User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2005 11 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

user

talk

watchlist

watched

sandbox

user links

deletion

more links

Template:User Tony Sidaway/User

Contents 1 Advice needed 2 Good edit summary! 3 Block of 85.xxx 4 TRNC (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) 5 Macedonian denar 6 User:Idorunet 7 Unprotection of Freemasonry 8 Everyking 9 Unprotecting vandalbot targets 10 "And furthermore, I support everything Agriculture says." 11 You win 12 Armenian genocide - Position of the Turkish government 13 Checking in 14 The Starfish of Diligence 15 Votes needed 16 TFT! 17 Hey Tony, How's it going? 18 Agriculture and TheChief 19 Substantive and informed criticism

[edit] Advice needed

Hello, Tony. I know you for a reputable editor, and hope you will help to solve the problem we have with the newcomer User:AndriyK. His only contributions so far have been unexplained renamings of Chernigov to Chernihiv on hundreds of pages. We tried to discuss the issue on Portal talk:Ukraine/New article announcements ans asked for help at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but he takes no heed. He also persistantly attacks several selected articles, see Talk:St Volodymyr's Cathedral and Talk:Russkaya Pravda, for example.

The user:AndriyK made a mess in no time he spent on Wikipedia: multiple violations of 3RR (1, 2), frivolous renamings of the articles (see log) and inside the articles (his contibutions), icluding multiple moves by cut and paste, unspeakable attacks on other users are only part of his actions. See his talk, his contibutions, his log, Irpen's talk, etc.

Today, user:AndriyK escalated his edit war which includes hundreds of articles now. In his first hour of editing today, he vandalized more than 60 pages. Like yesterday, his edits will be gradually reverted by other users, but it takes infinite time and ruins history records for pages in question. He refuses to discuss the problem at Portal talk:Ukraine/New article announcements, Talk:Kievan Rus', Talk:Oleg of Chernihiv, Talk:Mikhail of Chernihiv, etc.

For instance, it took me infinite pains to write Russian architecture. Without any explanation, the vandal repeatedly moved it today to Architecture of Rus, although the page treats Imperial Russia and Muscovy. Now, there are two identical articles. I need your advice how to stop this nightmare. Thanks in advance. --Ghirlandajo 10:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, I've thought a bit about this. It's hard to put what I wanted to say into words. After thinking about it for a day, I've finally come up with precisely what I want to say to you about this chap: stop calling him a vandal. Simple as that. His edits may be contentious, his behavior infuriating, but he's probably trying to improve the encyclopedia just as you are. Learn how to communicate with him. The first step to that is to stop acting as if he were some kind of malefactor. He edited an article? Sure, he's allowed to do that. His edits ruin history records? Pull the other one. He refuses discussion? Bad, but not helped if you call him a vandal. He edit wars? Don't join in. Discuss. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good edit summary!

• LOL* re: stuff fingers in ears and crouches - UtherSRG (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block of 85.xxx

Thanks for unblocking that one--somewhat to my surprise, I have nothing in my in-box. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

He was on IRC at the time. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TRNC (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus)

Dear Tony

As you are aware the main dispute on the said page is about the word "invasion" or "intervention". I admit that both words, when discussed to the point of faces turning blue, are relatively POV. However, the article is about the TRNC and therefore Turkish. It must tilt heavily towards that POV. Would it be advisable for me to enter the page on the Republic of Cyprus and make alterations there from a Turkish POV? A Greek constantly changing the word to invasion can only mean they are trying to provoke a response and must not be allowed to continue. Any one that would want a balanced view on the subject of Cyprus would surely read both articles and make up their own mind Please could you find a way to convey this to the persons responsible and maybe protect the page with the original authors permision.

Best regards Bornagain

None of our articles should ever tilt even a little way towards any particular point of view. The original author does not own the article, so his permission would not be required prior to protection. There has been much discussion recently of the dangers inherent in creating point-of-view splits like the above (one article sympathetic to one point of view, the other sympathetic to another). It's clear that this practice violate Neutral point of view, a key policy of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian denar

Hello, could you please do something about the Macedonian denar article. There is a page move edit war with attempts to move it to silly locations. All Banmks on Earth call this currency Macedonian denar. REX 12:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I've asked User:Merovingian what he's up to. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, moving FYROM denar to Macedonian denar creates ambiguities. It wouldn't be the first time that an article must be titled strangely to be exact. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 13:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Presumably there's some acceptable compromise involving brackets, the usual way of specifying what sense of a generic term is meant. Would Macedonian denar (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) upset all participants equally but tolerably? - David Gerard 15:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll let them sort it out. For now, there seems to be overwhelming support for a move back to the old name. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as the CIA World Factbook, the World Bank and every other bank on the planet call this currency the Macedonian denar, this reflects the outcome of the vote: NPOV in the face of the romantic nationalism of Theathenae (a.k.a. Thrakiotis and on the Swedish Wikipedia sv:User:Arvanítis, who has been banned for promoting what the Swedish administrators call "pro-Grekisk propaganda"). Rex^(talk) 16:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Idorunet

Please take a look at WP:VIP and take appropriate action if there's any to be taken. Thanks. --Nlu 12:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I searched that page for the character string idoru and saw nothing. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

After I wrote you, Shanes explained that blocking him longer will have an undesirable effect, and removed him from WP:AIV. --Nlu 12:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection of Freemasonry

I wanted to point out that I disagree with your unprotection of Freemasonry, and why. Yes, this is a wiki, but the original intent of protecting the page was to leave it as such pending arbitration resolution. We've in fact already had anonymous vandalism here, less than ten hours after it was unprotected. MSJapan 19:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey MSJapan, I don't know if you noticed, but the injunction against Lightbringer went into effect a few days ago. As that edit war was the reason for protection, it should now be safe. If Lightbringer violates the injunction (on any freemasonry-related page, and under any account or IP) then report it and measures will be taken. But I think the article is okay unprotected for now. Sorry, to barge in, Tony. Dmcdevit·t 20:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever, I wouldn't support an arbcom injunction to protect an article, excepting strong external (ie legal) implications, and then I'd expect the injunction to come from the Foundation. This is indeed a wiki. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking

I've formally repealed the mentorship. Thanks for the excellent mentoring. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting vandalbot targets

You are unprotecting and walking away, leaving other admins the trouble of dealing with the mess when the vandalbot returns. Since the vandalbot almost always returns within minutes, it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask you to monitor the page in question for at least that long. "No discussion" is meaningless, you don't really expect a vandalbot to develop debating skills? -- Curps 20:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course I'm not walking away; the articles are all on my watchlist. If you had protected the articles on the grounds of vandalism, you should have said so. The templates you installed indicated a discussion on the talk page; there was no such discussion, so I unprotected after six days.

I regard this protection that you're doing here as unproductive. I've no idea why the name of Karl Schnörrer is being linked from Schnorrer, or why it is thought necessary to have a disambiguation page. The link seems to be somewhat far-fetched, and so it isn't worth fighting over. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You're relying on technicalities here. It's irrelevant if it's on your watchlist, because you know perfectly well that the bot will return within minutes. You are unprotecting and walking away; checking back an hour later is pointless. It's also irrelevant what type of protection tag is used, since you have unprotected in each case regardless of whether a "vprotected" or "protected" tag was used.

The issue here is Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. A vandalbot is being used to assert ownership of articles, to control their contents. Perhaps if radical POV warriors with a social/political/racial agenda started using vandalbots in a similar fashion, would you consider that worth fighting over, and protection "unproductive"?

If you want a discussion on the talk page about the suitability of the edit the bot wants to make, why don't you start one? It may well be that the disambiguation page is unnecessary, but that's not to be decided unilaterally by a single user. -- Curps 22:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I assure you that I'm not relying on technicalities. If you really, truly believe that checking for vandalism one hour, two hours, or even twelve hours later isn't sufficient, I have to say that I regard that as an utterly sustainable level of monitoring on a single article that isn't being regularly edited.

I have no strong feelings about the suitability of the reference to Karl Schnörrer, but it does seem a little far-fetched. This warring that you're engaged in seems to me like an unproductive use of resources. What are you going to do when the page has been protected for another ten days? Twenty? Why bother having a wiki if you stop people editing it because of trivial disputes? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"single article that isn't being regularly edited." It's not being regularly edited because it's always protected.

"Why bother having a wiki if you stop people editing it because of trivial disputes." Exactly, which is why some other solution to the bot problem needs to be created. SchmuckyTheCat 01:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

In the general case, perhaps yes. This one is a special case, I think, because the disambiguation link to a guy called Karl Schnörrer doesn't have any obvious place on an article about Schnorrer. While I wouldn't object to someone putting it there, edit warring and protecting pages just to keep it there seems like a waste of resources. I suspect that this is the purpose of this vandalbot--to tie up resources that could be used elsewhere, and demoralise editors. We're being attacked by people who use a combination of psychology and technology; we should be aware of that at all times.

While I respect Curps' point of view and will no longer alter protections on the Schnorrer articles, I think he's being played for a fool. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a reason and it's not just to waste resources. Schnörrer is a nazi hero and schnorrer is a vaguely insulting jewish term. Wik doesn't want them associated. In a wider sense, we need some sort of technology or policy for this kind of automated attack - any article is susceptible. SchmuckyTheCat 15:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

My question is this: why should they be associated, especially since one of them is an insult? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Because except for an umlaut, they are spelled the same. SchmuckyTheCat 16:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a weak connection, and surely not worth edit warring and protecting pages over. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "And furthermore, I support everything Agriculture says."

See User:TheChief and be utterly unsurprised (and the AC is aware of it) - David Gerard 15:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You win

You win Tony. I'm leaving for good. It's obvious you and yours are in control and fully capable of enforcing your will through fradulent claims. Quite frankly I'm surprised even you would stoop to this. Bravo Tony, good show, chalk up another editor leaving because of you. Agriculture 16:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've no doubt you'll be back. The socksniffers will be here when that happens. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That's less than absolute perfection in gracefulness. I WILL RFC YUO. - David Gerard 17:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Your humor proves that you are inadequate to serve as a steward for this encyclopedia, Mr. Gerard. I WILL RFC YUO. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Identical mipsellings. I WILL BOKC YOU BOTH YOU SUCK POPPETS! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

YUOR HMUOUR PROOVES YOU ARE A SPY FROM UNCYLOCPDEIA. YOU MUST BAN YOURSLEF NOW> - David Gerard 15:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

ALSO THAT OTHER GUY CANT SPELL HPYOCRITE - David Gerard 15:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian genocide - Position of the Turkish government

Hi,

Your input would be appreciated on the Armenian Genocide article, there is a section entitled "The position of the Turkish government" which is meant to show the governments official policy. The following sentence was added to that section:

"But although Turkey claims that the Armenian massacres do not constitute genocide because of the aforementioned reasons, its former Turkish Prime minister Bülent Ecevit, in April 2002, accused Israel of carrying out genocide against the Palestinians, and a leading lawmaker from Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party has accused the United States of committing genocide in Fallujah."

I removed that sentence because the view of the former PM and Mehmet Elkatmis were not representative of the government or linked in any way to government policy. They were misplaced personal opinions which are being construed as proving the alleged hypocrisy of the government. I do not wish to engage in a discussion with User:Fadix (who opposes my edits) due to his inability to talk in a civil way. Your comments would be appreciated. --A.Garnet 17:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your accusations, if you have issues with me, sort them out with me. Fadix 21:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Checking in

Just checking in...saw Agriculture is trying to nominate me for Admin...which I appreciate...but then he is(?) using a sock puppet account to gain concensus in other areas, and now claims to have left the project. I am finding the request for comment number 2 about you confusing...but perhaps stay away from a few areas of contention for a couple of weeks till it all simmers down.--MONGO 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd regard it as a dead nom if I were you. You're good and you'll get a good nomination soon. If not from me, from someone else. I've spoken to others and there was a general feeling that you're admin material. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Starfish of Diligence

The Starfish of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service.

Your extraordinary contribution to wikipedia rarely recieves any formal recognition. But we wikipedians who are on wikipedia to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia are already well aware of it. Your attempts to resolve disputes and the "mopping" of AfD's and many many other examples of community service is to be commended and this starfish hardly does any juistice to that end. --Cool Cat ^Talk 14:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes needed

There is a poll going on at Talk:Arvanitic language#Requested move to move Arvanitic language to Arvanitic (linguistics), to reflect the fact that its status as a language or dialect is disputed. This is done in all other similar cases (Flemish (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics) etc). Please vote support if you support the move. Rex^(talk) 15:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TFT!

hehe, thanks for that[1] - I shall try! --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Tony, How's it going?

I'm polling the opinions of potential arbitrators on these two subjects, and I was wondering if you could provide your take on them. This will be published as part of an article on the backgrounds of those being considered for 2005 arbitration seats. Thank you in advance for your help. --Zephram Stark 22:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

1. What is your opinion of the Wikipedia: Policy Trifecta?
2. Does Wikipedia policy exist for the sole purpose of creating structure for dispute resolution when consensus is not reached? If not, what other purposes are there for Wikipedia rules?

[edit] Agriculture and TheChief

Tony, for my two cents worth, I think your response to your RFC is no place for a long discussion on the sockpuppetry issue. You are usually very good about staying on point. You should reconsider your changes. -- DS1953 ^talk 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right, it didn't fit well. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Substantive and informed criticism

Tony,
As you have one again been active in this RfC, would it be possible to again engage you in some dialoge? If you'll examine my contributions to date in this RfC I think you'd be forced to agree that I've been disspassionate, polite, and factual. I've tried on several occasions in the past to work through the problems that we seem to have. I am doing so again, here.

• I'll again note that you have no shortage of people who are willing to support you in general, or to vouch for your character. I'd simply ask that you set aside the adversarial tone, think on what has been said, and talk. If you do, as you say, wish to concern yourself with the building of a great encyclopedia as opposed to political infighting, this is surely the wisest course of action. I'd also ask you to take note of when and where you are supported in specifics by these same individuals. Why is it that you are so often going it alone?
  
• These problems are not going to go away. However you want to count coup publicly, the difference between this RfC and the last one cannot have escaped you. There are characters of questionable repute nipping at your heels, true. There is also thoughtful, careful commentary by editors who have some respect from the community. (Place me where you like on that spectrum.) If anything, as time goes by, every interaction of this type seems to attract another careful considerate contributor to what you percieve as the "other side".
  
• Tony, every Albert M. Wolters hurts your overall cause as much as any Systemwars.com does. I look at the newly scoped VfU humming along, making more decisions per minute than you can hope to undo. All your effort, the edit warring, the three hour block, the couple of thousand words at WP:ANI all come to this result: "...although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." Was this worth the effort? Do you actually believe that this was the only way to get this in? Wouldn't your time have been better spent working with the people working on this? Do you recall that I actually tried to draw you back into this discussion?

brenneman^(t)(c) 03:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope you won't object to my fixing the formatting above. Excessive use of bolding rendered your text extremely difficult to read. Having fixed the above and then read it through, I find I have little response to make as your purpose above seems to be to recast several recent incidents as a campaign to achieve some kind of object. If you have finally recognised the need to reconcile deletion review with the undeletion policy, I'm happy for you, but this wasn't any of my doing as you well know. I made sporadic attempts to do so myself, the latest of which you falsely describe above as "edit warring", but have paid no great attention to it, reasoning that a broken VFU is no real handicap to the overall task of writing an encyclopedia. And so it has proven. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

All right. I'll only point out the irony of you "fixing" something that only you thought was "broken", and how neatly this serves to illustrate my point. Until next time, then. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to my fixing your formatting, or the deletion review which you seem to indicate has indeed been changed? I can take credit for the former and perhaps my perception of the effects of random typography is ideosyncratic, but if the latter has been fixed then that can only have come from someone else's perception, not my own. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)