User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 09 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures

Thanks Tony, but I beat you to the punch. I found that page on my own. I just couldn't find any clerk duties to fulfill because most cases lacked the required number of votes. (Especially the one where you tallied the proposals, but where a motion to close is non-existent). If you come across any case that needs opening or closing, please let me know instead if doing it yourself, so I can have a go at it. - Mgm|(talk) 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll certainly be making sure all the new clerks get plenty of chances to open and close cases. Perhaps we should also start being pro-active in formatting and summarising evidence, helping on workshop pages, and so on. We've been very short-handed for most of the summer, just me opening and closing cases, mostly, but hopefully that drought period is over. --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Willothewisp

I came over here a while ago and got a load of spoken articles in stupid voices deleted that had been created by User:Willothewisp. If you like that readout of your user page then that's fine, but can you block him to stop him messing around any longer? Judging by the previous sounds he's contributed, I'm sure you weren't intended to like it, and I think it's just going to carry on with doing articles and making Wikipedia look stupid. Archer7 08:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't done anything in two months. I think he was just a prankster. The audio of my talk page was, to my mind, obviously intended as a bit of good natured leg-pulling. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Kilt wearers

Mate I want to know why you think it is an incredibly ridiculous category. We have cateogries on class ring wearers and wikipedians by parenthood. I wonder why you feel the pinch about this one. Unitedroad 15:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are ridiculous categories, too. What possible relevance can this vomit-inducing nonsense have to the encyclopedia? --Tony Sidaway 15:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Proposed decision

The lead section says 7 is a majority, the motion to close says it's 6. Where did the discreprency come from? - Mgm|(talk) 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit of ad hocery. Clearly the arbitrators involve are happy that 6-0 is adequate. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipediatrix

Tony, HELP! I do not know if you notice or not but Wikipediatrix has a very short fuse and seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way. We have articles on here that she has continually gotten involved in. When we have asked her to help us she became very confrontational and even claimed we were editing under different names. It got to the point that other editors were calling her down for her antics. I surely hope that this is not a regular problem that everyone has to deal with in thier dealings with her? She has tagged yet the same article on David L Cook for "cites" We went in and gave what we had. Such as a quote from Bob Hope. That comment was made at a banquet full of comedians and not recorded by television or radio. We have tried to explain these things and she still comes right back and tags everything again. I do not know if this is all she has to do all day but it certainly is very hard to deal with someone who has this kind of agenda. We are not Wiki savy and do not claim to be. We have gone in when we check these things to see if everything is done right and if not we try to fix them. I do not know how to cite the things she is talking about. Most of the things that are said between celebrities or at functions are not things that are citable in our opinion. Could you please help us? We need to get this woman off of our backs! She is very nasty. Thanks Daylon Ware IAMAS Corporation 9:14, 2006,25,07 (UTC)

She's doing a good job. Please see Verifiability and Reliable sources. If there is no reliable source for Bob Hope's opinion on David L. Cook, then we can't use it. --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Hagiographer

I have had problems with this user before. Thanks fort getting him to stop altering my user page in unpleasant ways. he has here altered my signature to that of another user, User:Pura Paja, please can you discourage him from doing so, SqueakBox 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ArbCom

Sorry for your being pulled into this, but you're named as an involved party. It'shere. rootology (T) 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Clerk duties call.

You may want to decide to move this or at minimum separate it from Ed's statement. JoshuaZ 02:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] SqueakBox has to be blocked for, at least a month

Excuse me, Tony but I believe Squeak Box has to blocked for a month. Instead of respecting his one month ban he created User:Skanking to go on editing. It has been demonstrated. Everything is explained in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:SqueakBox_2. If you're not going to enforce the block, at least explain me why not. Thank you. Hagiographer 07:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] SqueakBox's not respecting his ban

User:SqueakBox hasn't respected his ban after being blocked. The anonymous user 63.245.13.229 has edited SqueakBox's user page to restore the insult by which you blocked him ([1]). SqueakBox has admitted previously that that IP was him ([2]). By the way, the user page still has the insult against me. I believed personal attacks are not allowed in the Wikipedia so I think it should be removed. I can't do it myself because User:Guettarda has protected the page. I suppose he didn't realize what was really going on.

In regard to my block and all that, I find it reasonable but, in fact, I'm not very interested in the article. Simply, I didn't understand, and I don't understand, what was the purpose of the absurd redirects so I removed them. In my humble opinion, redirects are used when two titles are valid for the same article. In other cases, redirects are pure vandalism: they don't allow anybody to edit or read an article. As far as I know, the Wikipedia prides on its effectiveness at fighting vandalism. If you analyze it, I've only edited a Zapatero related article once, when I removed from the main article the information I thought to be obsolete. All the other times, and they have been only three, I've simply removed the redirects. That is, as far as I know I've removed vandalism. And for that, from my point of view, you've blocked me from editing the articles. I'm not very interested in editing them, only that I find it kind of absurd. Vandalism is a serious threat to the Wikipedia, and I'm blocked from editing an article from which I've removed vandalism (in my view). So, I would like you to explain to me (or to tell me where I can find an explanation) if the use of redirects to prevent other users from editing or reading specific articles is vandalism or not. And if it is, why it's been allowed for so long.

If you think it's vandalism, in my opinion it's pretty clear it is, I think it should be clearly stated as such in the articles where it should be made clear that anybody redirecting the articles without, at least, a previous consensus will be treated as a vandal.

Thank you for reading this long message, :-) Hagiographer 06:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Wiarthurhu, redux

Hi Tony, thought I'd alert you to a new development in the case of this banned user who is now asking for a lifting of the ban under certain conditions. As you took place in the original discussion leading to the ban I thought I should contact you directly about this new discussion. Thanks, Gwernol 21:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Gibraltarian

Hi Tony Sideway, would it be possible to semiprotect User:Ecemaml and User Talk:Ecemaml pages? Gibraltarian is back as you are surely aware... Thanks, Asterion 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Insults

I inform you administrator about insults [3].--PIO 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dear Other Guy

Sorry, i'm not him, but I could introduce if you'd like. We talked once here on Wikipedia and i'm sure we've probably met each other before this at one meeting or another. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 00:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A Poet's Life

I reversed you because you, again, closed the AfD early, even after a DRV showed some issue with your early close. Stop doing it, and stop referring to a useless essay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to work for me. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edit ban on all highway articles?

Could you please clarify your statement: "I hereby ban all of those involved from editing or moving those articles until we have all agreed on a policy" at AN/I? Some of us have quietly been making constructive edits while this whole debate is taking place. We're not doing moves, we're not edit warring, we're not doing anything that is controversial in any way. We would like to be able to continue making valid contributions to highway articles. Your statement was rather all-inclusive, and its inclusiveness has been questioned. We just want to be sure we're not going to be violating any such ruling. Homefryes 14:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I misspoke. I meant "from moving." --Tony Sidaway 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. — Homefryes Say•Do 14:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ugly signatures

Hi Tony. Quite how ugly does a signature have to be to do you think to justify asking the user to change it? I'm reluctant to push this user too much as we already have a disagreement and he'll think I'm picking on him. Nonetheless I find this signature excessive and I particularly dislike that it contains no mention of the user's actual user name:

(horrible mess removed)

What do you think? --kingboyk 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's vile. Ask him to change it. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you ask him? I've had enough flame and hellfire on my talk page lately, and he doesn't know you... I think your flameproof pants are stronger than mine too :) --kingboyk 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Hipcrime (Usenet)

The problem we are facing here is that our one person (and I am fairly convinced that is what it is) seems very capable of spoofing his IP or doing whatever else he needs to do to move around usernames/IPs. A block, then, is only marginally useful, and a ban from editing the article could only be enforceable until he finds another IP address... I think the old watchlist is as good a solution as anything else. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. Or just bung it on semiprotection. I won't do that myself because I've edited it. --Tony Sidaway 06:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] You know what

Hi,

Screw bureaucracy, sure, but give the issue a day or two, eh? Certainly, more than five hours. Also, at least let somebody who hasn't commented close the thing. Doc and I made peace: why'd you have to go and make my day less calm? :( Best wishes, Xoloz 19:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz, I've no desire to breach our peace. Perhaps you are right here. Perhaps, as an involved party, Tony should have left it to another to close. If speedy closing was appropriate, somone else would have done it. However, equally, as the opener of the discussion, perhaps you should not have been the one to reopen it. Perhaps, if it needed re-opening, someone else should have done that? :) Just a thought, --Doc 20:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhhhhhhaps... but, in my defense, one strong argument in favor of my capacity to reopen is that I still have no position (formal or otherwise) on this little page. In opening, I did abstain, you know. (As an aside, Doc, if you admit to a "frustration with process" generally, trying to "out-process" a wonk lawyer like me is probably not good for your health!) Also, reopening needs to happen quickly; or else, after a possible DRV, we risking having to "relist" it, which just about nobody really wants, do we now? Xoloz 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
As a very rusty law graduate - and an argumentative old sod, I assure you I'm well capable of out doing the wonks in wonkery. ;) --Doc 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If you have no position, why did you undelete the page? --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Because it is very likely that some defenders of the page have not yet had sufficient notice or time to comment. I am preserving for the as-yet-unspoken at least a little window of time in which they might comment. Generally, this is the reason all debates have fixed time-durations of some kind: so the first guy who comes along to "vote" doesn't declare a unanimity of one and close the thing. Opportunity to be heard is key, yes?
Besides, although I have no opinion, I have an honest self-interest in debate continuing for a bit. I'm waiting for an answer from Lar. :) Xoloz 21:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The key is surely getting rubbish like this off the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
No hassle. I made an honest attempt to kill this silly thing; my conscience is clean. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Has your conscience ever been otherwise? ;) Xoloz 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion

Would you mind expanding on this, please? All fair use images are copyright infringements (presumably). pfctdayelise 01:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The image is a Getty property and concerns an ongoing news event. In my opinion it exposed Wikipedia for copyright infringement that clearly could reduce Getty's income from the image. While it may be possible at some time in the future to use an image like that somewhere on Wikipedia, at the time of deletion the image's potential for use had not been adequately justified. --Tony Sidaway 02:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tony. Nandesuka 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for explaining that. That makes sense and I have no issue with that. However it's not at all what is expressed in the deletion log, or what was expressed to me on the image page (by others) before it was deleted. And it's frankly not an obvious or set in stone part of WP policy. A note to let me know might have been nice. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Alienus socks

88.198.213.138 I believe is a new Alienus sockpuppet. It has been editing the articles silent protagonist and crony capitalism. In addition, 81.169.180.248, another Alienus sockpuppet has been editing Objectivism (Ayn Rand) in addition to other articles. Would it be possible to semi-protect the articles that these IP's edit? Thanks. LaszloWalrus 03:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. LaszloWalrus 22:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Alienus is continuing to use anon socks, on articles like pseudoreligion and crony capitalism. Is there a way to have these IP's blocked or these articles protected from anon users, or to have Alienus's ban extended beyond a year? LaszloWalrus 15:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Each time he socks like this, his one-year ban is reset. --Tony Sidaway 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. LaszloWalrus 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bugging you, but Alienus has a new sockpuppet, 217.10.142.170. LaszloWalrus 18:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Protection on Pseudoreligion

Tony,

I noticed that you added a semi-protect on Pseudoreligion due to some edit-warring going on, and possible sockpuppetry. The principal user involved, whom I understand you've dealt with in the past, user:LaszloWalrus appears to be continuing an edit-war campaign for which he's previously been blocked: removing sourced references to Objectivism. In this article, as well as on the article's Talk page a number of citations were provided for this individual. He continues to remove the references, often numerous times a day, even after being warned multiple times on his talk page to stop. Please take a look to see what you feel is appropriate. I will refrain from reverting his latest content deletion. Thx, --LeflymanTalk 03:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I may be too involved on this matter--I've really only been addressing what seem to be ban violations by another user on LaszloWalrus' request. I'm also aware that he himself has been prone to tendentious editing and I've blocked him in the past. However I'd rather you took this to WP:ANI and ask another administrator to review this. I think this would be fairer to all. --Tony Sidaway 12:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Understood; thank you. --LeflymanTalk 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of complaint from Jimbo's talk page

as I stated on my talk page - who are you to be removing content from people's talk pages? Furthermore resolving the normal way doesn't function with one of the users being an administrator abusing their power and the other a mindless zealot Lordkazan 13:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get very far on Wikipedia with that attitude. --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tony,

I think you may have misplaced this, of course, I could be wrong. Best, Yanksox 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 22:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Do you still want this?

As in, this? I'm just doing a bit of cleanup over there and thought this was a bit strange (or at least strange to have as a template) :). --SB_Johnny | talk 22:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's linked from my userspace. Feel free to move the template to a user subpage; when I wrote it there were good technical reasons to place transcluded pages in template space, but those reasons are long gone. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do. We've got a billion templates left over from the now-no-longer-on-wikibooks video game guides, so I'm going on a bit of a deletion spree. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your blocks

Hi, I decided to write this after I saw your block of User:Ghirlandajo. You may remember me as one of the editors who protested your illogical and eventually overturned page block of User:Karl Meier. At that time I was concerned with your reaction to my protests (i.e. that I was being "overly legalistic",) but since the block was overturned after ArbCom explained to you what Probation is, I decided to let it go. But now you have executed an unwarranted and egregious block of a prolific contributor. What's more, in your attempt to justify the block you severly twisted the language of Wikipedia. To characterize Ghirlandajo's comments as "grossly incivil" is to render those terms meaningless. In a horrifically ironic twist, the comments you were referring to were complaints about the block-prone nature of some admins. To block an editor for that is Orwellian in the truest sense of the word.

You may say that your block was in response to his reaction to your "polite" "cool it down" request. Again, this is a complete misrepresentation of the events. Falsely accusing someone of gross incivility is the opposite of polite. You have said his response was defiant, which it most certainly was. If an admin had "warned" me to stop critizing other admins I would have also reacted with defiance. But the response was certainly not inflammatory, and without a doubt not blockworthy. On the other hand, a 3 hour block is nothing but inflammatory. Since blocks are meant to be preventative I wonder what you were attempting to prevent. If your goal was to get Ghiraldando to stop complaining about eager-to-block admins, do you think this was a good solution?

I am telling you all of this because I feel I must, as your actions have crossed a line. I'm sure nothing will come of this minor dispute, but I want you to know that I will be watching who you block very carefully, and I will not hesitate to call you on blocks I feel are unwarranted. You have stated that you didnt think this block would be harmful. In the future, try to think whether a block will be helpful. Thank you, and feel free to contact me on my talk page for further discussion if you wish. --Nscheffey 01:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't block Karl Meier. This fellow Ghirlandajo doesn't get a free pass for being grossly uncivil to other editors, compounding it by repeating the incivility to someone with whom he has a disagreement, and making numerous false accusations.


A three-hour block gave Ghirlandajo the opportunity to recognise that he had gone far beyond what is acceptable discourse on Wikipedia. He did not take it. --Tony Sidaway 01:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, it wasn't an illogical block, it was an illogical ban, sorry for the incorrect terminology. As for the rest of your comment, your continued use of incorrect characterizations ("grossly uncivil", "numerous false accusations", "far beyond what is acceptable discourse") demonstrates that you have not considered any of my arguments. This inability to admit fallibility is yet another concern.--Nscheffey 01:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
For more on the ban, see comments by different arbitrators on WP:RFAR. On the subject of fallibility, see my own comments and responses on that same thread, started by me.
I stand by my characterizations of Ghirlandajo's unacceptable conduct and believe that, if User:Cowman109's application for arbitration is accepted, they will be confirmed by the arbitration committee and he will be prevented from continuing to damage the atmosphere of Wikipedia further by such conduct. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Upon rereading of my own comments I realized they may appear overly confrontational. Please don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against you as a person and I'm sure you are an invaluable asset to the encyclopedia. It's just that I have seen a lot of what I consider unjustifiable blocks lately, and not a lot of opposition, and I felt I needed to say something. Although I continue to strongly disagree with you about the nature of Ghirla's comments and the ensuing block, I appreciate your reply. --Nscheffey(T/C) 02:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Road trip

Hello Tony :-) Letting you know that I will be out of town through Sunday. Tried to help clear some cases before I left. Will be on the road all Wednesday so not likely to check in. After that I will check in at least once daily and will close or open cases if needed. Have you seen any problems with my clerking? If so, please let me know. Take care, FloNight 02:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're doing a great job. Have a safe trip. --Tony Sidaway 02:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Chat room buddies"

Replying here as I didn't see that it was relevant to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Not sure why anyone would find this offensive or ugly or whatever. Chat rooms are everywhere. People talk to their buddies in them quite frequently. I see nothing offensive about this. I think you're overly sensitive to things being "ugly". Friday (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the chatroom? When does Carnildo visit it? These are simple enough questions. If there isn't such a chatroom (and I'm not aware of one) then what you were doing sounds like a very, very ugly thing indeed. Maybe there's an innocent explanation. What is the chatroom called? --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Now you're just being silly. I don't see that the project is helped by us sniping at each other, so I see no useful purpose to continuing along these lines. Friday (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I was about to ask you to please remove the baseless slur. --Tony Sidaway 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Cool Cat/Ex-CVU

I do not take this lightly. There was no personal attacks involved. You lost what you had left of my trust in you, if that matters at all to you... You prosecuted me during the Moby Dick thing and I cant forget that and now this, deletion campaign against the CVU, and other things too.

You are no longer my mentor, I have to trust my mentor and I no longer trust you.

--Cat out 18:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It was obvious who you were referring to. I'm sorry that I lost your trust but No personal attacks is important and if I didn't do it somebody else (and I know who that somebody is) would have done so. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
So saying that essjay banned me is a personal attack (I was actualy nice enough not to mention nicks)? Why are you the one always advocating all actions against me? You might as well indef block me. I pitty myself for all the support I gave to essjay not just my support vote to him on CVU but also my support vote to his burocratship and et al. --Cat out 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cows

Do you like cows? --Naelphin 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I couldn't eat a whole one. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Never mind the sollogs

Hi. As you had a clear opinion on its predecessor, I thought you might also have one on this. (Though of course you're away right now....) -- Hoary 04:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Aggressive user

In the course of a challenging edit war around the Waldorf education article, one new Wikipedia user (User:Pete K) is employing rather offensive personal attacks on the talk page. There seem to be no neutral participants who can suggest an appropriate tone for the discussion; more precisely, one has, and has been ignored. Can you help? See Talk:Waldorf education.

The user also has a tendency to editorialize in the article; the distinction between describing his personal opinions or experiences, on the one hand, and verifiable information, on the other, seems to be unclear to him. The article needs clean-up, and some useful results are coming out of the discussion, but I for one am often uncomfortable with the tone and style.

Hoping you can help in some way! Hgilbert 18:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Award

The da Vinci Barnstar
This award is for your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place. Martial Law
This award is also for the Arbitration Committee as well. This is one Wikipedian who is thanking you for doing a often thankless, often resented job. Martial Law 01:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Juro

All the staff were done in the past. Annoying POV pusher [4], clearly with a hate/angster against hungarians (see the few previous links, i put in). He even had block(s) for this. How/where can I ask for a third view comment? Or ask for banning him from editing articles related to Hungary and Hungarians? The wikipedia's arbitration pages are better then tha maze was in Crete. :S Can't find anything. --VinceB 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Try making an edit on Wikipedia:Third Opinion, or else ask for mediation. You should in early stages be trying to see if you can persuade the user to stop pushing points of view into articles.
If there are at least two editors who have tried, and failed, to resolve the dispute with this user, then try going to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
If all other avenues fail, or seem very likely to fail, come back to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and read the instructions on how to apply for arbitration.
If the user is engaged in persistent edit warring, and the problem is rather urgent, make an edit on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI for short) and an administrator will take a look and take action if necessary. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it lasts since he regged in. All you mentioned above were all done, since 2003, a ots of times by a lot of users. Guess, the time for an arbitration is here for more than 2 yrs now. Will you help me? I don't know how to do this.--VinceB 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll reformat your application. --Tony Sidaway 12:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. As an editor active in the same area as Juro, I feel that I can (and should) provide some evidence against VinceB's claims. Since you filed the RfA for him/her, could you advise me please where I should write my comment to this case? Thanks in advance. Tankred 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome to make a new section on that application called something like "Statement by User:Tankred" and add your own signed comments. Keep it brief and to the point; arbitrators don't like to read long submissions. --Tony Sidaway 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I doubt VinceB used other means how to resolve his personal dispute with Juro (and btw, I failed to find any particular talk page, where the alleged dispute occurred). As far as I know, Juro has never been mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Unfortunately, I was not able to find the archived cases of Wikipedia:Third Opinion, but I do not remember anyone officially asking for the third opinion in this case. I believe that VinceB's request is unnecessary and it would be nice if he provided any evidence that (1) he/she has a dispute with Juro and (2) he/she used other means of dispute resolution before filing his/her request. Tankred 15:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree that it seems unlikely to be accepted (though I don't make such decisions). If it's rejected, likely the arbitrators will recommend a course of action such as mediation or RfC. --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just realized, you put this on the arbitration page again. I asked for a third opinion, not arbitration (and some help :). See above. --VinceB 16:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll remove it. Please do ask if you think you still need help from me. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I simply lost in burocracy :) OMG, just the Pope doesn't have to be asked before arbitration... :D On the other hand, right now the "Mediation" step is next, but I thought I don't have to go through again on these, because others did it, as you can see also, if you give the time for a short preview. I want to stop his actions against hungarians, he's very agressive and POV pusher. --VinceB 18:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chaldeans

Hi, you might wanna look at this Chaldean's. They try to get by it, but this is the real page; Chaldean. Chaldean 04:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Point

Hi, I think you are driving here to the point I made a bit bellow there: Ghirla vs Community. Disagree? Renata 03:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. In my opinion he's treating this project like trench warfare. I think your summation of evidence is very good. --Tony Sidaway 03:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
So maybe you should modify (again :]) your statement to that extent? Renata 11:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No need. You put it well and the arbitrators are very experienced and know the score, so they either agree with us that there is a problem to be arbitrated or they don't. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Policy on signatures

What's the policy on complex signatures again? This is in reference to this signature, covering 4 lines in diffs. --Ragib 07:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a guideline at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages (WP:SIG for short). Like most guidelines it's a matter of commonsense. Sometimes politely asking an editor to find a way to reduce the size is met with a positive response. If you decide to make such a request, do explain why having a large signature can cause problems for other editors who may find it hard to locate text in a discussion page. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Need Help

Tony Sidaway, may you please look At This Thread and forward it to ArbCom members? Despite the ArbCom ruling (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba), Andries is making questionable edits and pushing forward adding links to his and others Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba websites. When there is a perceived violation of an ArbCom ruling, how does one file a complaint? Thank you. SSS108 talk-email 19:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter to be handled by administrators. I'll deal with it. --Tony Sidaway 19:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 19:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him. Please report back to me if there are further problems. --Tony Sidaway 19:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, there is some confusion whether or not the ArbCom ruling pertains to user pages. For example the re-insertion of a critical and potentially libelous site against Sathya Sai Baba on Andries user page: Reference. I see this as a potential loophole where the critial links against Sathya Sai Baba can be moved from the article page to a user page. May you kindly provide clarification about this? Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 20:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with Andries saying he's affiliated with a group and giving its web page on his own user page. Users have some discretion over the contents of their user pages. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Signature

Thank you for shortening it. I will make a smaller one since I will be participating on AN/I more often and I do not want it to bother you. --Zer0faults 01:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for being proactive on this. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: What?

Sorry, but what percisely do I have to do? --HolyRomanEmperor 10:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're responding to my arbitration clerk note about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. If you don't want to contribute further to that case, you don't need to do anything more (I just read your original statement). If you do have more to contribute, particularly references to relevant edits or discussions, you're welcome to go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence and start a section for your own evidence. Then add diffs to those edits which you think are relevant to the case. There are further instructions at the top of the page, explaining how to add evidence. --Tony Sidaway 10:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Stuff

I appreciate and accept your apology. Incidentally, I've been giving serious thought to quitting the project. This will make it a bit less sour if that's what I decide. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. I hope you'll feel comfortable about staying, too, if you decide to do that. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kosovo problem

Sorry about my english. Before 3-6 months I have started to bring somme document for the Kosovo but I dont have time to lose with goverments propagander. This is the point. I dont know even you or burokrats can do samthing agains thate. The target is to block every information about the Kosovo subject not only the Kosovo article. Thaks for calling but I dont have time to work agains a goverment.

Sorry about my english my statment is here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo, I holpe is not in wrong pleace.

Tung from Prishtina--Hipi Zhdripi 03:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Your English is good enough for me to understand what you mean: that you feel that English Wikipedia's coverage of the subject of Kosovo is full of government propaganda (I assume you mean on behalf of the government of Serbia).
Your statement is in the right place and will be read and understood by the arbitrators. Thanks again. --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reply

Thanks!! I am at last free. :) Cheers, —Khoikhoi 04:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A rare occasion when I've been the bearer of good news to a subject of arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 04:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Haha... Indeed, you have a very stressful job. And then of course you probably get a lot of crap for just "being the messenger". ;-) —Khoikhoi 04:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living people

Tony, are we going to remove the links critical of George W. Bush from the article Michael Moore article because it may violate Biographies of living people? Clearly not, because people can defame anyone they want in their own article. The article Robert Priddy deals with exactly the same issue. I filed a request for mediation regarding this issue. Both Moore and Priddy have been reported by reputable source i.e. Keven Shepherd in latter case. The dispute about the external link in the article Robert Priddy preceded the arbcom case. I filed a request for mediation regarding this matter.Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/#Robert_Priddy Andries 21:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means pursue your dispute to the fullest extent available, as long as you actively don't violate the arbitration ruling. --Tony Sidaway 21:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
But it will be clear that I think that in the case of the external links in the Robert Priddy, (or Basava Premanand) article removing critical links maintained by the subject in question is a ridiculously strict interpretation of the arbcom ruling. Andries 21:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It may be worth going to Requests for arbitration and starting a request for clarification on this. The arbitrators may be able to tell you what they meant more precisely. --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think this should be done, because as far as I understood and still understand it, it is fine to use copies of webpages of reputable sources hosted on saiguru.net or exbaba.com as references. Please note that the website created by SSS108 for Wikipedia [5] contains copies of articles taken from exbaba.com so if exbaba.com com is unreliable then necessarily SSS108's website is so too. Andries 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I made a request for clarification Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba Sorry for causing you clerks extra work Andries 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks but that's not a problem. I'd rather you use the dispute resolution process in this way, asking for clarification and causing a little clerical work for one or two of us, than just try to struggle with the ambiguity, which would probably end up causing a lot more work for quite a few of us. It shows a commitment to comply with the rulings and, I'm sure, improves the atmosphere by increasing the regard in which you are held by those who disagree with you, as a fair-minded and cooperative individual. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 00:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries agreed to the Geocities site under mediation with BostonMA: Ref. The articles on the Geocities site are not articles originally published on Anti-Sai sites. They are newspaper articles whose publication is independent from Anti-Sai sites. Tony, thank you for your help and guidance. Sincerely, SSS108 talk-email 04:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My response on Request For Clarification: Reference. Includes recent questionable edits by Andries on the Sathya Sai Baba talk page where he made a highly questionable edit by moving media articles (which were determined to violate WP:NOT) from the Sathya Sai Baba Article to the Talk Page: Reference. This was discussed in arbitration (Reference), in which I stated that Andries was using the talk pages to promote his Anti-Sai agenda. SSS108 talk-email
All the links that I moved from the main article to the talk page were published in the media i.e. reputable sources and my edit was certainly an improvement. I followed user:Pjacobi in removing the media article whose edits were reverted by user:Francis Schonken because they violated WP:RS (not quoting non-English sources. Andries 17:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I want to complain about the behavior by SSS108 who removed on-topic non-libellous comments that were no personal attacks on other editors from the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. See here [6] I think that this removal by SSS108 was misguided and inappropriate. Andries 17:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Without going into detail, it appears to me that SSS108 is interpreting one of the remedies in the arbitration case by removing poorly sourced information from a talk page. Please add a query about this to your request for clarification, so that the arbitrators can tell you both whether or not this was what they intended. While it appears to me on the surface to be a correct interpretation, I haven't really followed the case and I'm not an arbitrator so I cannot tell you definitively what they intended. --Tony Sidaway 00:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The stated reason why SSS108 removed information from the talk page was not because he considered the information poorly sourced, but because he thought I was spamming the talk page with links critical of SSB. I can understand his suspicion, though it was unfounded. (The links did not contain any link to anti-SSB websites.) I thought and still think that I had good reason to make the comments on the talk page. If this is a one-time removal then I have little problem with it and I will not formally report it. In contrast, if SSS108 repeatedly removes information with flimsy motivations from the talk page then I will make a formal complaint about it. Andries 08:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to remove information from the talk page that reflects Andries "flimsy" and duplicitous reasoning. So you better request clarification about this, Andries. SSS108 talk-email 15:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, there are only three good reasons to remove comments from the article talk page 1. it is libellous of the living person that is the subject of the article or a link to a libellous webpage 2. Personal attacks against other users 3. (long) off-topic messages.
If you remove messages for other reasons then this the stated three then the reasons are wrong or flimsy. Tony, please confirm or disconfirm what I wrote about removal from talk pages, because SSS108 tends to be highly skeptical of everything that I write. Andries 19:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
My feeling is that this removal is probably covered by the arbitration ruling. Please ask for clarification from the Committee, and wait. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
SSS108 which of the links that I inserted on the talk page that you removed [7] do you consider in violation of WP:BLP or the arbcom ruling? I think there were none. It was only a copy of the links that you inserted on the main article. Andries 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
SSS108, you could and should have removed only the links that violated WP:BLP or the arbcom ruling, not all of them. I maintain that there were none that violated WP:BLP or the arbcome ruling. Andries 19:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, please stop whining here. Ask for clarification from ArbCom. I will not accept your self-justificatory comments. I will, however, accept ArbCom's comments. SSS108 talk-email 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] new anti-Semitism ArbCom case

Greetings Tony Sidaway, just wanted to drop you a note of thanks for taking the initiative to request arbitration relative to this article. Hopefully the case will be adopted by the arbitration committee and remedies for all parties will be determined. Thanks again. Netscott 10:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that arbitration is necessary, but I have seen enough high profile fuss and enough worrying mutterings to suspect that we have encountered a fault line in community cohesion and it's worth seeing if something needs to be done. --Tony Sidaway 11:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I've seen about four or five editors throw around the "ownership" label relative to this (and I highly suspect there are many more). My thinking is the more folks are saying "ownership" the more a case is warranted. That said I do appreciate your hesitations. Netscott 11:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if arbitration is the right way forward for this article, but there are some concerns I have and some points I would like to make that otherwise I did not know how to raise. So I will participate in this, and thank you very much for organising it. Itsmejudith 21:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
If you haven't already done so, I recommend that you make a statement on the application. The case has not yet been accepted and any evidence you can bring, in a brief statement, would be useful in helping the arbitrators to make up their minds. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] IAR

Hi, I was asking about IAR and you were explaining it and I think my last question got lost as the thread went in a different direction. Here is my unanswered question. I thank you for your help: So everything that has a policy page is a policy. Then the "rules" are...? Essay pages? Then there's WP:3RR that says it's both policy and a rule????? Wikipedia has "policies" and "guidelines." Maybe guidelines are the rules. Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines and included in them are WP:POINT, WP:BITE, and WP:UP -- all of these are treated as policy. So WP:IAR means WP:POINT, WP:BITE, and WP:UP can be ignored if it's to make the encyclopedia better? There are also processes, which I do see the IAR applied to with WP:SNOW. ----Anomo 11:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the above. --Tony Sidaway 11:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So which things are the rules? You said 3RR does not count as a rule, but Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules gives an example of ignoring it with WP:IAR. Anomo 13:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Did I say that 3RR doesn't count as a rule? If I ever did, I was wrong. I always ignore that rule. You can ignore a rule without breaking Wikipedia policy, you know. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
3RR is listed as policy. Which things are the ignorable rules (if it is to help wikipedia) and which things are the unignorable ones? Anomo 20:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
In cases of such confusion I find that there are no problems if I Ignore all rules. It takes a bit of getting used to, and honestly when I try to explain it I think I must sound like Yoda or Obi Wan, or that guy out of Kung Fu (TV series). But it really is nothing more than just using your common sense. It's particularly good for resolving things that don't matter (like quibbles about whether something is a rule or a policy). Wikipedia written policies are supposed to represent distilled commonsense, codified as written rules. If you follow your commonsense then you'll usally find that you're following policy. If you find you're not, but the encyclopedia is still improving, it usually means that the rules are wrong. So we change the rules from time to time to keep up. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that's the best way I've ever heard anyone explain IAR. --Kbdank71 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that is a good explanation. It expands on what I previously understood about IAR: It's that in making up rules it's like programming a computer and it's lots of rules that are inflexible and don't understand anything. Then there's how the USA Legal system hows so many laws even lawyers don't know them all (like how you have to be a specialized lawyer in some branches to know the law) and people win in court depending on how well people who know all the obscure, unknown laws can twist them around and yet USA always goes, "ignorance is no excuse for not obeying the law." Going by common sense is easier in a small group if they're all decent people, but when it gets big like a nation's government it's hard to do. Anomo 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cent

Hello, I see you've recently edited {{cent}}. This is quite all right and I encourage you to help keep it current. But please don't forget to log your changes at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log. This will help us stay all on the same page -- no pun intended. Thank you. John Reid 14:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Instruction creep. Changes are logged in the template history. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That point's been raised but consensus is solidly behind logging [8]. Changes to this template are too numerous, frequent, complicated, and potentially contentious to be made without some sort of explicit tracking. Also, when the log is archived, it's time to record Conclusions. That last page is the real payout of a centralized discussion process. Page history just isn't enough. Please log your changes. Thank you. John Reid 08:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to log changes. It sounds like a ridiculous waste of time to me. It's just a page for links to discussions, you know. --Tony Sidaway 13:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I would really like to bring you on board here. Cent has been edited by a great many people since it became a general clearinghouse or billboard for all kinds of centralized discussions, not only those held on subpages of Centralized discussion. Not everyone has agreed with all the changes made but mostly it's been extremely civil. I'm sure we'd all like to keep it this way. I'm willing to go the extra mile with you to explain the need for the log.

There are, as yet, no formal restrictions on what can and cannot be put on Cent. You and I probably agree that such formal restrictions are true instruction creep. But we obviously cannot just put up every policy/proposal/poll that comes down the pike. There are far too many and the utility of Cent is in inverse proportion to its size. On the other hand, a slot on Cent is a way to get air for an idea -- it's valuable real estate. Dead proposals need to be hustled off as quickly as possible but of course the disappointed proponent's first idea is to revert the removal. Logging acts as a brake on speedy reverts and encourages thought instead of reaction.

Cent is a process template; items -- pages -- pass in and out. If all the template did was to give air to proposals it would be of limited value. But there is more value in archiving stuff as it comes out. Cent/Conclusions may prove a good resource for those researching past discussions. The centralized nature of an item that has passed through Cent tends to legitimize its conclusion, as opposed to a page that may not have had many eyeballs. In theory, every item that comes off Cent -- if it had any determinable outcome -- should earn an edit to Cent/Conclusions. But what has worked very well up to now has been the practice of logging removals (and moves from active to old, etc.) and explaining why or what happened in slightly greater detail than is common in an edit sum. So far this log has been archived once; I expect to do it more frequently -- whatever is needed to keep the active page of moderate length.

The orientation of an edit summary is to tell what edit was made and perhaps why. The purpose of the log is to tell what was done to Cent but also to record, very briefly, the status of an item as it enters, moves, or leaves.

Thus the log has 3 distinct purposes: to moderate contention over a prominent resource; to record outcomes of the items that this process handles; and to serve as grist for the mill when archiving the log and updating Cent/Conclusions. So far, it's worked very well in all 3 roles. I'm strongly against unnecessary process and if the log didn't work, I'd be the first to toss it. But it's proven itself, indeed outperforming expectations.

You may find these arguments unconvincing and that's okay. But the group of editors that work with Cent on a regular basis -- and those that edit only occasionally -- have consistently endorsed logging. Actions speak loudly; nearly every change made to Cent in the last 5 months has been logged. I'm sure that, whatever your personal opinions about this process may be, you'll be happy to work with us in the way we've found most useful. Thank you. John Reid 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] FourthAve's ban timer

Two months ago, Dbachmann, after receiving a message from FourthAve under the IP 67.1.121.190 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log), rolled back FourthAve's ban timer back to its original time, after interpreting that the "enforcement" clause calls for 1 year after 5 blocks. However, I don't believe this interpretation is correct - I think that any attempt to evade a ban from the entire Wikipedia environment results in an automatic reset (see WP:BAN#Restart of ban duration when evasion is attempted). Under that interpretation, his ban timer would have to be reset to July 11, 2007 (that's when the above IP edited). Who's more correct here? (Note: I do not intend to get involved in this issue, I just want some clarification and, if necessary, action). Scobell302 21:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's customary to reset an arbitration committee fixed-term ban to restart from the last point at which the subject made an attempt to evade it. The enforcement clause has nothing to do with it; he's banned for a year from the last time he attempted to evade the ban. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ben's "big three issues" with NAS article

Going forward, I suggest a focus on dealing with these three issues with the NAS article. If we can effectively tackle these at least my concerns over the article will be addressed. My "big three issues" with the NAS articles are as follows:

What do you think? --Ben Houston 22:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I'm just acting on a feeling that something nasty might be happening and, whether or not it actually is, it needs to be defused. Sorry I can't help on detail. --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Personal attack?

I noticed you removed a comment of mine as a "personal attack." I did not intend it as such. Would it be acceptable if I changed it to: "Tony, saying things like "Of course I'm right," is what caused these objections."? —Nate Scheffey 01:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No it would not. Please don't pull this crap on pages that are devoted to discussing policies. --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Where should I pull such crap? Pointing out that others have requested you tone down your rhetoric, and noting a recent occurance of such, is completely unnacceptable? —Nate Scheffey 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Issues with a user should be taken up on that users talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, here we are. Is my concern invalid? —Nate Scheffey 02:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Your point appears to be that I sometimes persist in disagreeing with people who hold opinions radically different from my own. Don't worry about it; it's normal. It doesn't mean that either of us is necessarily a bad person. --Tony Sidaway 02:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that neither of us are bad people. I persist in disagreeing with people who hold opinions radically different from my own as well. However, I try to avoid phrases such as "Of course I'm right." Better to argue the point than merely assert your correctness. Just a stylistic difference I guess. Regards, —Nate Scheffey 03:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Quite. Thanks, Ben. --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a pleasure. Maybe it's that anniversery or the phase of the moon, or maybe I'm only just noticing it, but things seem to be less civil than they used to be. It's not nice. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] From Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter

I regard these comments as primarily personal in nature (and therefore not belonging on the original talk page), and basically ridiculous (and therefore probably not belonging anywhere on Wikipedia).

BEGIN --Tony Sidaway 20:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Tony said

Tony has said three things (among many others but let's focus on these three)

1) RFA is not a vote

2) I don't know what RFA is and I don't much care

3) The views of 100 ill-informed RFA junkies should not count for much (a paraphrase)

Let's start with #2. Tony may not care what an RFA is but many people do and want to know. Tony doesn't care because he trusts the crats. Others aren't as willing to commit to that level of trust.

Many people think the RFA process IS a vote. With #1, Tony is attempting to disabuse them of that conception but by asserting simply that it ISNT't a vote without telling them what it IS. #3 is a good example of why the job of a crat in closing an RFA is not a simple vote-counting exercise.

Now, I have proposed a way of communicating the essence of what the RFA process is by proposing the model of a public hearing in which opinions are expressed, heard and taken into consideration without numerical tallies being the decisive factor in the final decision.

Tony does not seem to value this approach as being helpful. For my part, I think it is helpful at least in giving me a model to move towards if I am to move away from the consensus model. Wikipedia loves to tout the consensus model but it seems to me that, at least in RFA, it is the wrong model and we murder the English language by trying to fit it to the RFA process (cf. Carnildo's RFA).

--Richard 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please stop this utterly ridiculous attempt to recast my statements as something other than what they are? It's getting downright embarrassing and certainly does not further the discussion.
I think there's a general agreement on the fact that, as a matter of fact, RFA isn't a vote. If it were a vote then we'd always be able to predict the result from counting the votes. I don't think anybody is yet sure what RFA actually is and as long as it does a reasonable job of selecting dividing competent, trustworthy arbitrators I don't really much care how it works. I gave an example showing that it isn't, and shouldn't be, a vote. That's it. --Tony Sidaway 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The part of my initial posting in this message before "Now, I have proposed..." is my interpretation of what you have said and why. I believe that all of it is supported in your postings here and elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Can you indicate where I have "recast your statements as something other than what they are"?
If there were general agreement that RFA is not a vote, then there wouldn't have been an edit-war over "tallies" vs. "vote tallies" and there would not have been objection to your recent edit asserting that "RFA is not a vote".
In the context of discussion on your Talk Page, it is not the case that, when a bunch of well-respected Wikipedians agree with you, there is therefore "general agreement". You may even be right in your assertion that RFA is not a vote. Heck, I even more or less agree with you on that. What I disagree with you on is whether there is a "general agreement" that RFA is not a vote. If there were, there wouldn't have been a large outcry over the Carnildo RFA and you would not have felt it necessary to assert it in a revision of this page.
In the context of discussions on your Talk Page, words like "ridiculous attempt" are generally considered dismissive. Some would even consider it incivility. If you think that I have incorrectly or inappropriately recast your comments, it is possible to say so without the added extra editorial comment.
--Richard 20:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, did someone above use that word again? The one that starts with dissm... I guess this all does not count] as they are all fools while you know the right thing. --Irpen 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

END --Tony Sidaway 20:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I'm sorry that you felt my comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship were unproductive

I thought I was making progress and I still think I am. I happen to like the "public hearing" model quite a bit and I think it goes a long way to explain how decisions are often made in an undemocratic way in modern Western democracies. However, since you disagree, I will stop engaging you in the discussion. Ironically, I thought I was helping you make your case. Perhaps I do not understand your position well enough to do that. --Richard 21:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind people making up their own models, but ascribing them to third parties is not really a good idea--especially when they make it plain that they want no part of it and resent the association. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I agree with you there, that would be inappropriate. On the other hand, if people are not able to accurately re-express what you mean, then it suggests that they didn't understand what you meant and your attempt to communicate has failed at least with respect to them.
I was trying to build an argument on top of what you had written in an effort to make it more understandable and less arbitrary. The fact that you do not care to describe the RFA process more clearly does not mean that other people do not wish it.

 :: I also think there may be some misunderstanding particularly around the wording of one sentence where I wrote "I think Tony's reasoning runs along these lines." I meant that sentence to refer to the text above that sentence. I realized afterward that if the sentence were read to refer to the text that follows then it would appear that I was putting the public hearing model in your mouth rather than in mine. To the extent that this has contributed to your annoyance, I apologize profusely. I still think that what I wrote above that sentence does accurately represent what you said and why you said it.

Nah, strike that last paragraph. The offending sentence wasn't placed where I thought it was and the actual placement is bad in that it does make the implication that my model is Tony's model. I have stricken the sentence in question from my comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter. Even more profuse apologies than before. --Richard 21:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I also still believe that, if you give it some thought, you will find the public hearing model is completely compatible with your thinking (at least as far as I can understand your reasoning based on what you have written). Public hearings are meant to provide some transparency into the decision-making process of governmental agencies without necessarily turning it into a democratic vote. Doesn't that sound like the RFA process?

--Richard 21:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to the model. Thanks for your acknowledgement, and thanks for your effort to explain.

I've had some thoughts about public hearings myself. I don't think it really matches what happens in RFA. I think there is really not very much transparency.and that such transparency would be problematic while we still don't really know how to hold a public debate on what the consensus of Wikipedia means. Some people are, I understand, working on this.

And thanks again for your efforts. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Request for unblock that I just received

Hi, Tony! Long time, no see. I just heard from blocked user User:Wiki brah who was able to contact me via a sockpuppet he created for the purpose, namely User:Le Wiki Brah. He's politely requested unblocking. I know he was kind of a difficult user, but I think he meant well. I hope he's taken his time off to study the site a bit more. Didn't want to override your block and I thought I'd check with you first. If he can be unblocked, can he return under some sort of strict probationary proviso? Thanks, man. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. - Lucky 6.9 04:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please raise this on WP:AN. He was subject to a community ban and I'd like to see how people feel about him coming back. See here. As a matter of personal opinion, I would strenuously oppose his return under any restrictions. I just don't know that he ever helped the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 04:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2006_09_16_f712.html"