always easy to find your own comments. No need for fancy HTML. --User talk:Tony Sidaway 00:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how my signature is obtrusively large, yet it's still refactored after being on the No Refactor list. It's hard to not see that page now as just a side-place that shuts us all up about signatures while you still refactor them. Please explain how this list is going to work, and if you plan on abiding by what you say. Thank you, Ch u ck^(contrib) 04:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's obtrusively large. Gigantic. I will try not to refactor. Sometimes the interests of having a tidy wiki come before your wishes, in my estimation. --User talk:Tony Sidaway 14:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it is "always easy to find your own comments" at all. Infact, I see it as the total opposite. You are scanning for your comments in the rendered view. How does everyone using the same method make it easier to anyone to find their own. Thats totally illogical. Finding my comments easily is the reason I have HTML in mine. I also do not see how mine is overly long, yet as Aaron referenced above, you still insist on refactoring it, on non ANx or here pages, which you do not own and have no actual jurisdiction over. People actually find it offensive that you are manipulating their signatures. Ansell 07:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be easy to find because you would just search on "--Ansell". It's true that I don't own any page on the wiki. However all pages on the wiki are editable by anyone. While I may change the appearance of a signature, I do so in order to improve the page without destroying the signature's function as a signature. This encapsulates the essence of editing a wiki. In the particular edit Aaron references below, I improved the section immensely by removing several kilobytes of unnecessary clutter. While I won't normally refactor a single instance of a signature on my list, I will not hesitate to refacror extreme instances of wasteful clutter. --User talk:Tony Sidaway 14:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe there is agreement on a "signature's function" and what the line is to "wasteful clutter", or even that there should be an agreement on those things. Editing despite the wishes of several others, even if in good faith, does not seem like "the essence of editing a wiki". The mentioned edit is also probably not "several kilobytes" (I'm pretty sure it's less than 2KB, counting characters) - I think you are overestimating the extent of beneficial effects and the importance of this signature-refactoring thing. AySz88 17:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to argue that signatures serve some function other than to identify the author of an edit and mark the date and time at which it was made, but I don't think you'll get anywhere. If several people think that another editor shouldn't remove clutter from a discussion, those several people have forgotten what the discussion page is for. It isn't a place to deposit your graffiti. --User talk:Tony Sidaway 23:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are arguing that the signatures only function is to identify the user and the date and time, then you are going about it the wrong way. You're saying that they shouldn't be marked up at all. Then you need to go argue to get rid of styled signatures, not change people's one-by-one. You're no refactor page is a joke, and your continued resiliance to other's wished is incivil. I thought we had this hammered out. Please don't incite people by continuing what you're doing. Ch u ck^(contrib) 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, turning off custom styled signatures has attracted some developer attention. Signatures are for exactly what Tony says they are: identifying who you are, when the comment was posted, and that's it. I think this would actually be a good idea, despite the loss of my lovely light red signature. --Cyde 18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If custom signatures were turned off, I won't complain. But until then, don't jump the gun. If developers are really thinking about turning custom sigs off, then just wait til they do. Ch u ck^(contrib) 18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You say: "You're saying that they shouldn't be marked up at all." I'm not saying that. I'm just removing odd bits of clutter from discussions. --User talk:Tony Sidaway 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And it's not your place to decide what constitutes clutter and what does not. Ch u ck^(contrib) 22:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm an editor of a wiki known as Wikipedia, and as such part of my job in editing discussions is to decide what is clutter and what is not. I choose to single out cosmetic elements that are not part of a discussion and are not related to it, and remove them, thereby improving the quality of the information by improving the signal-to-noise ratio. --User talk:Tony Sidaway 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your continuing arguments make me believe that you believe that signatures should not have any additions to the placement of their username. If that is so, then go argue for that to become policy or part of the programming, and don't remove user's signatures edit-by-edit. I consider it rude and incivil, and if any user who wasn't as prominant as you are did this, they would be quickly warned and blocked for disruption to make a point and incivility. Please reconsider. Ch u ck^(contrib) 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you're entitled to your opinion. By the way I've tried to have my signature appear as [[User talk:Tony Sidaway|]], and in fact that is the way in which it is currently entered in my preferences, but Mediawiki seems to expand that. If I reverted to the default signature, it seems to me, it would save a little clutter without losing any significant function. However I'm not enough of a puritan to care about saving 20 bytes or whatever it is. But I do appreciate those who are prepared to do the wikignome thing for me. Thanks for that. --Tony Sidaway 23:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough of this signature nonsense.

Tony, you can fix this entire situation and discuss with me exactly what you don't like about my signature and I'll consider changing it. You can be communicative and open for a change or I will revert every single change to my signature that I see you make. No discussion. Either be open to talk, I continue reverting your inconsiderate "refactoring" (of a signature that does not violate WP:SIG in any way, shape or form) or block me for disruption right now before I get to doing that. (Talking, for the less-informed of us, is that thing where you start typing words to someone else)

Tell me what you don't like about it, or leave it alone. "Refactor" it all you want on your own talk page, but the line gets drawn there. I don't mind being blocked if it means getting the message through to you. WP:POINT it may be, but you're no better.

If you think my signature is long, talk about it. Tell me why it's long. Tell me how I can change it. Be open, willing to talk, communicative. Otherwise, you have no say. Quite honestly (and someone has to say this), stop being a dick.

If you didn't have so many admins behind you because you're the ArbCom clerk (some of them are probably afraid of you, but I'm not), you'd have been blocked by now for WP:POINT ("refactoring" signatures is entirely disrupting Wikipedia to make your point). Consider that. --nathanrdotcom 05:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't require you to do anything. I have no problem with you or your signature, except insofar as I occasionally remove some of the unnecessary clutter in the course of normal talk page editing. --Tony Sidaway 07:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opt out page

Well I'll tell you what I'll do. People who care about this should make an edit on User:Tony Sidaway/No refactor and I'll try to avoid refactoring their signatures outside my talk page and WP:AN and its subpages (where someone has placed a notice warning people to expect refactoring in the interests of keeping the pages free of clutter).

Does that seem reasonable to you, GTBacchus? --Tony Sidaway 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't adoption of the scripting solutions offered above instead allow you to get the :uncluttered: look you like without impacting on other people at all? - Aaron Brenneman (no timestamp)

That strikes me as a very congenial solution, Tony, and I'm hope it will be well appreciated by those who are bothered by your refactoring. I think it's mighty good of you to offer that, and I'm happy to be among the first to refrain from adding my name to that page. Although, since I'm not someone who was upset by it in the first place, I don't think I can speak for those whose opinions really count... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the offer stands and the page is there. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added this to my page header. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Would sigs like mine, which don't use fancy code but still use a little more code than usual, get redone on pages like yours and ANI?--Ikiroid 01:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the size of the thing. In other words, clutter. Noise. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'm not still the upset editor in question; as I mentioned earlier, it's not that big of a deal to me. I asked a question and got an answer; as long as you're not following me around changing my sig, then I really don't care what you do on your own talk page. As for ANI, whatever, in the end I really don't care. I never thought that my quesiton would turn into such a heated debate, and I hope that the editors who are continuing it are doing so for their own reasons, not on my behalf. Romarin 01:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Romarin, this debate was already here independently of your asking. Heck of a thing to just wander into, huh? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A rouge admin's work is never done, I tell you. --Tony Sidaway 01:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

But they're not divisive or inflammatory, so T1 doesn't -- Oh wait, wrong dispute.</joke> Thanks for offering a compromise, but I don't understand what you mean by "on balance, it may help if you sign your edit" - perhaps you misplaced the "like this" under the first bullet? --AySz88 (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean that I can get the usernames from the history, but it may help if the entry is signed. --Tony Sidaway 02:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the page meatball:ConflictParadox is interesting to read with this signature dispute in mind. Maybe it's not directly applicable, but it's certainly interesting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugh! That term "barn raising" makes me want to vomit. One of the few obtrusively American aspects of wiki culture. --Tony Sidaway 09:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It would definitely help if editors avoid displaying names other than their usernames. --Tony Sidaway 09:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may raise one other little point here... Those of us who are members of Esperanza are instructed to add a green letter into our signature. This, of course, makes the code a bit longer, perhaps too long for your liking. My point is simply that we don't necessarily all make fancy signatures for the sake of having fancy signatures. Sometimes we do it out of respect for the guidelines that comes with certain Wikipedia memberships. Romarin 13:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza, and other groups like it, are just these guys, you know? They don't have the power to instruct anybody, and the membership pages for those groups are emphatically not guideline or policy. I don't think Esperanza signatures are likely to make any problems, but that doesn't mean I won't occasionally refactor. It's just a habit, and I think it's quite a good one. If somebody wants to know if you're a member of some group, they can look on your user page. Putting it into each and every comment you make on a discussion page is counter-productive. --Tony Sidaway 15:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I know you disagree, and that's fine; I was just bringing this up because I think it is a legitimate reason, and no one had mentioned it yet. romarin [talk ] 15:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to extend, if belatedly, my thanks for your "opt out" page; to recognize that some humans find paramount what others deem trivial is not the logical thing to do, "but it is the human thing to do." Thanks again. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just FYI

User_talk:Romarin#User_talk:Alienus_and_things_that_don.27t_make_sense. Nandesuka 18:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Confirms what I thought--some bright and caring people caught up by Alienus' handwaving. --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

An alternate interpretation is that a number of people, some of whom are by no means my fans, are unhappy with your behavior. Alienus 06:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That comes with the territory. --Tony Sidaway 12:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake?

Tony, in this edit you say you are " Deleting stuff created by nutter", but then delete a section first posted by MONGO (starting with a copied note from Pokipsy76) rather than just Prometheuspan's recent additions to it. I assume you were referring to Prometheuspan, but it could be taken to be calling MONGO (or Pokipsy76) 'a nutter' since he "created" the section. That said, there was just a discussion and general agreement about archiving the section anyway. --CBD 03:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I obviously wouldn't refer to either of them by that name. I removed the section because it seemed unproductive. Please restore if you think it may be useful in some way. --Tony Sidaway 03:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the discussion go naturally in the archieve like the other ones? Why should it instead be deleted as you tried to do?--Pokipsy76 09:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I manually archived the section and diffs for individual edits can still be retrieved from the history of the main AN/I page if needed. --CBD 11:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious sockpuppetry?

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph O. White (over an article created by NYC2TLV (talk • contribs), there's been a small spate of brand-new users voting to keep the article. Okay, a little suspicious, but nothing more. However, two of the users (Stentorian (talk • contribs) and Maccaphile (talk • contribs), have full-fledged user pages, despite having made no edits to them at all -- the user pages are entirely the product of User:NYC2TLV -- see here and here. Is this ridiculously obvious, or should I still go through Checkuser regarding the other brand-new users (SpeechFreedom (talk • contribs) and Kengineer1 (talk • contribs))? --Calton | Talk 04:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For now, I recommend treating them as new editors (and treat their contributions as such). I don't know whether checkuser would help here. If it's really obvious you don't need that; on the other hand if they're not obviously up to no good a checkuser could be refused. --Tony Sidaway 11:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please be more civil, especially when dealing with problem users (in particular, I'm thinking of the Prometheuspan thread on WP:AN). It's hard to warn someone for being uncivil or needlessly coarse when you're doing it loudly and publically. - A Man In Black 10:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have a point. --Tony Sidaway 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh

Could you explain your deletion of this article to me? The reasoning you gave was "Seems to be pure propaganda. Perhaps needs to be rewritten as an encyclopedia article". If you don't like something in the article, you can always delete it. I don't see where a delete without any discussion whatsoever is called for. I restored the page for now. --Woohookitty 11:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I gave my reason for deletion in the summary. --Tony Sidaway 11:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arb-Com Workshops

Tony, I have briefly looked at a couple of recent ArbCom cases, and in particular in the case of FourthAve it seems to me that the workshop, particularly the proposed remedies, is a cut-and-paste job, which is probably fine. However I think this predisposes the ArbCom to consider a limited set of remedies - in particular in this case there is no option to ban for periods other than 1 year. In your clerking role is this something that could be improved, or am I barking up the wrong tree? Rich Farmbrough 22:26 10 May 2006 (UTC).

In my experience the arbitration committee doesn't just consider the workshop proposals, but makes most of the running itself. The best way anybody with your concerns can address them is to edit workshop pages and, if you think the proposed decision is going all wrong, make a comment on the talk page or in email. --Tony Sidaway 22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wonder why this isn't archiving. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't archiving because Rich put wikilinks in the timestamp on his sig, which is nonstandard (and isn't normally rendered by ~~~~~). --Cyde↔Weys 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The light at the end of the tunnel is a train.

While I think the NoRefactor page is a well-intented action, I think I'm already seeing cracks appear around the edges. I tried refactoring it for you [1] (and risked a paradox which could have swallowed the universe), but Aaron overturned it. Despite the "no instructions" clause, I think people will continue to add them, and consider this page a policy or contract to which only you shall be accountable. Worse, if you refactor someone on the list (whether it's a mistake or a necessary refactor), it will simply derail the discussion while someone drags out this dead horse to beat it some more. I think it's best just to remove the pages, and let life go on. Folks will eventually understand that editing and refactoring is just a part of wiki-life. --InkSplotch 17:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they'll soon understand that anyway. Refactoring the more egregious clutter of someone on the list serves to remind him that it isn't a license to ~~splurge his graffiti~~ deposit large amounts of gratuitous formatting all over the wiki at will. --Tony Sidaway 20:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As someone whose name is on the list, I'd consider this a borderline personal attack, and at the least dreadfully incivil. brenneman 06:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is conceivable that you might regard this description of your very anti-social activities as a personal attack. For this I apologise and I've reworded. --Tony Sidaway 11:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider that response to be incivil as well. The sting in the first half is in no way mitigated by the words "I apologise" in the second. I'd ask again, ask cordially as possible, that you remain civil even in stressful discussions.brenneman 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to accommodate your feelings (which I have to admit I find extremely difficult to understand). I'm sorry if you find this stressful; I'd no idea. The content of the RfC is very, very difficult for me and, I think, most Wikipedians to understand. Some forty people who have troubled to read the RfC clearly can't see what's wrong with refactoring--particularly on talk pages where there isn't even a content issue. --Tony Sidaway 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's common courtesy to leave people's signatures alone once they've opted out. That's what the list is for, right? Alienus 06:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice thing to do except when it would be unreasonable to do so. A section containing a substantial number of particularly large and ugly signatures may yet be refactored (like this), if only for the sake of sanity. --Tony Sidaway 12:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a precise, actionable definition of "clutter" and "graffiti"? I've tried to make my signature as short as possible and it's probably still too long. Moreover, if talk pages are getting cluttered and full of graffiti, what about the article space itself? Should I be concerned that a mention of the National Register of Historic Places in a state park is just cluttering up the article? Or that the mere existence of an article about a tower along Highway 100 is just clutter? It's probably clutter if nobody is reading it, right?

"Clutter" in signatures is pretty clear: Any use of the , , <div>, , tags, any use of CSS, and any more than one link in a signature is clutter. I'm now aware of that. But beyond that, what counts as clutter in the article space? --User:Elkman 04:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Anything that doesn't directly relate to the discussion can be described as clutter. An actionable definition isn't necessary; refactoring probably can't be reduced to a precise science and there's no need for that anyway. Refactoring of articles to remove clutter is routine; it's part of editing the encyclopedia. I'm quite surprised that you didn't know this. --Tony Sidaway 10:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I already knew that articles can be edited mercilessly, and that the goal of editing an article is to improve it. In fact, User:MONGO and I went through that process when working on Glacier National Park (US). Other people cited awkward phrasing and less-than-brilliant prose, and it took a fair amount of copyediting to bring the article to featured article status. I, for one, was really happy that other people helped. But the issue there was improving a good article, not addressing the violation of a guideline. (I hope it wasn't, anyway.) The issue with signatures and talk pages is that refactoring of signatures is a process of enforcing the guideline against long, unwieldy, disruptive signatures. And if there's a problem with people causing disruption with long, cluttered signatures, then there's probably a problem with people causing disruption with cluttered articles -- or articles that shouldn't be there in the first place. (I know about WP:CSD and the escalating penalties for people who violate it.) And I'm wondering how soon a policy against article clutter is going to be enforced, with penalties for people who violate article standards. --User:Elkman 13:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You've lost me there. If an article can be refactored and a talk page can be refactored, what is it about this particular, very effective refactoring that is a problem? I don't know where you get the idea that I'm refactoring as a means of "addressing the violation of a guideline". As far as I'm aware very few of the editors whose huge, ugly signatures I occasionally refactor are violating any guideline at all. They're free to scrawl their graffiti and I, in my turn, am free to do my job as a wikignome to keep the discussions reasonably editable.

You also say "I know about WP:CSD and the escalating penalties for people who violate it". I have been an editor on Wikipedia for about eighteen months and, if by "WP:CSD" you mean "criteria for speedy deletion" I have to say I've never heard of any penalties of any sort, let alone escalating ones, associated with those those criteria.

If someone refactors a discussion page in which you have been involved, this only means that the page has been improved, to the best of that editor's ability, in such a manner that discussion is made easier. If you can see a way to make discussion even easier, feel free to refactor even further. --Tony Sidaway 20:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding community trolls and other ne'er-do-wells

For the record, Tony, let me say that though your actions are controversial with many people, I think that your bold approach to people with an objective of harming the community is both refreshing and needed. For time immemorial, trolls, vandals, and people hostile to the project have been accorded more faith than they merit. I'd be interested in seeing numbers on vandalism reform rates, but for my purposes, I have to imagine they are rather low. Treating them with a strict but fair hand seems the best way to go, and for habitual offenders, bringing the hammer down is precisely what they deserve. Keep up the good work, Tony. --64.132.163.178 15:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You know I would never have accepted a bet on becoming the new RickK. I don't think I'm the Judge Roy Bean type. Those problems I've encountered have been dealt with strictly by the book. There do, however, seem to be a lot of people around who have either never opened the book, or had a peep within its pages and decided that it wasn't to their taste. --Tony Sidaway 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some help with the LGagnon/Alienus affair

Please take a look at [2] to understand the case I have and give me some advice on what to do, if you can. Thanks.Justice III 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have any serious evidence suggesting sock puppetry, I suggest you take it to someone with checkuser privileges. I have no opinion on this, as I've seen no commensurate evidence. There is this but without context it doesn't really take me anywhere. I'd be interested in a realistic case if you can build one, but I'm very skeptical. --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arb-Com Workshops

Wonder why this isn't archiving. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't archiving because Rich put wikilinks in the timestamp on his sig, which is nonstandard (and isn't normally rendered by ~~~~~). --Cyde↔Weys 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Might I be able to draw your attention to this ANI post? Thanks. --TJive 07:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, FYI Theresa Knott unilaterally unblocked User:PatCheng just 12hrs after I blocked another sock 60.229.145.249 (talk • contribs) and 220.239.38.205 (talk • contribs) .Blnguyen | rant-line 02:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The light at the end of the tunnel is a train.

While I think the NoRefactor page is a well-intented action, I think I'm already seeing cracks appear around the edges. I tried refactoring it for you [3] (and risked a paradox which could have swallowed the universe), but Aaron overturned it. Despite the "no instructions" clause, I think people will continue to add them, and consider this page a policy or contract to which only you shall be accountable. Worse, if you refactor someone on the list (whether it's a mistake or a necessary refactor), it will simply derail the discussion while someone drags out this dead horse to beat it some more. I think it's best just to remove the pages, and let life go on. Folks will eventually understand that editing and refactoring is just a part of wiki-life. --InkSplotch 17:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As someone whose name is on the list, I'd consider this a borderline personal attack, and at the least dreadfully incivil. brenneman 06:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is conceivable that you might regard this description of your very anti-social activities as a personal attack. For this I apologise and I've reworded. --Tony Sidaway 11:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's common courtesy to leave people's signatures alone once they've opted out. That's what the list is for, right? Alienus 06:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding community trolls and other ne'er-do-wells

[edit] Some help with the LGagnon/Alienus affair

Please take a look at [4] to understand the case I have and give me some advice on what to do, if you can. Thanks.Justice III 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2006_07_06_dfff.html"

User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 07 06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Good Faith

[edit] RfAr Infinity0

[edit] {{ArbComOpenedParty}}

[edit] Blu Aardvark Arb case

[edit] Linuxbeak

[edit] Category:So-and-so Wikipedians

[edit] WP:PP

[edit] Zeq

[edit] OK

[edit] RickK

[edit] From User talk:Tony Sidaway/No refactor

[edit] Enough of this signature nonsense.

[edit] Opt out page

[edit] Just FYI

[edit] Mistake?

[edit] Obvious sockpuppetry?

[edit] Civility

[edit] Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh

[edit] Arb-Com Workshops

[edit] The light at the end of the tunnel is a train.

[edit] Regarding community trolls and other ne'er-do-wells

[edit] Some help with the LGagnon/Alienus affair

[edit] Arb-Com Workshops

[edit] Hi

[edit] The light at the end of the tunnel is a train.

[edit] Regarding community trolls and other ne'er-do-wells

[edit] Some help with the LGagnon/Alienus affair

Views

Navigation

Search