User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 07 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Porky Pig 2 It takes two to battle 3 Hi 4 blocking of User:The Ungovernable Force 5 Walk away 6 Look who's back 7 National Front (France) and blockings 8 Please reconsider your approach 9 So, is this a better way to handle it? 10 Politics 11 WP:SNOW

[edit] User:Porky Pig

Yes, I did actually stop prior to your message. What you are saying is well understood in "my corner". Honestly that account should just be blocked until the user admits to being a sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock. If you haven't seen it already you might like to peruse the original WP:ANI report about this puppetmaster. Thanks. Netscott 19:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User:WritersCramp and User:List of marijuana slang terms are also very likely socks of this individual. Netscott 19:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I advise you to assume good faith but keep your eyes open. As far as I'm aware the person he's accused of being a sock of isn't currently blocked for any abuse and isn't banned either, so as long as he's behaving himself it's okay. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at this RfC about User:WritersCramp. Forgive me if this question seems ignorant but I don't see where this type of sock puppet usage is covered under "legitimate uses of multiple accounts". The User:Porky Pig account doesn't even qualify under the "over 100 edits" rule-of-thumb. In the interests of transparency shouldn't this new account show this type of an indication? Netscott 19:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can show me some specific ongoing behavior that is disruptive, other than the recent mutual edit warring over sock puppet templates, please do show me. For now I don't yet see this fellow doing any harm, but I'm listening. --Tony Sidaway 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the refusal to accept that users are not allowed to show fair use images on their user pages. User:MONGO finally had to step in and explain that policy in no uncertain terms. This is what actually drew my attention to the thought that this individual was the same as User:SirIsaacBrock due to editorial summaries that were identical. This user's sockpuppet User:List of marijuana slang terms was created to avoid speedy deletion under the recreation clause for the deleted List of marijuana slang terms. That name was user blocked... but the defacto article is still there on the user page. This comment implying that my opinion has been distorted by "hate" in response to a logical question about including a disclaimer in Category:Anti-Semitic people (as is locked into displaying now). And when one's talking about assuming good faith this comment is surely far from that spirit. Netscott 20:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I've deleted the Marijuana thing. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the deletion. Just to illustrate that User:Porky Pig is bad news: As SirIsaacBrock (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) User:NSLE blocked him for disruption on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but as this new sock he shows no sign of having gotten that message as we see here, here, and here. He actually has had to be warned about that not once but twice as this sockpuppet. As User:SirIsaacBrock he successfully had Liftarn (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) blocked under false pretenses (User:Thebainer had to lift the block) and as User:Porky Pig he seems to be continuing in that spirit.

This editor is bad news for Wikipedia and his sockpuppet should just remain indefinitely blocked. Netscott 21:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps. But he wasn't banned. If he really is a problem we'll see it in the next few days. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It takes two to battle

A certain page keeps disappearing mysteriously, while a certain other page that mocks us WikiPlebians stays up. Why? Because Carnildo is one of you while Micoolio is one of us. So much for a free encyclopedia.

I'm disappointed, I didn't think you were one of them. --Juppiter 02:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you check you will see that I also removed unsuitable material from the other page. The page I deleted contained nothing but extremely unsuitable material so I deleted it as an attack page. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you following me? I'm quite flattered. And single too! Alright, I think it's time for me to stop playing games. I've had my fun and now it's time to *obey* the rules. At which Carnildo shrine shall I worship? Surely you can direct me. OK no seriously now I'm done lest the hypocrisy should choke me to death. What happened to the days where pages were listed for deletion and deleted after discussion on their worth? That was before we dangerous types started making pages though. OK OK enough enough. I'll be nice. ^{Juppiter 05:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)}

We have our methods. I'm not the only person who notices what you're up to. --Tony Sidaway 09:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Tony Sidaway, I Just wanted to let you know that SqueakBox and Zapatancas seem to be at eachother again. I read on the José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero about the "Arbitration" that went on. I am expressing concern over the issue because there comments are all over the Talk page of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. I am not sure if these would be considered Personal attacks, but they sure aren't nice. (Erbres 05:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

I looked, didn't seem like much going on really. I already tried for a checkuser on this putative sock but no luck. ---Tony Sidaway 09:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blocking of User:The Ungovernable Force

RJII and hogeye have been disrupting the articles for over a year. Hogeye just comes on and inserts pov material he knows will get changed or deleted fast but just likes to exercise the totally un-wikipedian, abusive attitude that got him banned in the first place. We have been plagued by sockpuppet hogeye for so long that all the editors can recognise him when he pops up. We are that familiar. Of course there is humanity there but Hogeye has always been abusive, disruptive and a supreme edit war instigator. The vast majority of hogeye's edits especially as sockpuppet . are unmalleable and too pov to be molded into the article. Hogeye knows this. Please lift the ban on TUF. He is just looking after the page like the rest of us. Notice that most of the editors of Anarchism are NOT admins who would probably be using their own sysop powers to protect the page. We can't unless F.Tyrers repeatedly does it. Cheers. --maxrspct in the mud 10:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you please unblock TUF. He was edit warring, but he was reverting a blocked user who has a long record of block evasion. - FrancisTyers · 10:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See indefinate blocking of downer as sock puppet: [1]. --max rspct 10:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. If you feel that this is not appropriate, please re-block and leave me a note, or leave me a note asking me to re-block and I will be happy to oblige :) - FrancisTyers · 12:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with you unblocking him. I found his excuses personally unconvincing, however. I hope you don't go around encouraging this kind of grossly disruptive behavior. --Tony Sidaway 13:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that your block was far more disruptive than his helpful behavior. He was reverting the edits of a highly-disruptive sockpuppet of Hogeye. I find The Ungovernable Force to be civil and well-intentioned on more occasions than most Wikipedia users. By blocking him, you were preventing him from doing a service to Wikipedia, a service that many of us do not have time to do: consistently reverting the disruptive edits of the sockpuppet of a ban-evading puppet master with a myriad of false accounts and a very large POV axe to grind. I understand that you are just as well-intentioned, but you might have been a bit over-zealous in this matter. --AaronS 14:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't looked at the edits they were warring over, I presume. --Tony Sidaway 14:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and I know that you've made much ado about the triviality of (only some of, mind you) Drowner's edits. Many users have good evidence to suspect Drowner as being the sockpuppet of banned user Hogeye, who has, for months, been attempting to avoid his ban by use of sockpuppets, anonymous IPs, and anonymous proxies. TUF was helping out other editors who were either too busy or too exasperated to deal with the situation. If you'll note, Drowner's edits were eventually reverted by another user, even after you banned TUF. I also point you to WP:3RR, which makes clear exceptions for the reverting of the edits of banned users and sockpuppets. Even if Drowner were simply fixing a comma splice, a revert would have been entirely justified per official Wikipedia policy. --AaronS 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it doesn't matter whom Ungovernable Force was warring with. His edits were disruptive. Just because an edit doesn't count towards the Three revert rule doesn't mean it isn't disruptive. Ungovernable Force absolutely was not helping out Wikipedia in any way by edit warring in this way. --Tony Sidaway

From WP:Ban

All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.

Please explain how this is disruptive. The Wikipedia policy on disruption is very vague, so I assume that you're operating on your own principles. --AaronS 17:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's disruptive because twelve pointless reverts on an article are always disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems mighty presumptuous to me. First of all -- and you know this -- the reverts were not pointless. Reverting the edits of banned users and sockpuppets is not only uncontroversial, it is in adherence to Wikipedia policy. Second, I ask you, disruptive to whom? The perennial editors of the article, perhaps? We've already told you that we think that the block was uncalled for, and that TUF was being helpful, not disruptive. Your block was disruptive, because it kept a helpful editor from doing good work. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm quite surprised that you're being so stubborn about this matter, even in the face of numerous reasoned dissenting voices. --AaronS 17:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this. Those reverts were hopelessly, mind-numbingly, tooth-grindingly pointless. That's disruption. --Tony Sidaway 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if, in the future, you did not use your administrative authority, with regard to this article, to block or otherwise penalize editors who are following Wikipedia policy, simply because you find their edits to be "hopelessly, mind-numbingly, tooth-grindingly pointless." Perhaps you would do better to listen to and thoughtfully consider the opinions of many other reasonable editors on this matter, instead of stubbornly sticking to your own subjective evaluation as to the merits of an editor's perfectly acceptable actions. Certainly, I hope that you will no longer use your administrative tools to enforce your own vague standards of meritorious editing. One can only hope. The fact remains that you blocked a user who sincerely believed he was upholding Wikipedia policy, (and I refer you to WP:Assume good faith with regard to your comments about his "unconvincing excuses") disregarded that user's explanation and objections, and ignored the interjections of other editors, as well, all to satisfy what I can only imagine to be your own peculiar sense of the aesthetic. Please let me know how your struggle against pointlessness progresses, for I have a keen appreciation of irony. I cannot conceive of so trivial a crusade as one against triviality. --AaronS 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not crusading, just dealing with disruptive editors. If you don't act disruptively, you'll not be affected by any of my administrative actions. --Tony Sidaway 19:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thus we go back to my original point. TUF explained what he was doing. The other main editors of the article explained to you what he was doing. We all told you that he was being helpful and attempting to stop the disruption of a banned user's sockpuppet. You still insisted on applying your arbitrary definition of disruption to the incident and decided to maintain the block. Anybody who made an effort to disagree with you was met with coy and dismissive replies. With such a display of arrogance, it should be no surprise that other editors are coming to the support of the user you wronged. Judging from your words and tone, I don't expect anything resembling an apology from you to TUF, or any admission of even the slightest error, but I felt the need to voice my objections. --AaronS 19:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm saddened that you don't see that The Ungovernable Force's reverts were precisely the wrong way to edit. My definition is not arbitrary. I will do it again if and when the occasion arises. This is how we keep the wiki relatively free of disruptive behavior. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be saddened. You've yet to explain your definition of disruptiveness. How, exactly, did TUF's reverts disrupt the editing of others? --AaronS 19:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw man. They disrupted the wiki and I've explained how they did that above. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a straw man, because I had no clue we were talking about the wiki itself. How is the wiki disrupted? If you think that a dozen reverts on an article that a banned user's sock puppet has been editing disrupts the wiki as a whole, I'd be interested to learn how. I don't see how it would justify blocking a user for 24 hours without warning. --AaronS 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Any time a couple of editors get into a ridiculous sequence of multiple reverts (aka edit warring) over trivia, it's a disruption. Any use of Wikipedia as a field of battle is a disruption. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just dogma. You have yet to give me anything but platitudes. Your choice of words -- "ridiculous" and "trivia" -- is a testament to the arbitrariness of your doctrine. I also do not understand why you continue to fail to distinguish between users and banned/sockpuppet users. I'm disappointed that you cannot, for even the briefest instant, admit that you might not be categorically correct. --AaronS 23:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for other people's opinions on the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_User:Tony_Sidaway. I'm sure you'll want to be able to voice you're opinion there. --AaronS 01:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! :) - FrancisTyers · 17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of fact. No editor or administrator is required to revert the edits of a banned user or sockpuppet. I am familiar with this topic. The bulk of my administative log deals with the sockpuppets of a particular banned user that targets me. The policies all state that the edits of banned users/sockpuppets MAY be reverted or deleted. But no particular Wikipedia user is required to do it. If I was required to do this I would never do anything else on Wikipedia or real life. : - )

Often it is best if admin and editors distance themselves from a particular banned user/sockpuppet for awhile. Otherwise it becomes too personal between the two parties. In this case, it seems to me that it was becoming a personal issue and that made it an edit war or disruptive behavior. That was the reason for the block. Take care, FloNight ^talk 08:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (and back to reverting and deleting Amorrow).

Editors may revert sockpuppet edits.. though because they are not required (and some would POVishly want them not to) they should be banned? OH they should be banned because they are familiar with each other unlike Sideaway who has just stepped (disrupted) in without much familiarity with either party..?? RUBBISH! --max rspct 09:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this: editors are expected to use commonsense and avoid disrupting Wikipedia. -Tony Sidaway 11:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this: editors and administrators are expected to avoid being arrogant and violating WP:Civil. I had heard of there being self-righteous, stubborn, "I'm never wrong" administrators on Wikipedia, but this is the first time I've had the pleasure of personally encountering one. --AaronS 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that you're impatient and frustrated, but I can only advise you on something I found early on: often such frustration may be due largely to one's own lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. It takes time to become familiar with it, and even then some of it frankly doesn't make sense. But it's well worth it to Assume good faith with all contributors. Believe me I've gone out of my way to avoid hurting you, but you seem to have decided that the only thing that can resolve your hurt is if I change my opinion to be the same as yours. It isn't arrogance that makes my opinion different from yours, and I'm not going out of my way to hold or defend perverse opinions. It's quite normal for people to hold different opinions and there's nothing to be afraid of. --Tony Sidaway 13:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My, my. My goodness. Impatient? About what? I'm not trying to get anything done, here. So, your choice of word, in that case, is quite strange, indeed. Frustrated? Maybe a little, but not really. I don't really think that "frustration" describes my disappointment in your words and actions. I assumed good faith with you, and I still believe that you are well-intentioned, but your words and actions belie an unparalleled arrogance and self-righteousness. I've been editing Wikipedia for more than three years, if I remember correctly. I'm more familiar with it than you might think. Of course, I'm beginning to realize that you seem to believe that anybody who does not agree with you must suffer from some perverse error or must, in some way, be deficient. My opinion is nothing more than that you should show respect for fellow editors and consider their words as genuine, reasoned, and, God forbid, perhaps even somewhat correct. You see, you've assumed that I am on some extreme, demanding that you recount everything that you've done. Hardly. I'm trying to pull you away from the extreme that you have found, where you are always correct, and where those who disagree are somehow defective. That's wrong. --AaronS 14:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps I misread your mood as frustration. Disappointment it is. I'm sorry to disappoint you further. I'm unable to recognise that I've done something wrong unless I have, in fact, done something wrong. You described my block as "disruptive" and yet it restored peace to the article. You described The Ungovernable Force's edits as "helpful" and yet they constituted series of six mindless reverts in the course of ninety minutes, which were of course immediately reverted by the other fellow. And yet you felt that I'd stopped him performing what you described as a service to Wikipedia.

I'm prepared to be described as wrong, but I'll give my opinion: those opinions that you expressed were unreasonable and at variance with the observable facts. It's only my opinion because, having thought about this and discussed it at length, I happen to think it's correct and you haven't presented any evidence to support a change of mind. This is what I mean when I refer to your frustraton at the fact that I have an opinion different from yours. If I felt strongly enough about you to have a problem with your attitude, it wouldn't be that your opinion is different from mine (this is, as I said, to be expected). It is rather that you still seem to think that there is something wrong with my having an opinion that differs from your own. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I have no problem with your opinion. I expressed my own initial disagreement with your actions, but have since moved on from that. My issue, now, is your attitude and behavior. I'm very open to disagreement. When I edit controversial articles (such as the one originally in question), I expect disagreement, and welcome people to disagree with me. It is my hope to compromise. I find that many people on Wikipedia are intelligent and reasonable. You seem to be intelligent, but, so far, I've found you to be a bit on the unreasonable side. And I say this not because I disagree with you, but only because you have disagreed with a display of haughty arrogance and unwillingness for compromise that is unfitting of any editor, especially an administrator. To me, it demonstrates a lack of assuming good faith, teetering on, if not explicitly, incivility. I understand that you care about this project, and that you are a good, well-intentioned editor. Does it not matter to you that so many have expressed the very same sentiments that I am expressing, here? For most people, this would cause at least a slight consideration of behavior adjustment. I'm a pretty bright guy, and I think pretty highly of myself -- I'm not afraid to admit that -- but I also think highly of others and reflect upon their opinions and observances deeply, especially on the subject of social grace. By very definition, common courtesy is defined not from within, but by the reactions of others. --AaronS 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we may be making progress below so I'll put any further comments there. --Tony Sidaway 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walk away

Hello Tony, walk away from the discussion on AN/I. Nothing good is going to come from it. Everything you say is going to be hyper-analyzed. I agree with you about the block. The discussion about assuming good faith is odd considering you were carrying out your administrative duties which call for making judgments about editors! FloNight 07:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh to tell the truth I was having fun being pilloried for whatever it was they thought I'd done, but you're right. It's better to walk away. --Tony Sidaway 09:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thought you would find this interesting. [2] Who has the correct answers sheet for those questions? ; -) FloNight 16:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly how Aaron Brenneman started. There seems to be a common trend towards abandoning all pretence of assuming good faith. "You disagree with me, therefore you hate me. So I will attack you." --Tony Sidaway

I'm not attacking you in any way. I'm asking you to reconsider the supreme moral superiority and absolute rightness of your position. That's all. I've said, on a number of occasions, that I believe that you are an intelligent, well-intentioned, good editor. I have not said that your actions were wholly wrong -- just that they weren't wholly correct. I have never accused you of hating me. I have never ceased to assume good faith. I find it very strange that you have decided to caricature my reasonable opinions as simple-minded childishness and bad faith. --AaronS 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is our rhetorical framing. Where do you get this from, for instance?

"I'm asking you to reconsider the supreme moral superiority and absolute rightness of your position."

I've never claimed to be absolutely right or to have any moral superiority at all.

You see what I mean? By adding a massive dose of rhetoric to a simple disagreement, you've made it out to be some kind of character defect.

I of course recognise that I caricatured you unreasonably above. However, in your questions on RFA you were clearly caricaturing me. So we're both being unfair to one another. Let's stop this. It's silly. --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken with regard to the rhetoric. What can I say? I like words. I am happy to admit that as a character defect. ;) Regarding the RFA, I made no reference to you there. I was inspired by our discussion, and I want to get more involved in the process. So, naturally, I applied what I gained here to there. I was not intending to caricature you, just coalescing my own nebulous understanding and standards with regard to how Wikipedia should be. --AaronS 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Look who's back

Surprise, surprise. Look who's back: SirIsaacBrock (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Now do we want to continue to assume good faith and say that User:Porky Pig/User:SirIsaacBrock wasn't outright lying when he denied the sockpuppet nature of User:Porky Pig? And what does he do now that he's back? Starts taunting yours truly about the "fact" that I'm an "anti-Semite". Tony Sidaway, given the apparent long term disruptive nature and block evasion of this individual shouldn't he be re-blocked for an extended period of time (preferrably indefinitely)? Thanks Netscott 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very complex issue and I hope you will seek out advice from people other than me. What follows is my personal opinion, but I won't get involved in enforcement on the basis of my own sketchy knowledge.

The return of this editor is a cause for concern. Ensure that he really is a sock of Porky Pig, and if so, and he's been as abusive as you have given me cause to believe, then you'll have no problem obtaining a community ban. In the unlikely event that the ban should fail muster, just take him to the Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, given the further trollish commentary that he's posted to User:Tom harrison I think your view is 100% correct. Would you kindly make commentary corresponding to your view on the latest ANI post about his block evasion? Thanks. Netscott 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please copy verbatim and in full with my permission. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One sockpuppet (and corresponding lie) confirmed, three more to come. Netscott 18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Gather your evidence, then if it confirms your suspicions, fire on all tubes. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Front (France) and blockings

Hello Tony! Thanks for unblocking. I just wanted to let you know, I'm not sure it's the best policy to block two users as soon as an argument starts. This wasn't going on for days: I just happenned to include some text in National Front (France), with a source, which happenned to be to User:Intangible's dislikes. Since he reverted my move, I reverted him, which is quite normal. He did this three times, which is a clear breach of no 3RV (I don't think you can call this gaming, I've met Intangible on others pages and no where have we got such an argument, notwithstanding our different POV). You can see these edits here: [3], [4], [5], [6]. So I don't really understand why I got blocked. I've been involved in much stronger arguments, most notably at Hamas (check the talk page), nowhere the situation has called for a block. Now, to return to the National Front, Intangible is involved there since at least a week, as he says, in an attempt to impede the qualification of "far right" to this party, although this is not disputed by anyone else than themselves (and yet...). If you see the talk page, you will see that he was up alone against everybody else. All in all, this is not a big deal, and you are right to say to people that they should cool down and play outside, some of us on Wikipedia might tend to forget this, but please be aware that it is no good for one's reputation to be blocked, and that this is usually reserved to vandalism (or 3RV). I've haven't done none of them, which is why I feel justified to leave you a "complaint message" :). Actually, I hadn't edited in a while, and you're block yesterday impeded me from editing some stuff when I couldn't sleep, in an entirely different articles... Thanks for your attention, I just guess that blocking should be kept an ultimate measure, and that edits links should be provided to see where exactly the infringer did infringe the rules. (I actually let a message at Intangible concerning 3RV not to block him, I have kind of a dislike for Wikilawyering, but to warn him that he was starting to get on everybody's nerves — a Request for Arbitration has been called for by User:Cberlet and others on the Front National talk page... Thanks, please be careful to blocking users, which should be kept as an ultimate solution and which is not normally used as a "collective punition", but as a mean to block some vandal, of which none of us are right now (apart if you take into account Intangible's 3RV, which I would have let go). Cheers! Tazmaniacs 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, but this [7] edit is about a content dispute; you make a claim there about the FN which does not follow from your source. Intangible 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This 22 edit doesn't erase the 3 others reversion you made, but I'll stop here bothering Tony's page. Tazmaniacs 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I know a lot of people don't like the idea that they can be blocked for just messing around. I don't, you don't. Just remember it's an encyclopedia. Blocking is often a wake-up call, and I used it in this sense today. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

All right. But you seem to forget that getting block marks you as an un-cooperative editor, and should therefore be used with caution. Tazmaniacs 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please reconsider your approach

Tony, a little while back another admin left you a note about your pathological seeking out of trouble and conflict, which see called "single-mindedly disruptive". She wanted to you stop your, as she put it, "joyride of being right there in the middle of controversy." You of course dismissed the comments as baseless and silly, as you often do of criticism, and pointed out that some "well known and well respected editors" supported your latest behavior. Well, you must be aware by now that many other well known and well respected editors are often much less supportive of your behavior. In fact, many editors have asked you nicely, many times, to stop being rude, and stop seeking out trouble for trouble's sake. I'm not talking about trolls or myspacers either, I mean real editors. As hard as it may be for you to believe that reasonable people often disagree with your approach, please try to accept this. It's becoming more and more painfully obvious to the rest of us. You're making more heat than light, and I suspect this will continue to be the case until you radically rethink your approach to the project. I recommend you take some time off, think about what you're trying to accomplish here, and ask yourself whether you're accomplishing those goals in an effective way. I think if you're honest with yourself, you'll come to see that you're not being very effective in furthering the project. Friday (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Actually I remember no such incident but I'll take your word for it.

I don't seek out conflict for its own sake, but if it happens I handle it well and, over time, my view tends to prevail. I am cool with the fact that many reasonable people may disagree with my approach, and I'm sure that you are cool with the same facts with respect to your own behavior, but that's how all mature people are supposed to be, isn't it? I don't think you've given me any good reason to rethink my approach to the project.

You've been engaging in low-level sniping for some time. Please stop that. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your view tends to prevail over time only because people get fed up with the fact that, regardless of the situation, your view will not change in even the slightest way. I have been giving you the opportunity to admit that you might not have been 100% correct in dealing with the Anarchism in the United States situation, and you haven't even budged 1/10,000th of a percentage point. Also, your history, the present situation, and the comments of other editors and administrators, sort of go against your assertion that you handle conflict well. This is the last that I have to say to you regarding this matter, since I don't see any real point in discussing it with you further. I guess that means you win, right? There you go, let your view "prevail." --AaronS 17:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Was that a real quote? Seriously, I hope not. Where did I give you the impression that I thought I was 100% correct? That would be silly. However, I do obviously have an opinion and tend to express it. This is what people are supposed to do. It's how we're wired. You say what you think. I say what I think. We kinda fuzz it around a bit and then we may change our opinion and then it starts again.

I wouldn't be attracting this kind of flack if I were completely correct. However we can only resolve this by discussion, not by one or other of us leaping to the conclusion that the other is some kind of pathological case. Having said that, I do seriously wonder what the problem is here. I blocked some guys, I patiently explained to one of them why he had been blocked, and then I dealt with care and attention to numerous criticisms of my behavior.

What, I wasn't persuaded to agree with the criticism, you say? Well yes, that's correct. I wasn't persuaded. I cannot pretend that I was. I know that I hurt some feelings, but that's inevitable when you block someone who actually believed he was edit warring to save the wiki. But let's not make more of that than what it is. If he had used his brain and actually looked at what he was doing, he wouldn't have edited disruptively. I hope he will learn from that. --Tony Sidaway 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see where you are coming from. My main problem was that I felt that you weren't really listening to anybody. I have to admit that I still feel that way. When I say that, I don't mean that my problem is that you weren't persuaded. That's your call to make, of course. I suppose that the issue that I had was that I didn't feel that you were even allowing for such an option. Perhaps I was wrong, but I don't think so. Anyways, no hard feelings. I respect you and am more than happy to agree to disagree with you. As I have said to some others, I'm a philosophy student, and tend to discuss things, shall we say, a bit much. I really wanted to know what your position was and to examine and evaluate how you and other editors and administrators perceive some of the more vague aspects of Wikipedia policy. It's a learning experience. I hope that you don't feel that I've wasted your time. I don't think that these discussions are ever a waste of time, personally, because I think that there is always something to learn from them. Happy editing. :) --AaronS 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers.--Tony Sidaway 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the fact that many different admins have told you you're being rude and disruptive and you don't even remember it is a good indicator of the problem. A duck doesn't remember the water that falls of its back, either, because it failed to even notice it at the time. The issue is that you tend to completely ignore legitimate criticism, to such an extent that you don't even remember seeing it. You're doing much to create a poisonous atmosphere here, and it's harmful to the project. My intent is not to snipe, but to get you to treat other editors with respect. I wasn't sure which quotes you meant in asking whether they were real, but the ones I put in my message were directly lifted from the original message and your response to it. Listening to feedback from other editors is essential to being a functional wikipedian, and it's an area where I think you need tremendous improvement. Friday (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your typical tactic, Tony. When people complain about, for example, your rude attitude and lack of response to criticism, you repond by saying that some edits you made were good. Well, yeah, most of them are. Heck, I probably agree with your edits about 75% of the time. I see nothing wrong with short-circuiting a process when the outcome is already established. Being bold is good, but if many people are aasking you to be less bold, surely there's a reason for it? As your claim that you don't ignore criticism, that's so obviously false as to be laughable. You've had multiple admins telling you to cut out the rudeness, and later you claim to not remember it. Has it ever occurred to you that when you attract at least 10 times as much criticism as other, equally active admins, maybe the problem is you? You've done some good work here, but it's nowhere near worth the cost of the poison and vitriol you seem to enjoy spreading. Why are you so resistant to the idea of finding a way to contribute to the project without all the pointless disruption? Your drama-seeking behavior hurts us all. Friday (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you've stepped far beyond the level of civility that is appropriate to Wikipedia now. "A typical tactic", indeed.

Yesterday I asked on the Wikipedia admins channel for people to review this affair. A number of people did so, one of them Jimbo Wales, another one a very popular arbitrator. They had some constructive suggestions. Overall, no serious problems. They could of course be wrong and you could be right. In such circumstances I have to make an evaluation. I have done so. I disagree with your assessment. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, now you've closed a DRV request early, after being implored to not close things early and out of process. Please reconsider and revert yourself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It was an overwhelming endorsement. Why waste more time on this? --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It was one day, which is hardly enough time to figure outt he true endorsement of the community for a process that's designed to take more than that, and it was brought up in the same day when you were implored not to close things out of process. It's almost like you actually don't care about what the rest of us have to say in this case. Besides, no one's asking you to take any more time with it - if you don't like the discussion, it's not hurting you to keep it open. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not stopping you dragging this thing out interminably if you want to. My close was merely a suggestion that, at this point, we might decide to pay attention to more important things than this. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you, as I don't revert major actions by admins on principle, but I prefer it. I'm sure many of us would like to pay more attention to more important things, but it's hard when we can't be assured that we can rely on those in charge to adhere to basic processes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Get someone else to do it then. I honestly have no objection if you want to spend more time over this issue. As for the "basic processes", Jeff, it's an encyclopedia If an article is good we don't delete it, and fuck the basic processes, whatever they might be. Only content matters. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you know it can't work that way. The reason we have these processes is so we can have the content dealt with properly in the encyclopedia. I don't understand why you don't get that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't appear to "get" it because it simply isn't so. Only content matters. It's an encyclopedia. All the rest can be safely ignored. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever works for you, dude. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony. I noticed that you have at least admitted you were not 100% correct, yet I also noted your extremely careful wording to not at any point admit where you believe you were wrong. Thus as you say, you "say what you think". So please, I think it will benefit a lot of people here to hear you admit where you believe you went wrong. It would show good faith on your part and allow other people here to see that their claims against you are unfounded. While I agree that you do not believe yourself to have been persuaded, I do not believe you have ever "re-assessed" yourself. When you are in a position of power, it is often good to internalise and perform your own QA on yourself, it allows you to catch those times when you were unaware of what you were doing. This is the whole concept behind "power corrupts"... simply because when one has and wields power a failure to self-assess can lead to a loss of awareness. I do it all the time, going back and honestly and genuinely looking at how I handled things. "Did I do that the best way I could?", "If so many people are telling me I am rude, am I actually rude?". It allows us to develop as people and to ensure that we do not reach a point where the power we have is abused through a simple lack of awareness to our actions and how we are going about them. I implore you, please do an honest and genuine assessment of this situation (don't just go "I have and I am still right"). Enigmatical 22:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I did do anything wrong here. If I believed that I had, I'd say so. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the frustrating part. Of course you don't believe you had done anything wrong, that doesn't mean you didn't... it just means your not aware of it. Given that you have freely admitted you arrogance, one of the detractors to being arrogant is your own self-esteem and self-belief. It means you would be blinded to ever doing wrong ebcause it goes against being arrogant. Thus how would you ever know if you had done wrong if you were not willing to self-assess?

Think about these things:

• There is a difference between "discussing" something and giving them a formal warning. While a person may beleive they are right and did right during "discussion", they may not continue to act in the same manner after having been giving such a warning. You automatically assumed he would continue after a formal warning. Can you not understand that your view of how he would react is fundamentally flawed?
• Drowner was editing the page of his own volition. Not only this but each of his edits were different each time. If it was a true edit war then it would have involved him trying to put back exactly the same information that was taken out. It can be seen that he had no belief that certain content should go in and was purposely editing the article knowing that TUF would refert it. By blocking this user, TUF would no longer have a need to uphold the rules of wikipedia and the problem would have been resolved.
• Contrary to this, TUF was only reverting Drowner specifically to uphold the rules of wikipedia. Blocking TUF would not have fixed the situation but would have allowed Drowner the freedom to continue to edit the page even though he clearly did not demonstrate a desire to have content in the article (otherwise he would have re-added it instead of adding something different every time). Thus blocking TUF would not have resolved the problem.

I think if you think about these facts, accept the possibility that your judgement about someones future actions wasn't the best approach you could take then perhaps you might start to see the things which you are currently blinded to as a result of your own level of self-worth. I know that personally (and I too can be extremely arrogant at times) would hate to know that I overlooked something or was blind to something which resulted in something being unfair. I know that I would want to correct it because despite being arrogant myself I am not inconsiderate. Hopefully this is true of you too and thus I would hope you would at least "attempt" some form of self-assessment "just in case" you did miss something as a result of your behaviour. Worth a few minutes is it not? Enigmatical 04:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you see the subsection immediately above, it seems Tony is kind of fond of blocking several editors at the same time. This is questionable, and I would like to leave a message on my talk page explaining why I was blocked, giving links to edits to show the reason. Tazmaniacs 14:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think blocking pairs of editors who are edit warring is fair. I have no idea why you'd see if as questionable--you were both edit warring and so both were blocked. --Tony Sidaway 16:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I performed a normal block for disruption. If you think that there is a problem with administrators blocking editors for disruption, please have the blocking policy changed. --Tony Sidaway 04:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't even bother reading what I wrote did you? Or even stop for half a second to consider what I am saying? Fine. If thats how you want to handle it, I give up trying to assume good faith on your behalf and in try to actually do something to help someone which hopefully would have benefitted both yourself and the rest of the wikipedia community in general. I'm done, your welcome to return to your self-proclaimed arrogant behaviour. Good bye Enigmatical 04:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I read what you said. I disagree with it. Why is this a problem for you? Must everybody always agree with you? All the time? --Tony Sidaway 04:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So, is this a better way to handle it?

Ewan G Keenowe (talk • contribs) is not listening to a warning I placed on their talk page. They keep labelling Westboro Baptist Church a hate group without discussing it on the talk page as requested (where it was recently discussed). [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. I've already reverted twice today and I don't want to revert it any more than that right now. Could you do it and watch the page. I'm also putting a 3RR warning on the user's talk page in a few minutes. I don't want to report to 3RR yet since they haven't been warned for that. --The Ungovernable Force 19:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That is much better. But you shouldn't have been edit warring with him like this. In future, get someone else to take a look early and then you may be able to convince the fellow that he's not doing the right thing. In any case as he's pretty new I'm asking him whether he would consider reverting it himself so we can discuss it on the talk page. If not, I'll revert it myself, but only once. If he continues to edit war I'll treat it as blockable behavior. --Tony Sidaway 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the third person (now fourth, another admin already did) to revert his edits. Can you explain how I was edit warring? I purposefully didn't revert a 3rd time even though it's allowable just to stop this perception. I'm not trying to be defensive, I would really like to know. Oh, and I almost left a message here when I first left a warning on his page, but I decided to see if the warning was enough. At first I thought it worked, since they didn't edit the page again for over an hour. I didn't see the point in getting an admin involved if the warning was enough. The Ungovernable Force 19:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I may have miscounted, but it looks to me like you made three reverts in a fairly short period of time [13] [14] [15], although one of those reverts related to another editor. If you revert a non-vandal more than once, you're edit warring. What worries me about your behavior at present is that your last three edits to this article were reverts. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about that from last night. That was unrelated, although that does still count as a revert on the page. Thanks for reminding me about that. Now I'm really glad I didn't revert the person a third time, then I would have violated 3RR. --The Ungovernable Force 20:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"1RR" is better. It encourages you to find other ways of dealing with disputes, and after a bit you realise you don't ever need to make more than one revert. Thanks for coming to me, though. That's the first step. --Tony Sidaway 20:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

Not too surprised by the result - while your "rouge" actions may feel authoritarian, I had you pegged as an anarchist with power ;) Guettarda 23:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm pretty surprised. That's basically my score. Econ=-8.25 and social=-8.00.--The Ungovernable Force 01:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SNOW

Tony, one of your edit summaries - [16] - interests me. Could you explain your thinking? If there is controversy, then by definition, the minority viewpoint does stand a snowball's chance and the debate should be allowed to continue. WP:SNOW, IMO, is for discussions where everyone is just piling on, {{prod}} should have been used, and there's just no point in continuing. If there are 10 deletes and only a keep from the original author, by all means, get rid of the thing and don't waste everyone's time. I don't particularly disagree with your removal of it because it doesn't really add anything ... I was just curious about your reasoning your gave in your edit summary.

I have made a few minor changes to the essay, as well as adding back in a weaker form of the statement about premature closure causing hard feelings. I understand the WP:BEANS concern, but looking at DRV, I think there are frequently times where barely controversial AFDs cause heated DRVs soley because of early closure. There doesn't need to be anything in there encouraging people to stretch out reviews of their crufty articles, but it couldn't hurt to have some admonition that stopping the process can cause hard feelings. BigDT 00:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my impression (and it's just an impression so don't ask me to substantiate it yet, but I'd be interested in any research anyone could do on this) historically, that the Snowball clause has been used most successfully to defuse silly conflicts over faites-accomplies. Nitpicking, pointless discussions are often initiated, and those discussions can cause much acrimonious and divisive controversy without altering the end effect (imagine the effect of someone putting "No Personal Attacks" to the vote once a month). This tends to happen most often with respect to deletion, and the disruptive effects of deletion debates, and particularly reviews of deletions, are quite severe and very bad for the body politic of Wikipedia. This is why the Snowball clause is so popular and so useful.

On early closure, obviously you're right, but this is why this essay is so important. Early closure is correct in most cases where it has been performed, so dragging the thing out is a very unwikipedian thing to do. To suggest that one should take account of the possibility that someone may decide to fight the thing to the death is appropriate, so I think you were right to bring it back. However, perhaps some refinement might be necessary. It obviously isn't right to avoid attempting to cut short a foregone conclusion, just because someone may abuse the processes to create acrimony over the fact of the closure. Perhaps some advice on how to deal with the accusations that typically follow, with reference to Wikipedia's policies. . --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok ... I see what you mean by controversy. You are talking about silly arguments, ie, a 50-person message board where a bunch of meat puppets show up to whine about deletion. You won't get any argument from me there. I was not really considering those to be controversial when I read your changes. The ones I consider controversial are where there is a non-trivial opposing view that has legitimate reasons for their viewpoint. Even if they stand little chance of prevailing, cutting off the discussion is only going to cause resentment and virtually assure a divisive DRV discussion. For example, consider the recent cross-namespace redirect discussions. In some cases, a calm RFD discussion allowed to run its course could have averted angry DRVs. BigDT 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)