User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2005 09 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

deletion

Template:User Tony Sidaway/User

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] Enjoy your break

Don't know you from adam, but I just wanted to lend my support, having gone through much of the same stuff over at CFD. Personally I agree with you. No consensus means do nothing. Say you get six delete votes and six redirect votes. Some people think you should count the delete votes as redirects. Some people are wrong. If there is no consensus to delete, there is no consensus to redirect. It doesn't matter if nobody on earth voted to keep. Until the masses come to a consensus to do something specific, doing nothing is perfectly valid. --Kbdank71 18:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Adult Baby

Tony, I felt your comment "VfD should not be used to solve edit wars" was unfair, and have stated so on the page. I've had some words with this user on another page, and had some reverts in a similar subject with a different user on yet another page.
I don't feel that amount to an edit war.
brenneman(t)(c) 16:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah! I almost forgot, I found an article that I thought you might find funny after the last few day's event: Struggle session.
I had planned on placing it here as a gesture of good will, you know, "no hard feelings" and all, I think we both did what we thought was right. I hope part one of this comment won't affect how you receive this gesture, it hasn't affected the manner in which it was presented.

brenneman(t)(c) Offers hand for shaking.

[edit] Me disagreeing with you....I know, unusual, right? :-)

Tony, I just thought I'd drop a note to say that I think your response to the Ed Poor arbitration case is off-base. I share your admiration of Ed -- he's done many more good things for this place so far than I will ever do. But he has clear weaknesses, the most prominent of which is his willingness to take unilateral action and then to dismiss (or deflect) criticism by relying on his reputation for being a great guy....and by offering to step down if anyone objects (no one ever does....and rightly so -- heck, I don't want him to step down ro be forced down). I've talked with him about it before, but I haven't seen that he's chosen to behave any differently. You can feel that this is not a case for arbitration -- I'm clearly not going to insist that you are wrong to hold that viewpoint. But I think attacking the request publically (and with such a dismissive tone) only serves to perpetuate the appearance that there are editors above the rules here, and to challenge them is to risk the wrath of the admin cabal. We both know TINC, but not everyone does. Maybe the people bringing this case to Ed are doing so in bad faith. But personally, I think good can and will come out of this. Ed needs to know that liking him and respecting him and valuing his contributions doesn't mean the community is giving him carte blanche to enforce his interpretations of the rules and consensus be damned.

I don't know if the AC is the best place for this conversation to happen with Ed...but I know that private chats with Ed on the part of people he openly respects and likes (including myself, mav, Anthere, Angela, UC, and dozens more) have not had the desired effect. I'd say that all signs so far are that the seriousness of being before the AC is making Ed mroe aware of how he sometimes appears to the community. And I think that can be valuable.

Anyway, you know me -- I'm not trying to silence those I disagree with. I just wanted to let you know that I didn't feel comfortable with your reaction, and I hope I was able to explain why in a reasonable way. As always, if you want to chat about it, I'm very open to that, and if you think I've come down on you too hard, tell me, and I'll be sure to both apologize and better explain myself. All my best, Jwrosenzweig 22:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and your willingness to hear constructive criticism (one of your finest qualities, in my humble opinion). I would still personally disagree with you on two points -- first of all, I think that, if what you fear is a too-harsh sanction from the AC (most of whom know and respect Ed as much as you and I), I don't see what purpose is served by lashing out at users who bring Ed before the AC (complimenting him as they do). You're right, in my opinion, not to want Ed de-sysopped....but I don't see anyone proposing that, and so I still don't really understand the harsh character of your response. Maybe I'll have to let that lie.
The other remark I would make is to say this -- Wikipedia needs Ed. On that you and I are in agreement. But I would argue that what we don't need is Ed the Maverick, and that is the personality which is being arbitrated -- if Ed loses that quality while retaining the rest, I think Wikipedia will be better served, not worse. I know folks like Raul and Snowspinner (and many others, all of whom have my respect) feel that policy can become an inconvenience and we need bold admins who are willing to push it aside for the greater good. Personally, I feel that this attitude has caused as many problems here as it has solved. I know there are times when policy handcuffs us....but they are very few indeed, in my opinion. This VFD incident, from my perspective, is merely one instance of a growing trend among admins who've been here a while, and who believe that that time and contribution allows them to more clearly perceive Wikipedia's needs than the policies that have been kicking around for years. I don't think the violations are yet flagrant. They trouble me nonetheless. This isn't an experiment in Internet democracy...but neither is it a project driven by personalities. It's a project driven by an ideal -- free, neutral knowledge on any verifiable topic for all people. I think that ideal is more damaged than aided by unilateral (or oligarchi-lateral) decision-making. Perhaps I'm wrong...I haven't figured out the perfect political system yet, and when I do, I'll spend the rest of my life searching for a perfect person who can run it. I'm just concerned. Hope you don't mind my sharing some of it with you. All my best, Jwrosenzweig 23:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Goodness, Tony, I seem to have been entirely too vague. I'd forgotten about your RFC (well, I'd forgotten the specifics of it). The "VFD incident" I allude to is Ed deleting the whole darn page, not your decisions on individual articles! My sincere apologies if you thought I was targeting you -- I wasn't. I don't know if I would have made the same decisions you did in each instance, but I don't think what you were doing in keeping articles is even a minor example of the trend that worries me. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear -- I hadn't intended any of my remarks to be pointed at you. Your decisions on VFD were the difficult decisions all admins have to make, and whether the community ultimately agrees with us or not, those are the kind of calls that don't bother me. It's larger decisions in terms of blocks and major policy shifts that trouble me, and I haven't seen anything you've dnoe that gives me pause in that regard. I hope this clarifies things a bit, and I apologize again most sincerely for the confusion I caused. Jwrosenzweig 23:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Well...I respectfully disagree. :-) Thanks for chatting, though -- Jwrosenzweig 23:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anagoge

I updated an English Wikipedia link to anagoge to make it look at the wiktionary article but it isn't there yet. I'm contemplating undeleting the Wikipedia copy. Is there a delay in this kind of transwiki? --Tony SidawayTalk 00:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Transwikied pages stay in the Transwiki: pseudo-namespace until someone at the other project moves it out. Anagogue is currently residing at wikt:Transwiki:Anagoge. —Cryptic (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, Tony!

Thanks a heap for all your help... I am a newbie as you can tell, but you are making this a much better experience for me... I'm loving the process... I will get those edits on the Nick Koudis article. I'm hoping it can stand. I would love to do a cleanup, but I'm not that proficient here yet --Nick 01:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anachronism?

From clanking replicator: Comment out Von Neumann in intro--an anachronism. I must admit I'm baffled, what's anachronistic? The intro mentions he was the first to rigorously study the field but other than that it doesn't have any timeline-related info. Bryan 02:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portland High School

Your edit to this article and to its VFD are misinformed. It is not the second oldest school in the U.S. (see my comment at the VFD) Perhaps you mean second oldest public school; I'm not sure where you got the information. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:24, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Speedy Taggings

These articles were not candidates for speedy deletion.

To be a wikipedia editor rather than just a mindless tagging machine, you have to edit such articles and expand them. It's a wiki. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The articles were devoid of real content, a criterion for speedy deletion. They were also created by Maoririder so I was hardly convinced of any impending expansion. And, really, how much could one expand Orangeade? -Soltak 22:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? This is an encyclopedia! History of the beverage, first known recipes, cultural aspects, pointers to recipes (Wikibooks?) Variants (Orangina, etc). Neither article qualified for speedy deletion; if you believe that you need to re-read the CSDs again, more carefully. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I would direct your attention to the very first criterion for speedy deletion which reads in part "No meaningful content or history." Both of these articles had no meaningful content when created by Maoririder. Orangeade simply stated that it was an Orange flavored drink in the same vein as Lemon and Limeade. Miami Blues just said that it was a movie with Alec Baldwin. I've since updated that one a bit myself, however. -Soltak 22:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

A task has been added to your Cleanup Taskforce desk. -- Beland 06:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving schools around

I noticed you and Kappa oppose my actions, but many of these articles are only kept because the vfd's ended on no consensus. I had hoped that the list would alleviate some of the endless vfd debates. Each of the articles I merged were very short containig information that was POV. On the list they can be reduced to essentials, and common links can be defined. Of course if there is a school which has a wealth of information about it then it can be reseperated and made into a full article. Merging is not deletion. I do not intend to discuss such changes as that way leads endless commitee style no consensus. It is against the spirit of wikipedia to discuss rather than act. I do not intend to get bogged down in an edit war over any individual articles, but equally I will merge articles as I see fit. --Tim Pope 12:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You write: but many of these articles are only kept because the vfd's ended on no consensus.

Well yes. This is the only circumstance in which an article listed for deletion is ever kept!

not if there is keep consensus.

You write: Each of the articles I merged were very short containig information that was POV.

I must have missed the POV. Why didn't you just edit out the POV statements?

it leaves nothing behind. Surely a series of short articles is better in a list where it is not so glaring?

You write: On the list they can be reduced to essentials

We're writing an encyclopedia, not a list of essentials.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

You write: I do not intend to discuss such changes as that way leads endless commitee style no consensus. It is against the spirit of wikipedia to discuss rather than act.

Okay, fine, and you'll run into opposition. --Tony SidawayTalk

We'll see when the demerged articles are put on VFD --Tim Pope 13:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Tony, please re-read my actual edit summary.

It's always better to look like you're not trying to hide anything. Even if you're not. If someone asks you a stupid question, answer it. That's all. - brenneman(t)(c)

Tony, oh captain of good faith, you've just accused me of making "yet another false, baseless and personal allegation" for saying "Answering it is better than deleting it, then it doen't look like you're trying to hide anything". And, if you'll check the timing:

  • 13:39, 7 August 2005 I replace RF's comment
  • 13:40, 7 August 2005 You make a note on the talk page.

How about this: get someone else to tell me I've been nasty. Not that I've been wrong, because that's something else entirely. Find someone other than yourself who will look over my contributions and find personal attacks or somesuch. And get them to tell me so nicely, with specifics. If I am as you characterize me, that shouldn't be hard.
brenneman(t)(c) 14:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Procedural question

Still something of a newbie, can you explain how a vote to "Merge" on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff is recorded as "Keep". Thank you. nobs 18:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

Hey, Tony, could you please try to cool it down with the not-so-polite comments? They don't really get anyone anywhere, and they tend to make any parties involved look bad. Thanks, Phroziac (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost spam

My apologies for the impersonal message, but you are one of a number of people who figure in recent events surrounding the deletion of VfD, a story about which will be in the upcoming The Wikipedia Signpost. A draft of the story is at User:Michael Snow/Deletion deletion. Please feel free to review it and point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations you find. I would ask that rather than editing the story directly, if you could please direct any comments to the talk page. Thank you. --Michael Snow 23:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alteration of votes

(Placing this after placing on mine)
Tony,
I'm forced to consider this last in the series of changes to my votes (St. Catherine's #1, St. Catherine's #2, Charlotte #1, Charlotte #2, and Sacred Heart #1) to be in bad faith. In particular, your failure to place a comment in the VfD despite my request. As you appear to be in the habit of blanking critisicm from your talk page (which is of course, your right) I've duplicated this comment on my talk page.
brenneman(t)(c) 00:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dimech

THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY AMENDED OWING TO DATA PROTECTION AND MISUSE ACT. KINDLY DO NOT TAMPER ANYMORE WITH THIS PARTICULAR SECTION. WIKIPEDIA WAS INFORMED EARLIER THIS WEEK. 17 MARCH 2006 15.30

In the log, you reverted my speedy delection, with such comment:

  • Next time you speedy an article, do please check content, also context. Let's VfD this properly.

I need some explication. The speedy was set because rules:

  1. already deletad page, without more/new information,
  2. also a nn person. A older article had the biography, and you will understand that the antipope title is only

a vanity title. And he didn't do anything notable. I think is one of the common strange 'person, but he surelly doesn't need publicity.

What do you meand with context? . Cate 07:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Historical persecution by Jews

I have placed this one on WP:VFU, and I am informing you since you seem to have some interest in the article. I cannot believe that an arbitrator goes about overruling validly closed VFD debates. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I think that was a pretty clear speedy undeletion candidate, especially considering that Neutrality participated in that debate. I will inform Neutrality now that the article has been restored. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stop, or I'll say "Stop" again!

Tony,
Until you get appointed god-king, issuing commands like that is pointless. Take it up the food chain if you want, but you and your orders can... uhhh, what was it you said again about riding a hat?
brenneman(t)(c) 12:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
(That sound you hear is me laughing.)

Tony,
Do I appear, up to this point, to have been modified by your input? I am unmoved by your empty threats. Here, do you need a link? Just in case you don't understand, let me be explicit: I am not afraid of public discourse. I am not afraid of your "observation". Use the link, make your case, let's see what happens.
Otherwise, you'll just keep making me laugh. Because that's what I'm doing right now, Tony, I'm laughing my ass off. I actually laughed out loud when I saw your last message. I spat tea on my cat.
brenneman(t)(c) 13:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Tony
I have been uncivil in my last two messages. I will acknowledge that. Do you wonder at all why I might be becoming increasingly hostile in my dealings with you? I'm an adult, I can admit when I've shot my mouth off. Can you admit that you had some part in this? Tony, you called me a liar when I posted some diffs. Is this civil?
brenneman(t)(c) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thumb-up

Hang in there. Image:xaathumbup.gif
Xaa 13:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] outside opinion

Hi, I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this poll . As an outside observer your opinion would be useful in helping resolve an edit conflict. --Gene_poole 01:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Population figures

Hello, Tony. I noticed that you added a statistic that has 76% percent of Israeli's as religious! I don't know where you got this, but I can assure you that the figure is much closer to 30%. HKT talk 19:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Also your later edit summary reads: About 76% of the Israelis are religious Jews and over 80% are ethnic Jews. The 4% "others" are not necessary ethnic Jews. The group also includes parents, spouses or grandparents to Jews (and some descendents of these) who are not ethnically Jewish. It is, as Jayg correctedly wrote, confusing. gidonb 19:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I took gidonb's figure as a religious jewish figure because the figure for Jews I have is 80%+ (CIA World Factbook). On reflection it looks unlikely, I just wasn't thinking. Please fix this with your data. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
80% is Jews and associated other, which breaks down to 76% Jews (as defined in their population records, not always orthodox halakhic) and 4% associated other. Jayg's statement is one correct way to put it, and a very appropriate one since the statement is about the non-Jewish population of Israel. I will leave it at that. gidonb 19:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schools

Just countering the "keep" cabal by informing previously interested parties. As you can see many are interested and have voted as such. It is no different then the User:GRider/Schoolwatchsite or Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive which advocate saving all school articles regardless of merit.Gateman1997 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Your idea has merit. I would add to it that in addition I will create my own "reverse" school watch if it were in the spirit of the pair of school watch pages advocating the reverse stance. That way it would be a balanced act so to speak.Gateman1997 20:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Plus, as you say about School watch it is public. So a "Delete Schools" page would also be public. Would this be to your satisfaction?Gateman1997 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. When editing schoolwatch can we put a guideline to vote on an article's current merit. I fear people too often are engrained now to see school, vote keep.Gateman1997 20:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Also I would suggest removing the "predictions" as they borderline POV by whomever is modifying it at the time.
Maybe even something pointing them at User:Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW as he has some of the most well thought out criteria for articles I've seen in relation to schools. Gateman1997 20:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Take a look and tell me what you think. Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive.Gateman1997 21:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
What can I say, I'm not a school grinch. I just want to make sure the ones that are kept aren't cruft. Jack is definitely an interesting and unique case, even if it is now a closed school. Eventually the guidelines for schools may have to be hammered out however. No matter how many suggestions are put forward there are obviously going to be two camps that are pro and anti school to the extreme. You and I seem to be closer to the middle then some. "It's a physical place" has been my favorite keep argument so far. And "delete, it's a school" has been my favorite "delete" arugment so far.Gateman1997 21:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's amazing. With a little civil discussion and compromise we've gone from Hitler and Stalin, to Siskel and Ebert when it comes to school matters. Gateman1997 23:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


Just when you and I thought we'd put everything to rest something like this happens, User talk:Longhair. Yuckfoo is not soliciting opposing votes. Gateman1997 06:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Just wondering... you said about Gateman's schoolwatch that you "regard this as an attempt to subvert VfD and will almost certainly take it to RfC if you continue." This makes me wonder why you have never objected to GRider's schoolwatch, or taken it to RfC. Radiant_>|< 13:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • True enough, but so can anyone watch (or not watch) Gateman's page, so I fail to see how that's any different. Radiant_>|< 13:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wait, I only now noticed the talk page spamming to get votes. Radiant_>|< 14:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 57 minutes later....

...and they're off: [1]. These pages are on my watchlist too, sadly. Re-protect? Warn them on talk pages? Just generally <sigh>? -Splash 19:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandals can be so annoying. You guys may wish to re-protect that for a while and slap whomever decided to modify the page again. Gateman1997 20:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This isn't vandalism, it's normal editing. The anonymous IP removed two disputed, and apparently unsourced, statements. If someone thinks they should go back it'll be interesting to see what happens. See my response on Splash's page. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Whilst WP:FAITH is to be assumed, that anonymous IP (or others in that range) had made similar-style edits in the past to that page, and more importantly to Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation, which is the other half of this dispute. The two organisations are in conflicting competition apparently, and the two protagonists continually fight over the article. (Take a look at the articles' histories.) Also, it edits to User talk:Peter Lee with vandalism that gets rolled back quickly. At best, there are 3 protagonists, User:Peter Lee, User:Mario Roering and the anons in the same IP range. At worst, the anon is a sock. Just so you know, I have no personal interest in the article at all — it came to my attention via this dispute. -Splash 21:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Now everybody can see how this Peter Lee works! He is using an "anonymous" ip address, but I KNOW this is him, 'cause I know how he works! The article Genseiryu is unprotected and within 24 hours he makes LOTS of changes, deleting large parts of text (without explanation on the discussion page, I thought this was not allowed?), adding stupid remarks like "koryu" and worse of all and I really believe this is NOT allowed on Wikipedia: he is using MY NAME in the article, writing information that is supposed to come from me. Even if this would be true (I am not saying it is), then it is still not allowed to use the name of other users inside the article. Or is it???
I want to contribute to Wikipedia in a good way and I will not do Wikipedia any good starting another Edit War (actually it's Peter Lee who is starting it again!). So I will not touch the article Genseiryu (for the time being) and I hope somebody else will do something about the changes Peter Lee has made here. They are wrong (deleted too much text without motivation), misleading (adding incorrect info) and slandering (using MY name!)... -- MarioR 12:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I have now reverted the article Genseiryu to the last version by JeremyA. He made a good NPOV article that we of WGKF can live with for the moment. Apparently Peter Lee still can't (as we expected) and already vandalized the article as mentioned here above... I thank JeremyA for his good work, but I am not so sure this will stop Peter Lee from vandalizing the article over and over again... <sigh>... -- MarioR 12:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oops!

Thanks for correcting my boo-boo. The original entry was pretty brief and rambling and I thought it was fair game. - Lucky 6.9 21:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Please stop calling several people liars simply because they disagree with your assessment of a complex situation. It's simply not conductive to further discussion. Remember what we both used to think about factionalizing? Radiant_>|< 19:00, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] False?

No, what I said is not false, and it's only inflammatory because it's a truth some people would prefer not to hear. Out of dozens of regular keep voters, you found only eight school inclusionists that actually improve school articles, and one of those was immediately found to spend 650% more edits on keep voting than on actual school improvement. Even for a strong editor like Kappa, the ratio is more-or-less even; I count 24 edits to school articles since August 1st, most of which are small, and 23 edits to related VFDs. In other words, Wikiproject:Schools is generating a lot of heat but very little light. And that's even before considering the frequent personal attacks by a vocal minority, the focus on systemic bias, and the lack of standardization within the project. Radiant_>|< 21:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BaronLarf's RFA

Thanks for your support on my RFA last week. I stepped back from the school debate since it was getting rather poisonous, but I haven't changed my moderate-inclusionist beliefs. Let me know if I can help with anything, or if you have any problems with my use of the admin tools. Cheers --BaronLarf 21:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested apology

Hi Tony: Given User:Curps view that it was absurd of me to suggest that you apologise for blocking the inappropriate username, I wish to emphasise that I saw the blocking as an inappropriately hasty action but not as a malicious one. I think that you made a minor error: one of timing. Because it is now apparent that the user was malicious I believe that the suggested apology would not have been effective. And, I believe that the occasional error does not diminish the good work that you do. —Theo (Talk) 22:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your courteous explanation. I understand your position although I am not sure that I entirely share it—and I might well do just as you did in similar circumstances. —Theo (Talk) 23:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monique deMoan

Undeleting and unprotecting a page which has a consensus on Votes for Undeletion to keep deleted is improper behavior. Zoe 00:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I know you like keeping articles but there is a practically unanimous vote at VfU to keep that deleted. I really don't think you should be acting against that, wikilawyering or no. It just seems a bit much to say "I don't think much of the near-unanimous community voice, so I'm going to do what I like". If you reply, I'd really prefer to avoid engaging in a wikirule discussion: I'm wondering more how you can justify acting against virtual unanimity in support of the original speedy than whether you personally agreed with the original speedy. -Splash 01:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if the claims of wikilawyering were out of place. I can hardly claim to have avoided them myself by the act of participating in a VfU and citing a policy or two in support of my vote. Still, the VfU wasn't being used to obtain deletion of an article but to maintain it: the VfU votes are clear enough that the original speedy was valid and the issue does (did) not enter into VfD. Anyway, that's a fairly academic point now, and it looks likely that your new filmography will be kept — if that is the case then I'm glad an article has emerged from the mess. -Splash 03:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Schools discussion and love

Tony,
Regarding your characterisation on Radiant's talk page of my statements at WP:Schools - Radman as an attack: I have not made an attack, and presume this is a misunderstanding rather than incivility. As I prefer not to resort to removing uncivil comments except under extreme circumstances, I'd ask you strike out this comment with a note below your comments indicating this was a misunderstanding.
brenneman(t)(c) 02:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletes are correctly applied to VFU

It has been pointed out to me that you said "VFU doesn't decide the disposition of speedies." when unblocking someone. Since this is wrong according to Wikipedia:Undeletion policy which specifies what actions to perform when undeleting based on whether it was deleted during VfD or speedy deleted, I was wondering what this statement meant. I assume that if you did not know before, you will know now that VfU is for disposition of Speedies as well as VfD and cease any undeletes simply because they were speedy deletions. - Tεxτurε 03:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What?

So by your definition, if an editor has ever made a single edit to a school article, is "working to improve school articles". That is an outrageous overstatement, and is no excuse for your gratuitous incivility. Radiant_>|< 09:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preemprive redirects

I fleshed out the idea into a proposal here. Please let me know what you think.Septentrionalis 18:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ouch!

Well that hurt! That's by far the best VfD defense of a pornstar I've ever seen. Congratulations, Tony. Don't let that bogus RfC keep you away from VfD.--Scimitar parley 22:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VFD

Since you're the one who interprets 'bjaodn' votes as 'keep', I don't think you're in any position to criticize other people's actions on VFD. Radiant_>|< 09:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monique DeMoan is reopened. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • My point is that you've recently made a lot of controversial decisions related to deletion, some of which impopular, and you seem unwilling to discuss several of them; so your criticism of me is like the pot calling the kettle black. All I did was cut through some bureaucracy; the end result regarding DeMoan is going to be the same (and it's even the result that you favor). Radiant_>|< 10:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • You have been attacking me all week, so if you think I am being negative I must once again refer you to Mr. Kettle. Radiant_>|< 11:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of anonymous user

Dear Tony, about the pages of Genseiryu and World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation: this is (again) getting totally out of hand. Just look at the history and see for yourself how many times and under how many different ip addresses this guy, this Peter Lee ('cause I know for 100% sure it's him, I know him well enough and you can trace the ip's back to Copenhagen, Denmark), is using for his vandalist actions: not only does he change the text (what is the viewpoint of WGKF, that's what the article is about) into HIS opinion, he also DELETES large parts of text what he doesn't like... Can you stop him??? I mean, he IS working against Wikipedia policy. He knows this, he has been warned many times. On the Dutch Wikipedia he has a block for a year for his behaviour (see [2])! What more do I need to say??? Ask TenChiJin: He will never stop this miserable behaviour!! Thanks... -- MarioR 22:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

See now also: User Talk Splash - "Vandalism"... MarioR 17:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfU

Why is it that you consider yourself to be far above the VfU process? You might not like it, but that doesn't change anything. VfU does have jurisdiction over speedies, as it says at the top of the page, and your opting to, again, ignore near-unanimity is stretching things too far. -Splash 23:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

VfU does indeed have the power to order an undeletion. But it also has the power to vote keep deleted, which it already was, and no admin should go exercising their undeletion power in the face of a near-unanimous vote: where is the respect in that? The rules for undeletion also make plain that an admin can undelete before the 3 days of VfU is over if a deletion was clearly out-of-process; that vote at VfU is clear that it was not out-of-process and certainly not clearly out of process. You happen to have the button to simply overrule the decisions of groups of other editors; that does not mean you should. -Splash 23:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Tony

Just wanted to let you know that you have my backing 100% of the way with this whole RFC business. Love to stay and chat but I have to go. See ya.

Hmm, having the support of MARMOT would seem to be a dubious honor at least. JRM · Talk 00:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
)

The other day he was splashing all kind of nonsense about some other user all over the page. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SudokuMeister et al.

Tony,
I ruminated this morning that moving inconclusive VfDs to the current page would be a very good thing. If you have been doing this before and I didn't notice, good work for back when you started doing it. ElseIf you've just started doing it now, call off your psychics, you're frightening me. Oh, and good work for now, of course.
brenneman(t)(c) 01:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

Tony,
I must admit I'm puzzled: You oft times adhere stringently to the letter of the law, and others seem prepared to cast us into anarchy.
One would be forgiven for thinking that getting your way was what was important, whatever the means.
brenneman(t)(c) 07:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're not sure what the innuendo means, why do you use it? I'm not impressed by your attitude, Aaron. One would expect you to show some humility after being so comprehensively rebuffed at RfC. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's a good one, "comprehensively rebuffed" indeed! Wait, you're serious? Are we looking at the same RfC?

  • If it were a vote (which it's not) you got about 49 positive votes and 32 that offered some critisicm, ignoring votes that were neither one nor the other as per your method. That would be "no consensus" according to the rules you use on VfD.
  • Since it's not a vote but a request for Comment I'd suggest that you examine the talk page, where I see a large number of reasoned, thoughtful comments critical to your behavior, and still growing.

I really don't see that you have any reason to crow, Tony.
brenneman(t)(c) 08:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

My arithmetic is somewhat different. Utterly, overwhelmingly rebuffed. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring something won't make it go away. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WfD

The point of the project isn't to enforce a specific view, but to discuss a standard based on consensus of Wikipedians. How is that so bad? Agriculture 09:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy

I truly believe that the Vfd ongoing for the decency project is a bit unfair. Agriculture is stressed out and a lot of folks are badgering him. I know he has been a pit bull there too and feels like he is fighting alone, maybe he is. Tony, no project can survive if there aren't some rules. You know this. I doubt very seriously that myself or anyone else is trying to impose our morality on others to the extent that everyone thinks. I think this sort of thing is coming in one form or another anyway...just a few thoughts.--MONGO 09:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I feel like I can't satisfy anyone. I disagree with the current organisation of the project but don't agree with its deletion, so I've voted to keep. I think Wikipedia needs more good illustrations of sexual topics, not less, and I absolutely refute any suggestion that such pictures are in any way obscene or unacceptable for an encyclopedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

I'm asking you to reconsider your keep vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. The aim of this WikiProject is to impose a POV (as they state in their intro paragraph). A user would be banned for repeatedly imposing such a view, so why would we keep a project which incites new users to do this? I'm not saying that users should not be allowed to make comments on their user pages or talk pages along these liens, but to have a WikiProject lends this effort the sense that it is in keeping with Wikipedia rules and policies, which it is not. Perhaps you would prefer to vote to userify to avoid any hint of censorship?

Than you for your time and considered edits. -Harmil 13:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD - a thankless task

Tony,

This is a personal note following my brief comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway. I take my hat off to anyone with the patience and forbearance to act as an administrator in the VfD area. Please keep up the good work.

--Cje 14:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concern for Wikipedian

Tony, User:Agriculture seems to be having a personal meltdown - he's adding obscenities to his own user page - and the rubbernecks are enjoying the spectacle. I didn't agree with his views - but this is unseemly. Can he be blocked for his own good and his user page protected? --Doc (?) 00:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Check the IP

It's not hacked. Please revert my userpage to the last version by me, you can remove the "SCREW YOU" if you wish, and the preceding comment. I think they're appropriate since it is my user page, but you be the judge. Please leave the rest as is however. Agriculture 00:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't believe this is a case of a hacked account. I think we just have a PO'ed Wikipedian venting his anger.Gateman1997 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • More like an Ex-Wikipedian who's finally lost it to all the vandals and personal attacks and won't deal with it anymore. I would like to note, I kept it to my userpage. Agriculture 00:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll keep you blocked but unprotect your user page so you can edit it as you see fit. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I think I broke the WP:POINT rule when editing Agriculture's user page, with a snide edit summary. I feel really bad about it and, for what it's worth, have apologized. Can you block me for 24 hours? CanadianCaesar 01:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ignoring VfU consensus discussions

Hi. I added this comment to the RFC discussion page, but since you indicated you are not reading that page any more, I decided to reproduce it here, since it directly addresses you. Thanks for reading.

Tony, you are wrong. I agree with you that undeleting an out-of-process speedy can be correct, but when a vote for undeletion is already underway, then by undeleting the article before the consensus has formed you are poisoning the well: you are issuing a slap in the face to everyone who is participating in the consensus-forming process by asserting, in effect, that your personal opinions are more equal than those of others. As a user, I find this to be a great disincentive to participate in any of the Wikipedia "meta" discussions, for fear that you (and not just you, but any admin) will capriciously set aside the rules because you find them constraining. Whether it is "legal" for you to disregard the consensus-forming process is beside the point. It is bad for you to disregard it. In my opinion, it damages Wikipedia. Please note that I'm expressing no opinion on the VfD issues that apparently started this RfC, but I find your recent decision to run roughshod over VfU to be upsetting and disheartening. I urge you to reconsider the high-handed manner in which you are approaching the undeletion of articles currently under discussion by the community. Nandesuka 05:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jive.exe

Could you please head over to the VFD on this article and explain why you restored this twice after it was deleted? - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] subst:vfd

Yeah... I know I'm supposed to use the subst tag, I always forget. Thanks for the reminder. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religion and schizotypy

Hi Tony, I just counted 16 votes to delete there, and one of the keep votes was logged by Gabrielsimon. There is a stroked out entry there from Kuhuly (sp.?) as well. Even though that one is stroked through, I was wondering if you counted the Gabriel vote in your total keep votes. It would seem that since he used a sock (or two?) during that vote, his should have been disqualified out of hand. Please respond here, so as to preserve continuity. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

How does 7 Keep votes, 16 Delete votes and a bunch of Merge votes get counted as a vote to Keep? There's a clear supermajority to get rid of it, and even with the merge votes taken out Keep is still less than half of the votes to get rid of it!

How can we have far and away more votes to get rid of something and still have someone come along and claim that the vote was for the exact opposite of what it really was? DreamGuy 20:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. We can compare and discuss the votes and see if it would have changed the result.
In the interests of transparency, this is the method I use for counting a vote:
  • Firstly I look at the article history. During this phase I don't read the article or the VfD, I just look at the editing history of everybody who has participated in the discussion.
  • I have pretty strict standards. I expect someone to have edited for one month and to have done at least 100 edits before showing an interest in VfD. At this stage, I also often reject votes from people who haven't done much editing in articles, or those who wouldn't qualify by the standards above if one ignored a small number of edits many months ago. People who appeared recently and made a bee-line for VfD are regarded with particular suspicion.
  • Then when I've decided whose opinions matter and whose are to be discounted, I step through the edit history of the VfD, recording each vote that I find.
  • Sorry, I don't take any notice of strike-outs by persons other than the person who placed the original edit. Deciding who can and cannot vote is something that I do and the on-page bickering about who can and cannot vote is completely ignored, because by the time I've seen it I already know at least as much about the editing history of the participants as they know about one another.


  • In my original count, I placed Robchurch in the "keep" column by accident. But it doesn't make any difference to the result. I'll explain.
  • When the votes are in, I look to see if the numbers match my standard for a clear consensus (80%+ for any option). There wasn't.
  • Then I look for the possibility of my establishing a rough consensus (anything in the range 70-80%). On this range I use my discretion and may be swayed by the arguments one way or another. 72% and convincing arguments beats 71% and a lot of handwaving. There wasn't such a possibility. The numbers were wrong.
  • If there isn't a rough consensus, the policy is to default to keep the article. So I kept. This doesn't preclude redirecting, merging, etc, but anyone can do that.
  • I made an error in counting Robchurch's keep vote. If I counted it, the vote was 12 votes to delete, 7 votes to keep and two others (12 out of 21 to delete, 57%). If I discounted it as I should have, the vote was 12 votes to delete, 6 votes to keep and 2 others (12 out of 20 to delete, 60%). It doesn't come close to 70%, where I would start thinking of calling a consensus, or 80%, where I would call an unquestionable consensus.
  • I didn't get to the point of looking at the article. I don't know or care what it's about. I would have read it if the vote had been closer.
  • Note that with 6 keep votes and 16 delete votes, and 2 others, I would have been calculating 16 out of 24 to delete, about 67%. Still not enough to make me start thinking about rough consensus. There are some sysops who would call that a rough consensus, but I'm not one of those.
  • I want to open a dialog on this, so please ask questions, supply corrections, and so on, and we'll see if I was wrong. My standards aren't negotiable, but I may have the facts wrong or I may have made a miscalculation as I did with Robchurch's vote. If I did, then I'll change my call and possibly in a direction you would favor. Please place a message on the talk page of the article inviting anyone interested to join this discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well the fact that you disregarded my vote seems that you are taking liberties with your qualification! :oP It's not as if I concentrate merely on the VfD page, or this entry in particular. Also if your using 100 edits as criterion, I seem to have slightly passed that mark. So please regard this as a request to regard my vote as a valid one and count it as a vote to delete. Also, I noticed that you decided to count the Gabrielsimon vote, this somehow seems rather inappropriate as he used a less than acceptable method of using a sockpuppet to register more than one vote there. It would seem incredible to me that you would condone that behaviour. Although I did register as a user on July 15th. the date of the closing should regarded as the baseline for your one month criteria as opposed to the date I registered the vote. If I had known tht was the case, I surely would have waited until sometime in the past three days to cast my vote. Hamster Sandwich 21:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I count the date of voting--that's when you registered your intention. These are my standards and I can't change them without a good reason. You've passed the edit count, but not (at the time of voting) the time editing. When I do the counting I don't care who voted in which direction, I'm just trying to find out who passes the criteria. I think that is the fairest way of doing it.
Gabrielsimon possibly did sock puppet, but I only registered his opinion once. I think it's fair to register his opinion. Can you give a good reason why I should not? When I discount your vote because you're too new, it's because I suspect you could be somebody's sock puppet, and for no other reason. If you did then I've probably already counted your vote. As I said earlier, I ignore these accusations and concentrate on determining which votes have been cast by real people. I'm convinced that Gabrielsimon is a real person. You don't have enough edit history for me to make up my mind. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, if you are going to toss out votes you need to explain why on the talk page of the VfD in question and not just say "the vote was for Keep" when all the indications were that it was not at all. I think you need an actual process here that is agreed upon by all admins processing VfDs, one that is transparent and not up to personal whims. 80% sounds like an exceedingly unrealistically high threshold for consensus, especially as Keeps by default then end up getting consensus by a mere 21% of votes. The definition for consensus in other cases has been set at two to one margins. Even by your own processing of votes, Delete clearly wins in that case. Consensus being a four to one margin is just not realistic.

A number of the disqualified votes seem extremely arbitrary... As Hamster points out, many of them would be valid if they had been timed right, and since no mention that timing was necessary was posted anywhere, you disqualified votes based upon rules people didn't know.

The process really needs to be a lot more transparent than this, as it smacks of admin fiat this way. DreamGuy 22:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Consensus", outside of Wikipedia, actually means "everyone in accord", DreamGuy. It doesn't mean "a majority wins". Not even if two thirds agree. It means the two thirds must convince the third that its view is correct or, at least, acceptable. This "as Keeps by default then end up getting consensus by a mere 21% of votes" is, I'm afraid, wrongheaded. There is no need for a consensus to keep. The idea is that if there is not a consensus to delete, the article is kept.
My view of consensus is much more stringent than Tony's. His allows

a fifth of the people involved in a discussion to be ignored, in effect. Personally, I believe no article should be deleted if there is significant dissent. What is significant dissent? I think three from ten would be significant. Two from ten probably not, if one was the article writer. Twenty out of a hundred and fifty is significant. Percentagewise, it is lower, but twenty editors is a lot. Most votes don't even attract twenty. That twenty are concerned enough to vote to keep is enough, in an environment where we default to keeping, to keep an article, regardless how many feel it should be deleted. The notion that everyone should be taking into VfD debates is that we don't want to delete articles. We are aiming for the sum of all human knowledge, not a restricted set of it, such as you might find in Britannica.

I think Tony's method for excluding voters is reasonable enough, although I wouldn't share it and I'd hope it's not widespread. It would tend to discount sockpuppets created for the purpose of winning votes, which is fair enough. I'd hope that he'd look at the tenor of the close calls' editing to see whether he felt they were bonafide on that basis.
DreamGuy, the process is done by admin fiat! Maybe you don't like that. I'm not keen on it. But it's down to editorial judgement, like so many other things. I do think Tony is taking VfD for a bit of a ride, and he's using the powers he's been given to impose his view, but that's the way it works here and I for one support him, so long as he's pursuing the goals of Wikipedia, which he is. Alongside his campaign to keep articles where possible, he also fixes bad articles and tries to steer deletionists to an acceptance that they cannot just delete what they personally dislike. He's walking it as well as talking it. Grace Note 03:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


I understand your concerns and think you should take them to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. I'm following my understanding of the consensus on how an administrator should act, but we need to make sure that there is substantial agreement that I'm acting correctly. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • One good reason to not count the Gabrielsimon vote is that through subterfuge, he attemtped to cheat on the vote count. This should disqualify him. There is an arbitration regarding his misuse of secondary accounts proceeding at the present. Second, your standard of my having provided 100 edits surely was met by the time i registered a vote on this article. Once again I ask that you count my vote to delete this article. Quite frankly, it osn't much matter to me if the article is included in the knowledge base or not. I would never have cause to refer to it, and as I pointed out in my vote, the premise is ridiculous. Of course there is room here for any number of inane and useless articles. I am merely one user registering one vote, based on the subject and content rather than who edited it. You made a statement in your last comment "When I discount your vote because you're too new, it's because I suspect you could be somebody's sock puppet, and for no other reason. If you did then I've probably already counted your vote. I have a slight problem with words like probably, in that they are vague and don't really indicate anything that you could be held accountable for. Also please explain the phrase "If you did" in this context. I can't seem to make any sense of it, so I ask for clarification. Another statement you made above was a bit distressing to me ":* Firstly I look at the article history. During this phase I don't read the article or the VfD, I just look at the editing history of everybody who has participated in the discussion." I would hope that your vote to keep or delete is based on the content of the article rather than any personal bias you may have concerning the contributor. I suppose we all have our own ways of going about these things. But I am at least heartened to know that I do at the present time meet all of your criteria for voting and will no longer be disregarded out of hand. See you at VfD! Hamster Sandwich 22:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it's arguable that the opinions of a person said by some of the editors to be using a sock should be disregarded. If Gabrielsimon has been determined to be a sock puppet by our Sock-smeller Poursuivaunt, David Gerard, or by consensus of administrators on WP:ANI, then I'll discount his vote.
When I'm saying I think it's plausible that you're somebody's sock, and go on to say if that is the case I've counted your vote already, it's to illustrate that I'm trying to level the playing field. I know these votes attract socks, so I use a uniform criterion: 100 votes and one month (that's AND, not OR) and some other nonsense filters. If you pass it, you're in. I discount your vote because, as it is plausible that you're a sock, you would probably have voted already. We have thousands of editors. If an article really needs to be deleted, some of those thousands of editors will come forward and ask for it to be deleted. There's no need for me to take notice of votes from very recent newcomers.
Now as to the content of the article---for the most part, I'm content to let the two dozen or so other people involved in the discussion to deal with that. If you can't agree among yourselves that something needs to be done to the article, then I call "keep" by default. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Just a small point, Tony – Gabrielsimon has all but directly admitted to creating not one, but three sockpuppets: User:Ketrovin, User:Khulhy, and User:Gavin the Chosen. That last is actually his attempt at creating a "clean slate" username for himself, and as such may not be a sockpuppet in everyone's estimation, but I digress. I don't believe Gerard did an IP check or anything, but if you view the relevant users' talk pages and Gabrielsimon's RFC and RFAr, the evidence should be pretty clear-cut. Normally, I'd agree with you and say, if there's established sockpuppetry, count each opinion once; in this case, though, given that Gabrielsimon created the article in question with Sockpuppet #2 and attempted to defend it with his original username and Sockpuppet #1, well... android79 16:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards discounting Gabrielsimon on this basis. Could you provide diffs showing the admissions? --Tony SidawayTalk 18:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem with that is, I don't believe he has flatly admitted to sockpuppetry, but when called out on it, he hasn't made any effort to deny it, and continues the conversation as though he has admitted it. He's an odd fellow, to say the least. I'll look for diffs that illustrate this. android79 19:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Here's what I was describing in that last comment: I call him on it, and he doesn't admit it, but acts as though he has. Evidence presented at his RFAr does not offer definitive proof or confessions from GS, but there is far too much coincidence here for even the most trusting editor to believe that these four users are not one and the same, the most damning piece of evidence being the existence of a "Khulhy" page at gabrielsimon.com. android79 20:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


I can't accept this line of conjecture (but see my response to DreamGuy below). The RfAr, for instance, suggests that he's a bit clueless and careless of the rules, but not an aggressive troll. At one point I myself changed users from User:Minority Report. So the Gavin thing isn't an issue. Since the only problem here may be his problems working with others, I'll take his expressed views as sincere. It also counts as a good point with me that he is the primary author; unlike some administrators, I view a primary author prepared to defend his work on a VfD with some kindness. If the vote were close (which it isn't, even if I discounted Gabrielsimon's vote) I'd be prepared to favor a well-expressed opinion by the author in defence of his work. It's all about respecting the sincere intentions of the main editors of the contents of this encyclopedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


Gabriel admitted sockpuppeting to USer:SlimVirgin and User:Ed Poor, who are acting as unofficial babysitters for him. You can ask them about his sockpuppets. DreamGuy 20:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow this up with them. --20:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


--Tony,

I take particular exception to having my vote discarded. I have read what seem to me the relevant policies, and find no support for this decision. Notably, I find in the deletion guidelines for administrators the following: "For example, administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." I do not qualify as a bad faith voter under any of those criteria. I understand that you are entitled and enjoined to use your "best judgement," but I nonetheless submit that your standard is too high and rejects too many authentic votes, mine included. Is there any written and generally accepted policy that marks me as some kind of "probationary user," inelligble to participate in deletion discussions? If so, I will gladly withdraw my complaint. But this seems to me arbitrary and unsupported by policy. I oppose and protest your decision.

Respectfully, --Craigkbryant 22:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I second this view and ask that you, Tony Sidaway, rescind your decision to ban any user from this vote, who makes an appropriate response here. I have been feeling rather put out by this all day. Rather Bitten. And I feel that my time at VfD was completely wasted, that my opinion was disregarded out of hand, and that you Mr. Sidaway have taken a liberty with the proceedures here that you cannot explain away as easily as you have been trying to do. I ask you once again to reasses your criteria. I am obviously not a sockpuppet. I am and hope to be a long term contributor to the project. You have done nothing to foster any good will with me concerning my, well concerns, but you have supplied a great deal of circular dialogue. If I wasn't so angry over the issue of being dismissed out of hand, arbitraily by you I might be amused. Hamster Sandwich 22:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently considering removing Gabrielsimon's vote--I've asked SlimVirgin and Ed Poor, both of whom know far more about the case than I do, to give second opinions and I'll go with two out of three (my vote is to reject it).

On your request to count all other votes I regard votes on VfD made by any editor who has no significant experience of Wikipedia as suspect; I regard an editor who shows such interest prior to one month passing since his first edit with particular suspicion. For me this is non-negotiable. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay I checked with Ed Poor and SlimVirgin and they both thought it was right to count Gabrielsimon once. So no change there. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Now suppose I include the four delete voters, the keep voter and the merge voter that I excluded (still excluding Khulhy which was an admitted sock puppet).

I would have 16 votes to delete, 7 votes to keep, and 3 others. We'd have a delete vote of 16 out of 26, or 61%. I'd still default to keep.

Suppose Ed Poor and SlimVirgin said we should exclude Gabrielsimon's vote altogether.

I would have 16 votes to delete, 6 votes to keep, and 3 others. We'd have a delete vote of 16 out of 25, or 64%. Still a default to keep.

I hope this helps. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People are asking me to help

I'm here because you appear to be pissing people off :-( See my talk page here. I personally don't feel that you actions are necessarily wrong, but the way you are doing them could do with some improvement. Wikipedia is more than just a bunch of individuals doing what they think is right. It is also a community. The main complaint appears to me that you do not discuss and debate controversial decisions, and this can't be a good thing. Anyway consider yourself invited over to my place (well my talk page anyways) and hopefully we sort this out without pistols at dawn ;-) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and schizotypy

Hi Tony, Gabrielsimon was using Ketrovin (talk • contribs) and Khulhy (talk • contribs) as sockpuppets, both later confirmed by him, and is now using Gavin the Chosen (talk • contribs) though as a new account, not as a sockpuppet. On the VfD, I see that Khulhy voted, as well as Gabrielsimon, though someone struck through the former, so I don't know whether you counted it. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's fair to count Gabriel's vote, Tony. He's allowed one, and it seems you spotted the sockpuppet vote, so no harm was done, despite the attempt. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ed Poor in a fairly complex response also seems to favor counting Gabrielsimon once. I'll go with that. Thanks. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wrestling Revolution Radio

This was listed on Candidates for Speedy deletion without mentioning a reason. I've looked into it and saw that this article could easily be deleted because of " an article that does not assert that person's importance or significance'. However, if you think this assertion is disputed or controversial, you can take it to VFD, according to Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles and explain why the article should be retained. Or better, expand the article and give it meaningful content so that it becomes up to the usual encyclopedic standards. I hope this will satisfy you. JoJan 08:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency Vote Tally

Hi Tony, I've already been keeping track of the vote on the talk page(I've got 107 deletes to 77 keeps so far), although it's a very rough count, it doesn't take into account the "Strong" or "Weaks" or the "[blank] and [something]"(rename,move,facetious comment, etc.) Let me know if I can assist on the final tally, it seems like it'd be an easier job for multiple people. Karmafist 13:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks like 58% to me--well into "keep" territory for lack of consensus. I won't be tallying it myself; I don't tally VfDs in which I have voted. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Britelite

Hi Tony. it appears I deleted this article in error. The version I deleted, which was the original creation, was of poor quality (half of which contained details of a middle-manager from Hamburg). I did not do any checks, which in hindsight I probably should have done. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. Rje 15:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to resurrect Toa Warriors if you think the information may be of use somewhere. Rje 15:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ExamDiff

Please see Talk:ExamDiff; I'm wondering if you care to explain your decision in that VfD. (It took me way too long to notice that it wasn't gone yet. :) --Quuxplusone 01:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIV

Tony, be civil in the future and do not put words in my mouth. You are entirely overstating and pulling out of context what I just said. Whenever people have criticism of you, you turn their arguments into a straw man and call them liars. You do not rule this wiki. You do not have the unilateral right to ignore consensus. The world does not revolve around you. Since many people criticize you, you should consider that they actually have a point, rather than call them names. Grow up some time, will you? Radiant_>|< 09:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Radiant, "unilateral right" is called WP:BOLD in some parts ;-) Just use WP:HEC, IIRC Tony subscribes to that. Both of you are very skilled and experienced editors, just with slightly different ways of doing things. I haven't seen either of you break the rules, and I've seen you both work hard to improve the wikipedia.
And yet you both accuse each other of acting unilaterally, and of breaking the rules. It's quite funny from an outside perspective! :-). Oh hmm, except you're fighting over it. That's less funny. Could we arrange a talk on irc between the both of you? I think that would clear the air a lot. Kim Bruning 13:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • HEC? Yes, he's on the membership list, but he's obviously having some problems with the Code of HEC. Radiant_>|< 13:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Would you like help sorting out your differences with Radiant? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewritten speedies

I was originally going to add something like this to the Jive.exe VfD, but I realized I was making a much more general point.

You seem to think a successful rewrite of a speedied article to a non-speediable one establishes the invalidity of the original speedy deletion. It doesn't. It's true the article you wrote might not have been written for a very long time had the speedy been unchallenged. It's also true the article you wrote might not have been written for a very long time had the one-sentence stub been left in place.

I think the beef you have with others over this (most notably (or vocally) geogre) is that your views are firmly rooted in eventualism: if the article has any potential to grow, it should be left in place. You clash with those who put more faith in m:immediatism and argue that there is such a thing as "not enough potential", and that arguing over them runs contrary to the very principles of immediatism: making the encyclopedia a qualitatively better place now.

Without taking a side in this, I do note the policy clubs you're beating each other over the head with don't help. Policy is insufficiently unequivocal to resolve this, and the argument deterioriates because both sides are firmly committed to their view of what's best for Wikipedia. ("Even if I'm wrong you could be more respectful!" "I am being respectful, I just have to undo your actions because you're wrong." "Yeah, well, right back at 'ya.") Unfortunately I see little hope of resolution in the near future. JRM · Talk 16:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'm far more sanguine on this than you probably think I have a right to be. I'm not clashing with geogre etc, really, they're just expressing one opinion and I'm expressing another. Neither of us is "right", and the two interpretations seem to fit existing policy, which doesn't lessen our commitment to our respective positions. I don't think this has anything to do with eventualism, it's over how we interpret some very ambiguous CSDs, particularly those containing phrases like "assertion of notability" and "context". There can be legitimate disagreements over whether an article matches these criteria and I don't think we should pretend that there is a consensus on what they mean unless and until there is one.
I don't have a problem with undeleting a speedied article that clearly tells me everything I need to know to expand it--in that sense, you have it right, I don't think an easily expandable article should ever be speedied. An expanded stub must ipso facto have previously contained sufficient context. A stub that contains job titles like "record producer" that need to be rationalised away in order to deny an assertion of notability, well at least it's a disputable speedy, and I have no qualms about dealing with what I perceive as a bad deletion that damages Wikipedia by removing potentially encyclopedic content without the justification of consensus.
We can deal with the eventualism/immediatism argument in VfD where, in my opinion, eventualism is triumphantly vindicated by work being performed on articles during the discussions. YMMV.
On the extends/rewrites, I've changed my strategy on this so as to remove ambiguity. I'm sufficiently confident in my ability to salvage speedies that I don't think there will be a serious challenge to my rewrites. Jive.exe, Monique DeMoan and Warren Benbow, and even 2018 world cup (headed for the redirect which I suggested in my nomination) are just the tip of the iceberg, but they show that I'm capable of challenging a single sysop's speedy and taking the result right through VfD to a non-delete conclusion. My new strategy is to perform the rewrite first and undelete the original version if necessary to comply with the GFDL, and this will probably address most of the objections by other sysops and make a repetition of the Monique DeMoan fiasco, if not less likely, at least rather more difficult to justify for anyone who tries it. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Your altered strategy seems like a much better idea than the single-sentence delete wars we've had lately. I note that history-only undeletion doesn't even need VfU bureaucracy.
"An expanded stub must ipso facto have previously contained sufficient context"—yes, but the issue is whether in the opinion of someone just looking at the stub it contains enough context. This is where all the acrimony comes from: you are seen as setting yourself up as the heroic rescuer of "bad" speedies, when the only way to show a speedy was bad is to actually replace it with something indisputably beyond CSD. Obviously nobody disputes that you writing decent articles to replace the initial stub is a bad thing—what they object to is being retroactively (and actively) labelled "wrong" through something you did. (I am, again, only telling you how I see it, and not trying to imply I agree.)
Regarding the "triumph" of eventualism, I wouldn't be so sure: those articles were expanded so rapidly because they were speedied. How's that for irony? :-) JRM · Talk 17:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well as far as I'm aware no undeletion needs VFU, but some of my undeletions of articles on VFU have been controversial. I agree that some people see me as setting myself up as "heroic rescuer of bad speedies". Take away the "heroic" tag and this is in effect what I've been doing for some time. I don't think this need be a controversial role, especially since I've proven extremely competent at it.

Let's see, we're looking at context "in the view of someone just looking at the stub". Well obviously the articles must have contained enough context because that is precisely what I did in each and every case: I just looked at them! And I knew then and there that the articles were telling me clearly that this person is a musician, record producer and educator, that person is a porn actress whose career started in 93, that program is some kind of humorous text filter, that article is about British interest in hosting a World Cup in thirteen years time, that person (Arthur Gary Bishop) is a serial killer and pedophile . These were all short stubs, but had one thing in common: they accurately described their subject matter with great economy. I happen to prize brevity and precision, and they looked just fine to me. All I did was look up stuff in reference books and google a bit on the computer, using the information in the articles. That's what nearly all of our editors do most of the time. That's how every one of our articles gets expanded. The only difference is that with very brief articles some people don't seem to see what is there; they only see a low wordcount. The immediate rewrite is really only necessary to remove the speedier's claim, which in my view is misconceived.

You're absolutely right that those articles get expanded quickly because they were speedied. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Immediatist tendencies among RC patrollers provide a good spur to editing. My point here is that the articles enter VfD in a form in which the nominator often proclaims them to be unsalvageable, and are salvaged in front of his eyes. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] statues

The reason why the statues article was protected was because a banned user mounted an all out attack on various articles using 14 sockpuppets. That was one of the articles that had to be protected to stop the vandalism. Because his attacks on a range of articles were almost simultaneous — at one stage a new sockpuppet appeared less than one minute after its precedessor was blocked, it was physically impossible to simultaneously revert, block, link the sockpuppets to the culprit, finally when necessary protect and leave an explanation on the talk page. By the time one got to the talk page, his latest identity was targeting two others, adding crap edits to the Lame page, attacking the Wikipedia:Stalking page with sockpuppets, etc etc. Keep an eye out of mysterious sockpuppets attacking the page today with dodgy edits about Queen Victoria. The asshole is likely to hit it again. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 17:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW another user has found a fifteenth sockpuppet of his. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 17:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Passing comment

A wise choice voting to keep the Wikiproject. Integrity is the key to any person's judgement. It's good to know that you can make the right call when something important goes up for deletion. Erwin Walsh

[edit] Exam Diff

Tony,
Why did you create Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination) when Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff 2 already existed? Your naming convention is better in retrospect, but a rename would have been simpler.
brenneman(t)(c) 07:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. - brenneman(t)(c) 14:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B1249 road

Hi Tony, thanks for spotting my mistake on that VfD. I've cheerfully withdrawn the nomination. Proto t c 12:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I would say if it had been boiled down to a simple proposal - 'Do we delete every minor B road unless it asserts particular notability?', then we'd have had a consensus a long time ago. Particularly as those roads with notability (such as Oxford Road) have articles under that name rather than Bxxxx, making assertion of notability far easier. Proto t c 13:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion and undeletion

Take it easily until things blow over. If you think pages are being deleted out of course, it would be wiser for the moment to lodge a complaint rather than undelete them yourself, which could be seen as being motivated by an agenda. Susvolans (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet!?

I fully agree with your re-listing of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/DQN as it only gained four votes the first time around. However, to use it as an opportunity to label myself and another editor as suspected sockpuppets when no justification was even required is both inappropriate and preposterous. Please explain what part of my edit history lead to your assumption; I'm VERY interested to hear it. - Thatdog 20:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. - Thatdog 20:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Argh! I did it again!

I accidently made the same mistake again: See [3]. I though it was kinda cosmic that it happened on "Tony Samara". Do you think I was subconsciously trying to delete you? Paul August ☎ 21:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What the heck?

Nonsense? Vandalism?

Accusations hold more weight when they're backed up with fact. (unsigned edit by 65.92.45.73)

I think the comment you are responding to was in response to this edit: [4]

Well I remain utterly mystified. If yon chap can translate his banter into some species of English perhaps we can engage in something resembling a dialogue. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Claudio Tognolli

Sorry, my mistake. I admit I was a little hasty on that one. I guess I was distracted by the nonsense at the end of the version I saw. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD closing

Tony, the result on one VfD you recently closed was merge. Rather than merging you just said someone else merge it. I respect you and know you're a great editor but still you should have merged it. And one of them was 3 delete to 4 redirect and there were 0 votes of any other kind so I don't see why you didn't redirect.

Redwolf24 (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Anybody can merge. I left a note indicating that a merge was mooted. But a merge is just another form of keep. --Tony SidawayTalk

[edit] FYI

A task has been added to your Cleanup Taskforce desk. -- Beland 04:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfU?

I though you agreed to stop doing this?
brenneman(t)(c) 12:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC) (Copied from user talk page.)

I don't think any admninistrator would willingly agree to stop correcting bad speedies. Sometimes I rewrite when only a tiny stub exists, but in a case like this with plenty of detail I see no reason to duplicate the work that has already been done. Such out-of-process speedies are summarily undeletable according to the deletion policy: "Deleted pages can be restored, by administrators, if and only if there is support on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, or the page was speedily deleted out-of-process." Since the article clearly identified this person as the author of several books, including a Farsi language book and volumes of poems, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents clearly states that authors are notable, this was a clear ase of deletion out of process. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
My understanding was that, through some rough arbitration, you had commited to use of the existing VfU process with regards to undeletion. Was there some urgency with information on Homa Sayar that required you to break that gentlemen's agreement?
brenneman(t)(c) 02:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall any agreement. I do recall noting that this would be a way to stop people complaining about piddling inconsequentialities such as the undeletion of a bad speedy that I intended to expand. Do feel free to continue to complain about such fripperies, I can't stop you. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
As a courtesy - User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway.
brenneman(t)(c) 07:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I recommend that you go straight to Arbcom, since you claim that the first VfD provides clear evidence of abuse of sysop privileges. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

And this might interest you:

There is nothing wrong with undeleting a bad speedy. This is covered amply in the deletion policy and the undeletion policy. The procedure is different for sysops and non-sysops. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What's the story on your many new and deleted articles?

Just wondering -- if I can help, let me know. Hate to see someone get tons of deletions. Paul Klenk

[edit] "Judicial tyranny" VfD / redirect

If the outcome of the VfD was "no consensus," why was the article deleted and the term redirected to judicial activism? As my comments indicated, there is an important substantive difference between the two terms. I had replaced the very poor text that existed with one which accurately, I believe, reflected historical usage of the term, and which was approved by at least one other participant in the discussion. Judge Magney 01:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The article has not been deleted. I simply edited it. Check the edit history, particularly my edit summary. Feel free to muck around with it if you think I got it wrong. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Free Lunch Design

Your contention that "No consensus => keep" is false.

See Wikipedia:Deletion process:

If the discussion failed to reach concensus, the decision defaults to "keep" but should be explicitly recorded as "NOT DELETED: No Consensus". This tends to reduce future confusion Zoe 05:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

(Removed the distracting bolding)

You can't change policy just by editing the document, silly. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't change any policy. Zoe 05:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Oh you're right; Rossami added it. I'm taking it up with him. Meanwhile you might like to look at recent closes. Most sysops still seem to be saying keep, which is what policy says we do when there is no consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
And he changed it on August 18, ten days before you closed the vote. Zoe 21:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

And now he's changed it again. Gosh this is like musical chairs! Isn't policy-making fun! --Tony SidawayTalk 03:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Instruction creep and VfD

I share your concerns that the added clause might be instruction-creepish. That's why I explicitly chose to use the word "should" and gave the reason "to reduce future confusion". With this wording, this version is a suggestion.

Instruction creep is a serious problem for us. So is ambiguity. Unfortunately, those two problems are in tension. I don't know where the right balance is but hoped to spark more thought. By the way, this suggestion was discussed for several days - though I think it was on a different page. I'd have to do some digging to find exactly where that discussion started. While only a few people joined the discussion, neither were there any objections. I know that the sense of confusion and ambiguity has played out in several different pages. With the wording of "should", it seemed safe to be bold in this case.

I welcome the discussion on whether this clause is really necessary. To be honest, your purist approach to closing of deletions has great appeal to me. But many people obviously disagree. The addition of this clause seemed like a mild change that would let us all get back to the business of creating an encyclopedia. You are right that it makes no functional difference in the decision but it might reduce ambiguity and preempt some of the noise and distraction.

If you really think this was a "drastic change", by all means, let's discuss it more. We should probably move the discussion to one of the Talk pages, though. This shouldn't stay just on our user pages. Rossami (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I should have read the section immediately above this comment to see what sparked the debate. Let me be very clear about my own position. "No consensus" = "keep". However, we have options in how we choose to document that finding. When I close such debates, I have always tried to be explicit and say "no consensus which defaults to keep for now". Same result but people don't get so wrapped around the axle. Rossami (talk)

I suppose it isn't that drastic. The way it was presented to me made it seem rather prescriptive--and that kind of chinese whispers effect is itself part of instruction creep. It is true that the approach I adopted seems to have caused some consternation--which I only partly understand. I can live with it, but think it would be better if instead of a form of words it suggested that sysops should aim for clarity in their closes. The "keep (no consensus)" form seems to have been around for a long time and so it has the benefit of familiarity as well as being precise. Trying to discourage use of the k-word altogether for no consensus results seems unlikely to find much favor with those who close listings (See [[5]] for examples---very few of them consensus debates, going back months) but I could be wrong. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Will you do the edit or would you like me to? Rossami (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
If I did it, it would be somewhat controversial in some sensitive quarters. If you think it's okay for you to do so then please feel free. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Better now? Rossami (talk)

[edit] Fordson High School

Thanks a lot for all your help with the article. Silensor 19:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, NPR ran a story on Fordson in 2003 titled "Football Dreams, Ramadan Requirements Collide" but the link is dead. [6] Do you know of any way to research NPR archives? Silensor 19:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I can't find it. I searched on NPR's own site search engine, and it shows up but then the link fails.

I searched on ramadan and fordson high, and got this:

Hope this helps. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael McAnnis

Hi Tony, This is MMcAnnis,YumaAZ, .....Michael McAnnis,....I just left a long message to RHaworth. If you have time please read it.

I didn't vote on my own stuff. And besides, i was working like a mad demon on my stuff, so I was very busy. It was the body of what i was doing, but also the Wikipedia, software, wordprocessing, DISPLAY of it. I now Know more. Thanks for being patient. I had

I had added " Amarna Letters EA 205(Governor of Tob) ", I think that was the title, Anyway, I found that i got every word on it, as a result of entering it. I knew more than when i had stopped working on it. IT is a Very, very, small, short letter.

I will talk again, soon, soon. Michael,McAnnis

[edit] Ofsted crown copyright issues

Hi Tony. Just had a thought about OFSTED and went to check out their website. As OFSTED is covered by Crown copyright, all their information is indeed freely available for educational purposes.

However, their copyright page states:

The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material may be reproduced in part or in whole free of charge in any format or medium for any non-commercial educational purposes, such as research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation.
This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where the Crown copyright items on the site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.

(My emphasis). I have noticed you've been freely putting OFSTED information on many, many school articles in a bid to preserve them from the deletionists. And you've ensured a link to the OFSTED report has been added to the External Links of each of these school articles. However, I also note that you have not, ever, fully adhered to Crown Copyright rules by acknowledging the copyright status of the OFSTED information on each of these school article pages.

Am I missing something, or is this something you really should have done? I'm sure it was just an oversight, and so perhaps you could go back and amend all of them, in order to correctly respect Crown Copyright. Failing this, the articles may have to be tagged as copyright violations. Proto t c 13:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That's complete rubbish. I haven't ever placed any OFSTED copyright material on any part of Wikipedia. Copyright law covers tangible material, not information. Feel free to add an acknowledgement of crown copyright status to any articles you find that you think may contravene this, but I don't think you'll find any. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
12:56, 30 August 2005 Court Moor School (Remove vanity stuff, add OFSTED summary and link.) (diff). Date, article, your edit summary, diff link. I think that's one. I just want to know whether or not acknowledgemnt of Crown Copyright is necessary in cases like this. Proto t c 14:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No. I just looked at it now and this what it says:

The school was last inspected by OFSTED in 2000, when it had 1045 pupils, and the independent inspectors reported that it was "a very good school which is oversubscribed", providing strong and supportive leadership, a very good quality of teaching, and providing very good value for money.
The Department for Education and Skills (DFES) records that in 2000 some 70% of all pupils leaving the school that year had attained five or more GCSE pass results, well above the national average of 49%. For GCSE and GNVQ attainment, the BBC's league table for 2002 ranked the school 25th out of 85 in the area and 857 of 3571 in England and Wales.

So I'm citing information but (with the exception of a brief quote of the kind which is not normally covered by copyright law) not copying copyright material. For a full and complete answer I suggest you ask about this case on Wikipedia talk:Copyright, but the short answer is as above. There's no harm in adding an acknowledgement of crown copyright if you want to, but I believe it's superfluous unless we actually reproduce the material--which we don't intend to do. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Tony. Thanks for clearing it up. Proto t c 14:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zarius' vote

Thank you for getting me to take a second look. That was well handled on your part and poorly done by me. - Tεxτurε 14:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colis P. Huntington High School

Go for that re-write Tony. Indeed, after a little reasearch, this school looks so interesting that I'd do it myself, if hadn't talked myself into re-writing Laodicean Church in order to get it passed VfD. I might become an 'ex-deletionist' yet! --Doc (?) 15:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scimitar's RfA

Thanks for supporting me, Tony. If you have any concerns, make sure you let me know.--Scimitar parley 17:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD: Homa Sayar

Hi Tony,

While I think that you were right (though not perfect, but then who is?) in the above case, I also hope you notice that your comment "Aaron has been trailing around after me launching these personal attacks" is itself also arguably a personal attack (and this is not saying anything about how likely the assertion is; everyone who cares will be able to figure that out using your contribution lists). I think it would be wise to remove that part from your comment, in the hope that the dispute between you can be resolved in a way that no dislike (or let's rather call it irritation) remains.

KissL 13:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I edited it out as you requested. For the sake of peace, I think I should ignore this person. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Um, I can still see it there... you seem to have forgotten to hit Alt-S or something (?) KissL 16:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Your comments

Tony, thanks for your comments. I know I can come off as abrasive, especially over the internet when I'm confronted on issues, but I do mean well. I like to find the middle ground in situations where I can, schools being the latest and best example. Roads too have seen this occuring. Thank you for making it easier to make distinctions between good and bad schools by the way. Your persistance in finding information where available is making it much easier to highlight which schools are and which school's aren't worthy or an article.Gateman1997 23:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fabergé <cough, cough>

Of course, most certainly, do pass on the egg award, if you like it! I uploaded the image for use, er, cough, here, and since then I've awarded it to... checking... you and User:Worldtraveller. I seem to remember World used the phrase "this prestigious award" when he thanked me. :-). It's not a real Fabergé egg. My "Fair use" tag might be a bit optimistic, also. That tends to be the case with the <embarrassed coughing fit> ETPH illustrations, I wasn't as careful with them as with image uploads for real articles, I'm sorry to say. On getting your message, I tried to find it again on Google, to tell you where it was from, but I can't see it. I suppose the webstore in question might have folded or something. An image search for "Fabergé egg" certainly yields a plenitude, though, including a few real Fabergés, in case you think your intended recipients would rather have one that isn't referred to as a tp holder elsewhere on wiki...? But do use it any way you like at all. It's prestigious!  :-) Best, Bishonen | talk 00:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court of Justice hostage crisis

I added this article to your desk. --Phroziac (talk) 00:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amarna

Hi Tony Sidaway, this is Michael McAnnis,YumaAZ. You probably know by now that after 5 1/2 days I read RHaworths first comments to me, that day forward i started signing MMcAnnis,YumaAz. When the works were partially deleted, I then registered, (it went through) so I guess I am a semi-member. I do believe in the dissemination of Knowledge. I see Wikipedia, as possibly a HUGE step in that direction.

I just looked at [[Leap year...... etc. I see in the history people have been trying to get the first paragraph formula CORRECT for a bout 6 months. I just did an edit, I did one 1 month ago. I think, it is almost clear. It is correct but not quite clear. When I first read it a month ago, i couldn't even make sense of it. I did read the scoop in a book given to me by a LIBRArian at the Library out of the Reference section, that was 6 years ago. but it did mention how Caesar implemented Leap year in 55 b.c. also, the revision of i believe 1592, when 10 days were removed and the 400 year rule implemented.. The Leap Year page is obviously extensive beyoind just basic Leap Year.

I tried to vote on my pages. Please guide me to how to do it. Thanks, And I am starting EA 299 tonite. It may get fishished, by Sunday afternoon. or so. ....I will also see if you have already written to me. I have not checked. Thanks.....Michael McAnnis, in YumaAZ, western USA, Arizona.

Tony, this is Michael McAnnis again, I just read my talk and found your comments to me about Sept 8. So, when you say download my work, I guess you must mean to " My Contribuitions", I'll try to do that, but I am not adept at the computer. I would hire 2 people to do it for me, if I could. In a sense I am begging for Your Help.

I mentioned the Hapire of EA 299. I read the Hapiru, and the {{Hapiru/Sources...... It was totally work entered from decades ago, Not that it is incorrect, or even off the 100 percent mark. I can't say for sure. One of the works I used from Interlibraby Loan.

I just wrote someplace else that a page could be created, Not for Amarna Letters, that page is actually round about , and circular, and many viewpoints. The Histroical Documents, the El Amarna letters, could have a page, like Amarna Letters(Corpus)EA 1-EA 382. I just made this comment of the Amarna Letters Dictionary Page, I was trying to remember where. I listed 3 categories that could be immediately created for the Corpus, for example groups of letters, EA 19-Ea 28, king Tushratta from country Mitanni.

At any rate I will attempt to "download" after I work on Amarna Letters 299 It really should be titled: Amarna Letters EA 299(Yapahu No.3).

this is my second note in the last 15 minutes. Michael McAnnis, YumaAZ, 10:20 Sat evenin' Sep 3


RHaworth butts in first:
Your vandalism of the Leap Year page worries me. Is all your work just as incorrect? What planet were you on on 2000 Feb 29?
The votes for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Amarna Letters EA 19(Tushratta) is now closed. You had ample notice of the existence of the discussion, ie. you edited more than one article with the VfD tag in place. The decision has been taken.
Re editing the articles in User:Tony Sidaway/deleted/…, my words were: find the articles, do a few edits just to assure yourself that they all right, then stop.
Let me repeat Tony's message: I'm deleting them all on September 8th. He means it. I agree with him.
Do we really have to spell out how to download? You don't deserve it but I will confuse you by telling you two different ways. I will describe them for Windows 98 / Internet Explorer 5 (I am into trailing-edge technology). If you cannot translate the instructions into your operating system and browser, hard luck.
  1. (Save the HTML). View one of the articles in the browser. Click File / Save as. Select My documents as the folder and click Save. Repeat for all the other articles.
  2. (Save the Wiki markup). Click Start / Programs / accessories / Wordpad. Open your browser and view one of the articles. Click Edit this page. Scroll to the edit window. Right click and click Select All. Right click and click copy. Switch to the Wordpad window (I use Alt-tab). Click Edit / Paste. Click File / Save As and save it. Repeat for all the other articles.
Best of luck. Let us know when your work has a new home. -- RHaworth 10:12:23, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

[edit] Julio Linares

This Afd appears to have been incorrectly closed, as tag is still on article and the talk page is blank.
brenneman(t)(c) 14:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Kerckhoff

I'd query the aggressiveness of this deletion. Our A7 CSD requires "no assertion of notability" and currently that links to Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles which says:

Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion.

The text of the deleted article said this guy is a professor of mathematics at the University of Michigan. This sounds like an assertion of notability that should at least have been examined on VfD. For example the article on Nicholas Humphrey originally only said:

Nicholas Humphrey was born in England in 1943. He received his Ph. D. in Psychology from Cambridge University in 1968. Dr. Humphrey currently holds a School Professorship at the London School of Economics as well as a half-time Professorship at the New School for Social Research in New York.

The current version, needless to say, gives rather a lot more information on what has been an extremely fruitful, if rather eclectic, career.

Anyhow this is the kind of thing I expect to find on VfD, really. I've checked and on the face of it Kerckhoff has some small but serious claim to notability. Along with Gunnar Carlsson, Ralph Cohen, and Jim Milgram, he was instrumental in developing the California Mathematics Academic Content Standards for the State Board of Education, the controversy over which is discussed in Big Business, Race, and Gender in Mathematics Reform, by Steven Krantz (ISBN 0821813986). --Tony SidawayTalk 16:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Post script: I checked again and it appears that this must be a different Steven Kerchoff (though I did search the Michigan directory and drew a blank). The date of birth given is far too late for the Steve Kerchoff described here. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. --fvw* 22:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schoolwatch

Hi Tony, could you please add a 'year to date' total of VfD/AfD results on schoolwatch? Thanks. --Nicodemus75 23:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I'd do that, only I have never gotten around to analyzing the VfDs for January and February. If you feel like doing the job and annotating, feel free. I got involved in April when there seemed to be a hell of a lot of school nominations around, so that's when I tend to keep count from. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Radiant_and_Tony_Sidaway

This appears a bit misplaced. There's another subsection beneath it from the section above.
brenneman(t)(c) 01:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

[7] - brenneman(t)(c) 03:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chaos washing machines VfD results

Hello, Tony. I am wondering about your closure of the Chaos washing machines VfD, in which you state that "the result of the debate was copyvio." However, when I count the votes, I find the results to be 6 for deletion, 3 for merging, 1 for keeping only if copyvio is rewritten, and 0 copyvio votes. Copyvio was certainly brought up, and the article is copyvio, certainly, but it seems to me that the result of the debate is clearly delete. So, why did you call the result as copyvio? Am I missing something? At the very least, I'd like to know why you called the debate as such. Thank you, --Blackcap | talk 04:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how you see 6 out of 10 for deletion as a consensus to delete. Some sysops will call consensus if there are as few as 67%, true, but that's more than 6 out of 10, not less. But actually the correct call here is copyvio. If it is obvious that an article is a copyright violation, it should be handled at WP:CP, during the course of which the article will certainly be deleted. Someone else may choose to write a new article on the subject, and I've allowed for it to be relisted. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

But it's not 6 out of 10, it's 6 out of 9, as the 1 keep vote was on the condition that it be uncopyvioed, which it wasn't, making the result 67%. I assume that since you didn't call that as "delete" that you aren't of the opinion that 67% is consensus, which makes the result "no consensus," and a copyvio template is put on the page. So why is the debate called "copyvio?" Sure, a copyvio article should be handled at WP:CP, but that doesn't change the VfD votes. --Blackcap | talk 06:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC) Corrolary: Even if we count the "conditional keep" vote, the VfD should still have been marked "no consensus," and a copyvio notice should have gone up on the page. Either way, the result of the debate wasn't "copyvio," even though that's what the article is. --Blackcap | talk 06:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Our guide for administrators tells us specifically that copyright violations override votes. In short, it wouldn't matter if we had 10 "keep" votes, the result would still be copyright violation and no appeals because the article is almost word-for-word the same as the cited source.
I don't understand why you'd discount the tenth vote in your scenario. That is not how I would do the arithmetic. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Right, mate. I know it's totally copyvio, I'm the one who found where it came from. But if something's copyvio, and it goes into VfD, then the VfD votes get counted, and if the votes are for delete, then it's deleted, if the votes are for anything else, the VfD is closed, then a nice fat copyvio sticker gets slapped on the page, right? Just because the article's copyvio doesn't mean that it can't be deleted by VfD or CSD (e.g. an A7 copyvio can still be speedied) as far as I understand it. If you disagree or I'm wrong or whatnot, I'd appreciate it greatly if you'd show me where I'm wrong in WP policy, beacasue after reading WP:CP and WP:AfD I haven't found the rule that copyright problems change VfD votes.
Also, I'm not "discounting" the tenth (Kappa's keep) vote. The vote says, "Change vote to keep if copyvio is rewritten." The copyvio was not rewritten. Thus, according to his wishes, he has not voted keep, he has not voted anything. --Blackcap | talk 17:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Okay. Well I wouldn't have counted it like that. He did vote and that vote would have been counted as a provisional keep, had I counted any of the votes at all. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Copied thread to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Chaos washing machines. --Blackcap | talk 05:48, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pascal Constanza

Could you please provide some additional evidence of Constanza's notability in the VFD like a book they wrote or something else. The current article isn't big on info and while I've got no problem with trusting you, I prefer to base my vote off facts. - Mgm|(talk) 08:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the info, what pic are you talking about? - Mgm|(talk) 08:49, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Discounting of my vote

Hi Tony,

I discover (from your talk-page above) that a recent vote I cast in a VfD was disqualified by you for specious reasons. As could be discerned by visting my user page, or looking at my edit history, I am a good faith user who has contributed in many ways to wikipedia, and I find it insulting to be "judged" unworthy to participate by you.

Sdedeo 00:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did an impact analysis on that and found that my call wouldn't have been different even if I'd (a) adopted a very relaxed 2/3=consensus, (b) counted all votes that weren't positively proven to be socks, and even (c) completely discounted one person who had cast a good faith vote plus a sock vote.
However during the post mortem I decided I was being too aggressive (even in the circumstances where there was clearly good evidence of socking being prevalent and a large number of new or, like you, previously dormant editors suddenly casting votes on VfD). I decided I was being too anal about it and since then I have dropped the strict criteria, which were intended to provide a fair and equitable approach, because someone convinced me that they would tend to alienate newcomers.
It is still the case that your editing pattern on Wikipedia is extremely anomalous (at least for logged-in edits). You have a few hundred articlespace edits but you have a much larger number of Wikipedia space edits, mostly VfDs. This rings alarm bells for me in such a new editor. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Tony. First of all, I would encourage you to assume good faith in the future. "Socks" and such are usually very obvious. I am not quite sure what you mean by "alarm bells". As far as I can count, I was a logged in user when I created or made significant contributions to approximately thirteen articles. Perhaps when you discounted my vote, it was more like five?
Secondly, you cannot be unaware that your actions in closing AfDs have been the recent subject of controversy and criticism to an extent far exceeding that of any other admin. Whether or not your actions were as unjustified as they were in this case, it would perhaps be wise for you to find a different activity to participate in on wikipedia.
I find your inability to make a simple apology in this case frustrating. Sdedeo 00:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but socks are only obvious from their behavior. An editor who suddenly appears and, almost from nowhere, starts taking a very strong interest in Votes for deletion, trips my troll alarm. I can't apologise because such an activity pattern makes the assumption of good faith extremely difficult.

Look at your own history:

  1. 23:23, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of groups widely considered extremist (→List of groups widely considered extremist)
  2. 23:23, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 5
  3. 23:23, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of groups widely considered extremist
  4. 23:15, 5 August 2005 Ray Buttigieg/Cykx
  5. 22:38, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NXTbook Media
  6. 22:38, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NXTbook Media (→NXTbook Media)
  7. 22:36, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zinio
  8. 22:36, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zinio (→Zinio)
  9. 21:36, 5 August 2005 Ani DiFranco
  10. 20:55, 5 August 2005 La petite guerre
  11. 20:51, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 5
  12. 20:51, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Frost & Sullivan
  13. 20:41, 5 August 2005 Daniel Hugh-Kelly (top) [rollback]
  14. 20:39, 5 August 2005 Fugue State Press
  15. 20:28, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Heinich, Michael Molenda, James Russell
  16. 20:28, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Heinich, Michael Molenda, James Russell (→Robert Heinich, Michael Molenda, James Russell)
  17. 20:21, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peg boy
  18. 20:21, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peg boy (→Peg boy)
  19. 09:06, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audacious (→Audacious)
  20. 09:06, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audacious (→Audacious)
  21. 08:57, 5 August 2005 Grolier Poetry Bookshop
  22. 08:49, 5 August 2005 Reffy
  23. 06:58, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NBOT (→NBOT)
  24. 06:54, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kathy Bartol
  25. 06:54, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kathy Bartol (→Kathy Bartol)
  26. 06:49, 5 August 2005 Erin McKeown
  27. 06:47, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kathy Bartol (→Kathy Bartol)
  28. 06:38, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 5
  29. 06:37, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Omega seamaster
  30. 06:36, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PICRIC ACID
  31. 06:36, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Subtle touches of red
  32. 06:35, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kathy Bartol
  33. 06:30, 5 August 2005 Talk:Sarah Scaife Foundation
  34. 06:27, 5 August 2005 Drinking liberally (Drinking liberally moved to Drinking Liberally: capitalization)
  35. 06:27, 5 August 2005 m Drinking Liberally (Drinking liberally moved to Drinking Liberally)
  36. 06:05, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Common Archive
  37. 05:47, 5 August 2005 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harvard Crimson Summer Interns (→Harvard Crimson Summer Interns)
  38. 05:25, 5 August 2005 User:Sdedeo
  39. 02:37, 2 August 2005 Drinking Liberally
  40. 02:27, 2 August 2005 Inman Square (→Images) (top) [rollback]
  41. 02:26, 2 August 2005 Inman Square
  42. 02:25, 2 August 2005 Image:1369.jpg (1369 Coffeehouse, taken from http://www.1369coffeehouse.com/) (top) [rollback]
  43. 03:55, 16 October 2003 Phillips Exeter Academy
  44. 03:51, 16 October 2003 Emotion (added Nussbaum acc't.)
  45. 03:25, 16 October 2003 Bill Viola (modifed slightly for style issues I missed)

This shows an editing account created nearly two years ago, used to make three edits within the half hour, then left alone, until revived suddenly in order to make twenty-six VfD-related edits in the course of its first twenty-four hour period after being revived. You cast the discounted vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religion and schizotypy about forty-eight hours after the revival of your account. You had averaged one VfD edit per hour in that time--an intense interest for a previously inactive account.

In the circumstances, I think that extreme caution with your votes was justified. There are plenty of more regular editors. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. I think we can consider this matter closed. Sdedeo 01:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CSD G4 change

Tony, a bunch of editors and admins have been discussing a proposal to change the text of G4 on the WP:CSD Talk page. The goal is to clarify its intent, rather than to change its meaning or scope. Two admins have expressed some approval, but more input can only be better. As an administrator with wide experience particularly in deletion policy and related matters, your comments would be especially welcome. Think you can drop by? Link here, latest version here, older discussion here. Regards—encephalonέγκέφαλος  15:51:15, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Tony, I'm sorry if you thought I was needling you. I genuinely wasn't at all. I left a reply at the CSD talk page; I'd personally prefer not to just make the change while there's still a discussion going on and, probably, not at all if you would be unhappy with such a change. Although I also replied slightly further up the page to you too, re the difference between undeletion and recreation. -Splash 02:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point about newcomers and policy. I think it was protected because those bolded letters in A1 keep getting unbolded (people think it's vandalism/typo/etc) and then someone comes along and rebolds them again. They were bolded after a debate on VfU I believe where a very short article (little content) was revived becuase it had plenty of context, the same reason the thing about 1-sentence-articles was soundly rejected a while back. Anyway, sorry again, and I agree we should let the discussion run for a day or two...see if it withers or not. Thanks. -Splash 02:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Something you may want to see

Please see User talk:Radiant!#You and Tony Sidaway. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup

Heya,

Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'probable', so hopefully it's just a small push to get you to 'definite' ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zarius confirmed my action was correct

I received this note from Zarius indicating that the vote in the VfD for Apocolypse Pooh was faked. With this affirmation I will strive to take similar action in the future to protect absent registered users. Your concerns are appreciated but I hope you will learn from this experience. - Tεxτurε 14:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh...sure. Um, what am I supposed to learn? I hope you won't remove unconfirmed votes in future. Vote tampering is taken pretty seriously; it's the closer's job to check provenance. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Vote tampering will be removed just as I did in this case. - Tεxτurε 15:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it is better, in general, to append a note indicacting why you think a vote is suspicious or invalid, rather than delting it, and leve matters for the closer to determine. I think this is what Tony was saying above. Removeing even a probably invalid vote is argably itslef "vote tampering" -- I would tend to so regard it. That the vote was infacr faked in this case is, IMO, irrelevant. DES (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So, your policy is to never undo the damage that a vandal does in a vote? I disagree. Replies to votes are easy to miss and substantiating will require going back to find the diff of the vote. If the vandal changes your vote claiming to be you while you are on vacation do you want it counted? If I see another bad fake I will delete it. - Fake User 16:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

A AfD closer who didn't "go back to find the diff of the vote" wouldn't be doing a very good job of closing, would he? A VfD closer who didn't read every single comment and every single vote, and investigate every single plausible allegation of wrongdoing, would also be failing to treat AfD seriously. Indeed the propensity of Texture to remove votes on arbitrary suspicion makes it imperative that we do perform such investigations. The main problem is that Texture removed a potentially good vote on suspicion, rather than on the basis of fact. I think he did right to restore it and add an annotation--and he should have annotated it in the first place rather than remove it. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Close mentoring

Tony, I think it might be a good idea in theory, but it's a big responsibility for the mentors, and I've also seen this kind of thing break down in the past - with Netoholic, for example. I do worry that probation might be a bit vague. Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The bicycle is inappropiate

Tony,
Please don't be coy. Either it's just a picture of a bicycle, in which case it has no point being on the page, or it's a statement, in which case it has no point being on the page. To be perfectly frank, I find it petty and immature of you to keep replacing this image.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

As usual I find your accusations at once offensive, laughable and incomprehensible. Please feel free to remove the image, and I'll put up an equally decorative image chosen carefully to try to avoid offending your unpredictable but obviously extremely finely tuned sensibilities. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony,
I do try to be as clear, honest, and direct as possible in my dealing with you. If, as you contend, you've chosen to "decorate" a wikipedia page with an image that just happens to be a frequent protest vote on school AfDs, then there is no problem. I'd ask why is is necessary to have an image "decorating" this page at all, much less an image that was important enough for you to have replaced when it "seemed" to have disappeared. I'd have thought that you'd have checked the history.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you regard it as a protest vote? I regard it as a joke vote. One guy votes bicycle, the other votes fish. One VfD closer remarked once that nobody had voted bicycle, and he included a picture of the bicycle in the closed VfD. It's a kind of running gag. I think the picture he chose is a very pretty one (so pretty that you'll find a copy of it on my user page). I'm sure the VfD closer couldn't have intended the picture as a partisan statement, nor do I. I have had that same picture of a bicycle on the Schoolwatch page and the archive page for a few weeks now.

While it's true that the picture has no real function (except as a reference to the running gag) I think it makes the page look better. I've replaced the picture with one of a school bus, which I hope you will agree is relevant to the subject.

On the subject of the removal of the picture from the schoolwatch page and my remark "seems to have been removed" when I restored it a few minutes ago, this remark was subsequent to my taking a look at this history page and not finding any edit summary obviously referring to its removal. I now see that you yourself removed the bicycle a few days ago with the cryptic remark "Please don't encourage this behavior." Please try to understand that this kind of remark is not helpful. Unless you actually say what kind of behavior you think is being encouraged, and (preferably here) actually spell out the fact that you're removing a picture of a bicycle, the edit and its purpose don't really stick out.

Might I suggest, Aaron, that you are far, far too quick to take offence, to leap to conclusions, and to assume that the mischief you see in your own mind is visible to us lesser mortals. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Year to date total at Schoolwatch

Hi Tony, do you think you could add a Year-To-Date running total to Schoolwatch whenever you do an update? That would be great - I think that a constant reminder of the frequency of keep/no concensus votes will prove useful. --Nicodemus75 08:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • P.S. I sometimes vote bicycle as a protest. LOL!

[edit] CSD G4

Hello Tony. In regard to the CSD G4 matter, I couln't find a reply to my questions to you on the above page, but note from your brief conversation with Splash on his Talk page that you have "only a weak objection to the proposed change--the vague feeling that it's probably unnecessary."[8] I think this is a very fair position, and indeed I rather suspect that to some editors who've been with WP for some time and are accustomed to what the rule was intended to mean, the proposed textual adjustment may seem unnecessary. There is reasonable evidence, however, that it is quite often interpreted to mean something entirely different, especially by newer editors who weren't around when it was formulated; I think it is fair to say that this is no real fault of theirs, given the opaque way the rule was written. My aim in making the proposal was to write it simply and clearly, so that there is less confusion over what it means especially for newer members. In thinking about a way to resolve this, I wonder if the following might work. Could you, Tony, write for us a version of the proposal that you'd find entirely acceptable? Perhaps we can come up with an even better version that way; ie. if I understand precisely what about the proposed text gives you pause, I think we might be able to get around it. I've watchlisted your Talk page, Tony; you can reply here or at my place if you want. All best wishes—encephalonέγκέφαλος  14:57:52, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

[edit] Essential tremor

Responded on my talk page. Oh, and you've restored a heading that doesn't match the MoS.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page. And I've gone ahead and fixed that malformed heading of yours.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of female porn stars

Tony,
It's nice to know that no matter what edits I make to whatever article , you'll be there straight away to revert me.
brenneman(t)(c) 05:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

No, you were just lucky to hit two items on my watchlist within a very short period. I edited Essential tremor in December and List of female porn stars in August. I do tend to revert unexplained or inadequately explained removals of information. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course Tony. It must be as you say. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It is precisely as I say. Items that I edit go onto my watchlist, and you made the edits that I noticed within two hours of one another. Don't use slimy innuendo on Wikipedia.

--Tony SidawayTalk 06:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course Tony. Any time you make an edit to pages I've recently been on it must be coincidence.
brenneman(t)(c) 06:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

No, on that occasion I did have a look to see what you were up to. As you will notice, I found no problems with your activities there. But you're changing the subject. You made an improper accusation, I demonstrated that it was baseless. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Of course. Thank you. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedies

Tony, I agree with you 99.999% of the time. This is one of the rare .001%. One was little more than an external link placeholder and the other nearly contentless. I didn't question their notability, just their quality and lack of any real information beyond bare basics. If you think they're worth keeping, feel free to restore them if you wish. - Lucky 6.9 05:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caruso stuff on AfD

I'm not sure what I should have done that I didn't; could you explain? I followed the instructions, and the result was what appeared. (I might have done it wrongly technically, but my intention was surely clear enough?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

IWhen I looked at it more carefully I realsied that I'd typed in the wrong title, which messed up the transclusion; thanks for alerting me (I should have said that in my first message). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biff Rose Protection

I think you should rethink that, there have been no inroads made to a consenus, the page will now become a haven for pro biff messages. PLease protect, until the dissenting views can make compromises.216.175.113.48

Oh it was such a silly mess I just rewrote the thing. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Let's see what happens to the page now. Considering that the involved parties had been edit warring on the temp page, I'm doubtful that unprotecting the Biff Rose page will do any good. However, I'll support your decision and leave it unprotected. If there are any signs of edit warring, though, I'll re-protect it. Do you agree with that? Thanks for your input! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 12:02, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think the "problem" is a benign one, just a matter for user education. Protection will be useful in short bursts just to make sure things don't get out of hand. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I appreciate your un-freeze and your edits. I modified yours a bit, bipassing a later POV version, but I believe I have adequately explained and sourced my edits. As I wrote on Flcelloguy's page, if the page gets frozen again, I hope that it is reverted beforehand to the most recent edit by an administrator. There has been a lot of libel, POV, and vandalism on the page; a perusal of the early history of the page will show that the article was initially set up as a serious libelous attack (felonious accusations of kidnapping, etc.); a contributor to the page has been harrassing other editors, sometimes using sockpuppets. Not really so benign.
Thanks again. - Sojambi Pinola 22:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
...for example, the unsourced stuff that user:216.175.113.48 keeps reverting back on the page. He undid my typo fixes, etc, and does not take part in any discussion. I feel like a dang tattletale. - Sojambi Pinola 07:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for helping with this article. It's better to have it shorter and more factual than longer and less factual. FYI, my involvement began when an editor added Rose's name to a list of convicted NAMBLA members, a total fabrication.[9] I believe that the editor was one of a dozen sockpuppets of user:Jonah Ayers that I blocked a recently. I'm quite happy to step back from this article, as I have no particular knowledge of or interest in the subject. (I thought that astrological site was funny, but it was a humor better suited to a "/temp" article than a live version. Thanks for cleaning it out.) Cheers, -Willmcw 07:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I know that you didn't expect this sort of thing when you entered into it. But I've experienced some slurs from willmcw and Sojambi Pinola throughout the editing process, and though unable to prove it, willmcw still tries to categorize me as a sockpuppet, of someone else, or in control of other sock puppets. I suspect these other people haven't been heard from because he banned them all. I was not banned. I wrote no such thing about Rose's fake involvement in anything, but have continued to push for the inclusion of his racist and antisemitic lyrics. on Sojambi Pinola's talk page, I explained this. Now I see I have to explain here as well.. my family was in the concentration camps.. Having to hear such music is incredibly offensive to me, and therefore I think to mention it on Rose's site is the least we can do, whether Pinola believes it to be a 'joke' or not. It does not sound like joking when Rose caleld Bob Dylan a, "heeb bastud... who can stick his talmud... up his ass" thankfully he took that line down from his website, but I have a webshot of the page on my computer. Anyway, I'm not happy with willmcw's consistent rumor mongering. It does a disservice to me. Keep an eye out on that page. Jonah Ayers 18:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Jonah, I'm sorry if you're experiencing personal slurs and other attacks on account of your editing activities. If there is a serious problem here and you think it's unfair treatment amounting to breach of policy (and policy does include civility, no personal attacks, etc) please try to resolve it by discussion with the people you think are attacking you. Make it plain to them that they cannot make personal attacks against you. It is not permitted on Wikipedia.

If they won't stop, please do compile some evidence of this on your user space with a view to making a Request for comment and I will review it for you and give advice. If the case is a serious one I may co-sign a RFC on this issue. You would need a second person to cosign and I will do so if I am convinced that there is a breach of policy and that this is a good way to resolve the issue. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mile

I understand the unprotecting of this article, but the lack of discussion on the article talk page is because the whole issue progressed with regrettable speed to arbitration. Discussion hasn't been working on any of the articles involved, as far as I can see. The primary parties are still in opposition on the various pages they have been editing, and I'm somewhat afraid that unprotecting this article will only add fuel to the fire, as it was a major point of contention until protected.

Once the ArbCom has accepted or declined the arbitration, and (assuming acceptance) issued any temporary restraints they see fit, I woul think that unprotecting would be workable.

Ken talk|contribs 13:20, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion theory

I think that three or four lines suffice for this item. Giving it so much space is an endorsement, all by itself. --Walter Siegmund 20:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kirk Fogg

Looks like unprotecting this article was an invitation to the old vandal(s)... Owen× ☎ 00:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It's okay, the odd bit of vandalism is easily reverted. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janelle Pierzina 2

Tony, I never said thanks for backing me up at that AfD, so I'm saying it now. Thanks.

You and I rarely see eye-to-eye on article inclusion, but it's heartening to know that those disagreements are not an obstacle to professional respect for one another. Wikipedia is entirely too factional for its own good at times, and I appreciate your words in defense of my conduct. Cheers, Fernando Rizo T/C 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I looked at your closing and saw nothing wrong. I know from experience that people can get pretty upset and allege wrongdoing if they don't agree with the final result of an AfD. Keep on doing it, we need people to close AfDs. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khmer Rouge

As soon as this article is unprotected, the communist editor Lopez returns under one of his many pseuds and starts the edit war again, wasting other editors' time with endless reversions. The article should remain permanently protected. If you don't agree with that, you should help with some of the reverting. Adam 13:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, without going into great detail about the whys and wherefores, I think your own version is somewhat POV. Take this section: "In fact the motive for the policy was primarily ideological, as the movement was forced and Cambodians were not allowed to consider if they wanted to go back to their farms or not. Furthermore, given that we do not know if the country was in such dire straits - but we do know that the Khmer Rouge's "solution" was an unmitigated human disaster - such revisionism is somewhat hollow." Here you are stating an opinion. It may well be a valid and defensible opinion, but it is still an opinion. You couch it with "in fact", but it is nevertheless a bit of reasoning rather than a fact. Now do go to the talk page and work out with this chap a form of words which sticks to the facts and does not intrude authorial opinion into this encyclopedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DeSales High School teacher sections

Hi Tony, I know you're very involved with the schools debate, so I wanted to ask you what you thought of the DeSales High School article. I'm not voting for its deletion or anything, but the sections in the article about the individual teachers appears to go overboard (I'm using other high school and college articles as a benchmark for this judgment). The article contains biographical information of every teacher in the school, what education they have, etc. I've raised the question of how appropriate that is over at the article's talk page. Please offer your comments there, if you don't mind. --Idont Havaname 20:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sidaway ratio

Tony, please take a look at a new Project sub-page I started: Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Sidaway ratio. Hopefully I've captured the spirit of your claims there, but feel free to correct it or delete the article if you feel it is inappropriate. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I see you've already found it, as I was typing this... :) Owen× ☎ 16:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I edited it to reflect my take on things, but I don't think this is really ready for prime time. If you don't mind, I'd just as soon delete it. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
As I've said, your call. Owen× ☎ 16:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter trolling

How can you undelete that page? Look at the VfU, is that a consensus? Regardless if the article was deleted correctly, its up to the VfU to decide that. Though of course I may have been just as out of line for redeleting it, and Duncharris was way out of line saying there was a consensus to merge. 4 votes out of 23=consensus?. Plus, no merging was done. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It is simply false to claim that VfU can decide this. The AfD was correctly closed within process,and then deleted out of process and restored. Disputed out-of-process deletions go to AfD. I regard these shenanigans as gaming the AfD and VFU system of the most disgraceful kind. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

And now you've merged it after filing an AfD which would've probably failed. Now you'll have to unless you already have) clean up its VfU, second AfD, and any thing else. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As discussed on IRC, this can run until the end of the AfD and then be unmerged if desired. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused about the merge of Harry Potter trolling into Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. The consensus I could see was to delete this article and not merge it into HBP. I don't think the quality of the main article is improved by the inclusion of this section. We've been trying to keep the length of the HBP article to a reasonable size, and the amount of material added is out of proportion with the relative importance of this phenomenon to HBP. Cmouse 06:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Cmouse 06:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The discussion was closed as no consensus, merge on a 72% vote. That's well within administrative guidelines. It's okay to remove the merged text or edit it down if you disagree. It could well be that the trolling was such a minor phenomenon that it doesn't merit even a single mention on the HBP article. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Is this going to continue to be tolerated...in the U.S., it is completely unacceptable and the Admin who stated this needs to be banned for good. I mean banned, not just have sysop priviledges removed, but banned from further editing. Let me know what you want to do.--MONGO 02:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I admit that he's prone to very odd statements, but fortunately he is not an admin. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Tony, regardless of our occasional bumps, I fully support your efforts here. The Rfc against you was ridiculous. I thought he was an admin and since I now know he isn't, I'll make it a purpose here to ensure he never is.--MONGO 04:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It's too bad that he probably won't be punished. After using a racist epithet of this kind, he went on to ask that I be blocked for using "deletionist". More than just odd statements, they are racist.--Nicodemus75 04:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me express my apologies to you for him...it is inexcusable. I myself have a big mouth too, but have never written anything this nefarious and never would. I stumbled upon the issue while doing RC patrol and was also surprised that others didn't see it for what is is.--MONGO 04:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you are overreacting. He was trying to demonstrate that an insulting term is not acceptable just because its useful, which is what he thought Tony was implying. I don't think "deletionist" should be regarded as an insult at all, and certainly nothing compared with the N-word, but he was using a (badly chosen) analogy to try to make his point clear, nothing more. Kappa 04:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The comment "even they call each other that" was blatant bigotry. Badly chosen analogy is an understatement.--MONGO 04:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's intended to be a parody of Tony's supposed bigotry. Kappa 04:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I see that..HAHA...NOT! I think it was more intended as an insult to Nicodemus75 than a pun or "parody" of Tony. I've yet to see one edit by Tony that inclines me to believe he is a bigot.--MONGO 04:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I confess that "even if they call each other that" had me retching somewhat. But I don't think he was being malicious, just, well, stupid. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

  • To whomever is sending me e-mails. I'll include those lynching photos with goats.exc in my "list of things I wish I'd never seen". As they took the time to find my e-mail address, create a new hotmail account, collect those photos, and send them to me, I hope they'll take the time time to read this.
  • My comment was not intended to be taken as a racist comment. It was a parody of Tony's suggestion that I should not be hurt or offended because there existed a group for whom this label was self-applied.
  • I did, and still do, believe that anyone who read my comments without prejudice will see that. However, I understand that I have caused hurt with my comments. I deeply regret this, and do wish I had chosen my words more carefully.
  • While attacks against me as a "deletionist" are hurtful, they do at least have some basis in reality. I do vote delete more than keep. That is no excuse, however, for those who would dismiss myself (and others) as "deletionists". I am more complex than that.
  • Attacks against me as a racist, however, are completely misguided. Please feel free to examine my contributions, as I can offer no further evidence to the contrary.

brenneman(t)(c) 00:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

  • My disinterested opinion. Aaron's analogy was insensitive and prone to misunderstanding, he has apologised - end of story. As to racism, his poor analogy only works because he assumed that calling someone a 'nigger' would be totally inappropriate - charge dismissed. Whilst calling someone a 'deletionist' (although unhelpful) hardly seems like a personal attack, I’d say labelling his post as 'racist' seems rather closer - and is certainly not 'assuming good faith'. Indeed labelling anything (whether 'racist' or 'deletionist') rarely adds to a debate and certainly does not help achieve consensus. Now, we are cluttering Tony's page - so I suggest leaving the matter at that. --Doc (?) 08:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] expanding matter

glad to find myself in the inclusionist camp for once :) but seriously,

it was advocated in a self-published document by O. Hilgenberg in 1933, and more recently in a self-published book by James Carter in 1970, and in self-published web sites by Ken (Joe) Fisher, N. E. Markov, Miles Mathis, James Copple, and many others.

I am saying, make the article about all of these (as it is, already), not about this one book. The article title isn't even equal to the book title, this is an article about the concept, not the book, and from a glance at the intro, with a publishing history reaching back to the 1930s, I think there is no doubt its notability is wiki-worthy. I realize the theory itself is crap. that's why the article is in the pseudophysics category. dab (ᛏ) 20:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If you can make this an article about more than just one guy's book, go for it and I'll change my vote. If you need more time for this, ask and I'll withdraw the nomination with an explanation, as long as you are willing to put in the work. The article you want can always be created at a later date if this is deleted, because obviously it's totally different from what is there now. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your temp page

Tony, cleaning out my watchlist I found The God Who Wasn't There/Temp - now redundant, since the original article survived. Should this go to afd - or can you speedy it as (pretty well) sole contributor. --Doc (?) 23:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I just binned it. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage

Sorry to bother you, but there is a disagreement over how to resolve a vote that you tallied for Keep/Merge for the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page. I would very much appreciate it if you could offer some input directly. I hope this request is sufficiently NPOV in content. :-) --Cberlet 19:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well it's certainly very polite, if that's what you mean! Thank you.

Yes, I recall closing that one. I even notice that User:Francs2000 inadvertently did a parallel close, with the same result, shortly after mine, and then politely reverted it. He called it "no consensus", I called it "keep", but our reason was identical: there was no consensus to delete or to merge, and Deletion policy specifically requires that an article be kept where there is no consensus to delete, although this does not preclude a merge. In my close, I mentioned that "there seems to be strong support for merge with Harry Magdoff." Someone had already tagged the article for merge. I have no personal preferences on this, I'm just the janitor who looked at the debate and decided what to do. Really you should discuss it between yourselves and see if you can agree on whether it should be merged. There didn't seem to be what amounted to a consensus when I closed, but people's opinions change over time and with reasonable discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism

Tony, someone has asked me to close this AfD, but I've never done one before, and it turned out to be very complex. Since you're more experienced at this, do you think you could possibly close it instead? Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


Gee thanks! :)

It took me about two hours. I'm absolutely knackered, I've been told off for politely asking someone not to muck about with the discussions, and I'm absolutely sure someone will come along and complain I am blatantly ignoring consensus!

But truth to tell, I enjoyed it. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Tony. I knew it was complex, but I didn't realize it would take almost 2 hours. Kudos for all your hard work. Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment about moving commentary

You wrote on my Talk page:

Hi, I'm just examining this debate with a view to closing. I notice that, with the best of intentions, you moved some comments off the debate page on the grounds that they were "non-votes". Please do not do that. This is NOT a vote, it's a debate, and the votes are just indications of personal opinion. In order to engage properly in the debate all editors in it should be able to see all other comments easily, so we don't like it when radical edits of this kind are made.
Thanks for attempting to improve things, but this isn't the way we do it here. --Tony Sidaway Talk 21:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The comments that I moved to the talk page all appeared below a line in the middle of the main page, making it difficult to find where the actual "keep"/"delete" commentary ended (and thus where new "votes" should be added) and the more general commentary began. All of the comments I moved pertained not to whether to keep the article in question but to a more general discussion of categories, notability and deletion in general, etc., like discussions that sprout over and over on VfD/AfD pages all the time. Reread the moved section. None of the moved comments directly commented "keep" or "delete" on the article, as all of the commentators had previously registered their opinions as to that in the upper section, which remained on the main page. I moved the text to make it easier to follow, and add to, the actual discussion of the article.

As a side point, saying this isn't the way we do it here is neither justified, nor accurate, nor helpful. I am a "we" here just as you are. Plenty of other article deletion discussions have been refactored even more radically than what I did so there is neither policy nor consensus against what I did. I sympathize with you having been roped in to close this discussion (though I don't think it's really a difficult one to close) but don't take your irritation out on me. -EDM 22:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're wrong. I repeat: this isn't the way we do things here. Please don't do it again. Never, ever, refactor and AfD. It interferes with the discussion and may in exceptionally bad cases result in the AfD having to be rerun. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing unsigned votes

Thanks for the briefing on wikipedia policy. Yeah, I tried for quite a while to find out who it was that didn't sign their vote, so that maybe I could put their name there for them. But I was unsuccessful, so I just thought it might have been an anon IP, so I removed it. Thanks for telling me though. By the way, don't you think the article should have (book) added to title? I think that would be agreed upon by all sides. Thanks, a-n-o-n-y-m 22:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony, in the vfd edit history you say 31 to 18, but on the page you said 30 to 18. I also count 31 to 18, so maybe you should double check which one is correct? I think the one on the page is a typo. a-n-o-n-y-m 22:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it should be 31-18. I'll go and check it. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I did the move as you suggested. On the anon IP, yes it was anonymous, but anonymous votes are considered. Also an anonymous contributor can still make an influential contribution to the discussion, even if as a vote his voice may not always be counted. It ain't who you are, it's what you say, because it's a debate. On this occasion the guy had only made three edits in all, ever, and two of those were the vote he made there. His was the only vote I discarded. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter trolling (second nomination)

You ask an interesting and difficult question. I assume that you are asking this question in the abstract and only provided the link above as an example of your question. On that assumption, let me see if I can answer also in the abstract.

In the scenario you pose - 6 "delete" and 6 "merge" - I would probably make the following conclusions:

  1. There is not consensus to delete the article. Presumably, the "mergists" see value in at least some of the content. Hopefully, you'd be able to get a better sense of that from the comments.
    • No one in your scenario argues to "redirect" but if they had, I would interpret it as a statement that the "redirectionist" sees no value in the content but also see no active harm in it or in the history.
  2. There is a very clear consensus, however, that this should not exist as an independent article. No one in your scenario argues to "keep as is".

A purist interpretation of the VfD (now AFD) process would limit it to the binary decision of "keep" or "delete". If kept in any form, all actions thereafter can be taken by any editor. A purist interpretation would say that this was "no consensus" defaulting to keep for now and that the community should now hold a separate discussion on what form of "keep" is best - "keep as is", "merge", "redirect", ....

I think the problem with that purist interpretation is that the community did more than just think about the simple "keep" vs "delete" decision. At least 6 people in your scenario put thought into the ultimate fate of the article. They thought about what form of "keep" was best for Wikipedia. Closing the discussion only as "no consensus" fails to mention the consensus which was achieved - bullet 2 that there should not be an independent article on this topic. It leaves the impression that the closer thought that investment in time and energy had no value and that the community must do rework - a second discussion on the article's Talk page to confirm that there is consensus for the merger.

I think for this reason the purist interpretation is frequently seen as very bureaucratic. It is sometimes interpreted as an attempt to avoid making the tough decisions. I know that is not true in your case. In my experience, you have never shied away from a fight over something you believed in.

In this scenario, I probably would have been very wordy in my decision. I should preface it with the observation that I tend to volunteer to close only the oldest discussions - the ones that everyone else has already avoided for several days. I know they're tough and I go into it with the expectation that I will spend a lot of time on it. It's not uncommon for me to spend an hour and a half unraveling and wordsmithing the decision for a single discussion. That's why I can only afford the time to do one or two a week.

In your scenario, I would probably have explicitly said something like:
{{subst:vt}} ambiguous. I count 6 "deletes" and 6 "merges". (insert qualifiers here about the impact of the comments, evidence of sockpuppetry, etc.) While there was clear consensus that this should not survive as an independent article, it does not rise to the necessary level of consensus for deletion. I am closing this as a "no consensus" which defaults to keep for now. However, noting the community's consensus that this should not survive as an independent article, I am going to act as an ordinary editor to tag the article for merger.

You are correct that anyone else could tag the article for merger but by doing it myself, I add the imprimatur of the community's decision to the merger tag. Since it's linked to the same edit which removed the VfD header from the article, it creates an implicit connection between the VfD discussion and the merger tag. This forms an audit trail through which future reader/editors can know to look for the VfD decision.

I hope this helps. It's a very nuanced view of the process and it does take a great deal of time. Rossami (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the link was a Talk link. I read the wrong discussion. Now I've read the discussion on the Talk page. I still think my comments above stand. A purist interpretation would leave a "no consensus" alone but a few extra words can acknowledge the work and effort of the discussion participants and can preempt a lot of angst. Rossami (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


Thank you. That is very enlightening and, I think, gives me exactly the pieces of the jigsaw that were causing communication problems between myself and Ambi. As I have just finished a close that took me two hours, I can appreciate the hard work you put into these things. In that instance I thought it would be wise to give a much more detailed view of the process than I usually do, though fortunately it mostly boiled down to a binary keep/delete decision. The debat was just much longer and involved more radical edits than is normally the case. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

On re-reading I do take issue with your suggestion that a consensus was formed on the form of keep to be made. Only six of those who expressed an opinion, in this scenario, considered that the article should be merged. That's only half of them, hardly a consensus. At most I can say there is a strong support for a merge. Whilst I don't mind performing the merge, sometimes I won't do so. This doesn't mean I disregard the opinion of those six, but neither do I think their opinion amounts to a community consensus--any more than the opinion of the other six amounts to a consensus to delete the article. If this is "purist" or "bureaucratic", I think it is also the most accurate way of viewing the result. I do not know what form the delete editors would want the article to take in this scenario, because they did not think to express an opinion on that. I don't know that I can presume that they would prefer the information to be put into another article, and if so which article, because in the scenario these editors did not express an opinion on it. But I think it would be better if I made my opinion explicit in the close, so that nobody would be in any doubt that it would be fine to go ahead and perform the merge. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that I believed that a consensus was formed on the form of "keep". I tried to carefully limit myself in your scenario above to the statement that there was consensus that the article should not exist as an independent article. If I concurred (or at least didn't disagree) with the "merge" recommendation, I would have tried to word it as an "ordinary editor" action and that if someone disagreed with the merge decision or the merger target, that should be resolved on the respective Talk pages. Sorry for any confusion. Rossami (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Um, my fault, I think. I tend to zero in on parts of a quite long and detailed description, sometimes. I think I agree strongly with the sense of what you say, and you know what, I'll bet Ambi would too. Assuming we can both agree on this, then I think there will be a way forward. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I also largely agree, and thank Rossami for the thoughtful and detailed response. You seem to highlight what could be a good solution in the majority of these cases (i.e. the 6 delete/6 merge type) - if you don't feel comfortable doing the apparent action as an "ordinary editor", at least making clear in your closing statement that people are welcome to do this themselves. Ambi 10:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm glad we have reached a point of agreement. Now on your request that I show you more closes where the closer has taken the same actions I would have, would you please look at these cases and see if they closely resemble my no consensus closes, and if not, how the actions taken by the closer differ from what you think I would have done, or in what way the circumstances differ from the cases in which you take issue with my no consensus closes?

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Useful unix command
    • No keep votes, 100% agreement that the article should not remain in its current form. Non-delete editors all seemed to favor some kind of transwiki and merge with existing wikibooks. I see no sign that the closer has made efforts to have this transwikied. He has not edited the transwiki log on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old.
  • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Erlack
    • No keep votes, 100% agreement that the article should not remain in its current form. Two wiktionaries and two deletes. No action seems to have been taken except to remove the AfD tag. No evident attempt to transwiki.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford Kung
    • Two deletes, one delete or redirect, two merges, one keep or merge. None of the editors require that the article remain in its current form, only one of the editors thought keeping the article in its current form would be acceptable, and all non-delete voters explicitly said they'd be happy with a merge. No evident effort made to merge. The article has been moved to Kenny McFarlane by an editor since the AfD was closed.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Circumcision
    • "5 merge votes (including nominator), 5 keep votes and 9 delete votes." Closed as no consensus despite the finding that 14 out of 19 editors do not want the article to remain in its current form. The merge was performed but not by the closer.

If possible I want to avoid the confrontational style of discussion that we have both fallen into, because I don't think it was getting us anywhere. If we can both make an effort to show good faith to one another I am sure we can find a way out of this. I accept that you are acting out of a profound concern for the health of Wikipedia and a belief that I am acting contrary to policy and ignoring consensus. I am only interested in acting on consensus and complying with policy, so in principle we have the same goal. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ack - I'd typed out a response, and this wretched broken mouse did something odd and closed the window. The first two cases there are particularly difficult - transwikis and AFD do not play well, and unless there's a consensus to transwiki (which isn't that common), people who vote transwiki really do need to specify an alternative, else there's really no apparent consensus to do anything. Jews Against Circumcision is one I'd have done differently, although I tend to see things a bit differently when there's at least a sizable minority voting keep - I think in those circumstances the benefit of the doubt doesn't hurt (and IIRC, I reacted the same to most of the instances I saw of you doing the same thing). Clifford Kung is the only one I'd suggest isn't particularly forgivable - it seems Fernando Rizo does have similar opinions on closing, so it may be worth bringing him into this discussion at a later date.
I think one key thing here is that, whether right or wrong, people do vote merge and redirect in AFD discussions, and that a close result is thus widely seen as binding upon those alternatives as well. If they are to be seen as binding upon those options, then the closer does need to do this, or the process doesn't work. If they are not, however - and the situation can be summarised and the possibilities made clear in the closing message, then anyone can feel free to carry it out, and there's not likely to be much of an issue. Ambi 13:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well it looks as if we're not so far apart, after all. The key to this seems to be that in closing I have neglected an important step: show your working. Because I myself would have no problem editing a closed AfD for a redirect or merge, or even a transwiki, I incorrectly assumed that all would feel equally free to do so. I will work on a form of words that I can use in this kind of marginal close, where I do not see a consensus, nor want to perform an editing activity after closing, but still think there may be fairly strong support for one or other edit. I have sometimes written decisions in this way, but often not. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autofellatio revert

What does that link add to the article, and what does the photo add? Just tell me. Internal and external anatomy can be learned from Vagina/Penis images when labelled, annotated, ect...But what do you learn from this image that you cannot learn from the article? Why does everyone instantly revert the porn link back in, what purpose does it serve?Voice of All (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Please address your questions to the talk page of the article in question. I have already explained there why I performed the revert on your edit. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of VFU

I edited the head of the VFU page so it accurately describes the purpose of VFU per the Undeletion policy. This policy isn't a rule of thumb, we're all expected to follow it. Please revert your removal of the accurate quotations from the undeletion policy. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of reverting my revert of your undiscussed changes to a stable process page. The existing text already refers people to the undeltion policy, and reminds people that it is to be followed. Several other respected editors have commented, on the VfU talk page, that your recent changes were a bad idea. If you want the instruction section to be simply a quote from the undeletion policy page, or to incorporate more such quotes, why not discuss the matter on the talk page? I never said that the policy page is simply a rule of thumb, please stop distoring my comments in this way. You have not, as far as I am aware, responded to my statement that continued, long-term practice on a process page is one means of establishing consensus. Do you disagree with this statement? DES (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC) This thread copied from my talk page. DES (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The undeletion policy sets VFU aside specifically for the purposes described in the policy. You can't just go and change the policy by editing the wording of a process page. And no, consensus is absolutely not established by "continued, long-term practice on a process page." Policy change on this radical a scale--in effect reversing the purpose of VFU--requires more evidence of consensus than the compliance of a few editors who use occasionally a process page. Undeletion policy states that VFU can be used for appealing a deletion in which good faith arguments were improperly ignored, and this purpose is not in the descriptionon the process page. The process page is not authoritative on policy,nor can official policy be subverted in this way. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inter-wiki links on WikiSource

In your comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of HTML decimal character references (2nd nomination), you mentioned that "one could link the more significant characters or blocks of characters to relevant articles" and implied that this was not possible to do on WikiSource. But WikiSource supports the full range of inter-wiki links, AFAIK. One can link to Wikipedia articles from WikiSource via 'w:' links like [[w:Sigma]]. In fact, in the opening sentence of wikisource:List of HTML decimal character references, that's exactly what happens.

Also, I left a question about synching the Wikipedia and WikiSource versions of the article on Talk:List of HTML decimal character references. If you have any advice, I'd like to hear it. Thanks — mjb 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment misled you. What I said was "Ent(r)ies like that would in time produce a very valuable encyclopedic resource, and not something one would necessarily want to do on WikiSource where the relevant articles can only be reached via transwiki link to Wikipedia". Really it's just down to how many times you'd want to type something like w:sigma instead of sigma. If you popped it offline into a text editor it wouldn't make much difference because you could run a global search and replace.

On synchronizing the two, I don't see the sense in having two copies (and I don't think I realised there was a transwikied version during the VfD, or didn't really consider it important). I'd recommend just editing the wikisource version to point to the one on Wikipedia, if that could be done in a manner that wouldn't disrupt the reader's experience. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the Wikisource version has gone away. I wish the Wikipedia article would just go away too. :) — mjb 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion theory

The reason it needs to remain protected is because the vandalizing anons in question keep removing the AFD notice, not to mention violating 3RR. I won't re-protect the article for now, but if he starts removing it again with impugnity, I will protect it again. Thanks Tony. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


I honestly can't see the point. If someone removed the notice it gets put back in the next edit. Since it's on Afd people ought to be allowed to edit it. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nandesuka's RfA

Tony,

Thanks for supporting my RfA. Even though we disagree on some matters of substance, I have always found you to be forthright and bright, and I enjoy reading your writing. Let's build an encyclopedia. Thanks again, Nandesuka 00:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Memphis Mafia

Could you please re-protect Memphis Mafia? Nobody requested unprotection and the wider discussion has continued unabated on other talk pages. The user involved is also in arbitration. Thanks. Wyss 20:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

See reply on Talk:Memphis Mafia. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

There is one problem: as you can see from the history of the said page, I would like to include some critical voices in the article which users Wyss and Ted Wilkes frequently delete. They have not discussed the sources I have provided on the talk page to support my contributions and were happy that "their" version of the article was protected. Do you have an idea what I can do to avoid an edit war? User Ted Wilkes has again reverted my contributions. Onefortyone 20:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If they're being disruptive, apply to arbcom for an injunction against their edits on this article. If anybody seems to be editing in a disruptive manner, I may apply blocks on my own. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you've made an error in judgement, Tony Sidaway. Wyss 21:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia arbitration re Memphis Mafia

I see you unprotected Memphis Mafia and your comments on its Talk Page. If I may, I suggest Wikipedia protocol might call for reinserting it. This article was already listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al as an integral part of several specified articles where the page protection remains in force and effect in a matter presented by me to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee against User:Onefortyone et al. As you can see, unprotecting the article resulted in User:Onefortyone instantly editing it with the same material as previously inserted by him over and over which was part of what led to the Arbitration complaint. Left unprotected, this article will result in a series of unending edits/reversals by User:Onefortyone that involves several hundred already on these interconnected articles. As well, Wikipedians such as User:Ed Poor and numerous others were inadvertently drawn in by the comments left on their Talk page by User:Onefortyone. At the same time, I would request you protect the Gavin Lambert article as this too is part of the aforementioned Arbitration case and it has and is still being subjected to repeated reinsertions and reverts that achieve nothing but disruption of Wikipedia. Both of these pages should be protected in conjunction with the others and remain so pending a resolution by the Arbitration Committee. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 21:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. If you want this or any other page involved in this arbitration case protected, apply to arbcom and ask them to order it. More sensible would be to apply for an injunction on all involved in the case to refrain from editing. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think it may be possible you haven't fully looked into this issue and hence have acted without a full understanding of the circumstances or how WP policy applies to them. Please re-protect the article or at the very least, be more circumspect about whom you arbitrarily threaten with blocks. I humbly suggest you begin by reading the entire talk archives for Nick Adams, then read talk archives 3 and 4 of Elvis Presley, then 141's contribution history, then the RfA regarding 141. Thanks. Wyss 21:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It's an article on a wiki. Unless you can give a good reason to protect, I will not protect (and don't ask me to research if you cannot give that reason). If you can convince another sysop to protect, I will hold off for at least two days before unprotecting again. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You've been given the reasons (starkly), but apparently refuse to read the archives which support them. I hope you'll re-consider reading up on this, since I've no doubt you're trying to be helpful. In the meantime, please try to avoid thinking of this as a "squabble", since it's a malicious abuse of the wiki, roundly rejected and criticized by every editor who has become involved, as the talk archives show. Wyss 22:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You wrote earlier: With all due respect, I think it may be possible you haven't fully looked into this issue and hence have acted without a full understanding of the circumstances or how WP policy applies to them. Please re-protect the article or at the very least, be more circumspect about whom you arbitrarily threaten with blocks. I humbly suggest you begin by reading the entire talk archives for Nick Adams, then read talk archives 3 and 4 of Elvis Presley, then 141's contribution history, then the RfA regarding 141. Thanks

Where in that did you give a reason to protect? You now state it's a malicious abuse of the wiki, roundly rejected and criticized by every editor who has become involved, as the talk archives show. In that case you shouldn't have any problem stating which person you're referring to and citing a RfC that explains why your opinion commands a community consensus. Also you can go to WP:RFPP and get the page protected again.

It's absolutely true that I have no intention of trawling through talk archives. If the article is in such extreme danger because of the mere fact that someone may edit it, go to arbcom at once and ask for an injunction. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand why Ted Wilkes and Wyss are frequently deleting passages from Wikipedia articles simply because the text added by other users is not in line with their personal opinion, although several independent sources are cited on the talk pages which support the content of the removed passages. The articles on Nick Adams and Elvis Presley have also been protected for several weeks. It's a real pity. Onefortyone 23:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to trawl through anything, Tony Sidaway. However, I won't clutter your talk page anymore and thanks for listening. Wyss 23:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2005_09_18_f29f.html"