User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 02 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] RFC response

Howdy,

I am surprised and impressed by your RFC response, which constitutes the first time in my experience you have offered definite stipulations as a compromise path. Good show. For what its worth, I also support making DRV content viewable (hey, I'm a mere user), but think that it should be protected in so doing, so that unconstructive edits aren't introduced. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean vandalism? If there is vandalism it can then be protected as we would protect any article. What worries me is that there seems to be an attitude that even good edits are unwelcome. dollyd added two paragraphs and an external link, all good material, to one article, but someone then blanked it and then protected it. I find such behavior utterly beyond belief. Quite unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

More than plain vandalism: Edits without merit. A good share of the folks coming to DRV are pushing, if not vanity, then, let's say, highly suspect ephemera. These nominators might make edits of very low quality in sincere good-faith, which does no good to reviewers at DRV, or the encyclopedia. I think that the consensus at DRV needs to maintain a minimal check to ensure that well-meaning (but uninformed) nominators don't edit their nominated article into a deeper hole of poor quality. I would support easy unprotection once a nominator made a sound request for the expansion/editing he has in mind. I have made a comment to this effect at the DRV talk page. Xoloz 20:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I saw those edits. The user added an external link and two paragraphs of useful, verifiable information about a published cartoonist. I find your blithe and I think ill-informed, dismissal of this editing rather disturbing. In what way can the discussion, or the encyclopedia, be harmed by adding this information? I have discussed this with many people on Wikipedia who are not involved in DRV, and they're as baffled as I am at this--this includes some members of the current arbitration committee. Why do DRV people take it upon themselves to stop such edits? The earlier versions are in the history if required, and adding information to an article cannot harm its chance of becoming useful and thus being permanently undeleted. --Tony Sidaway 20:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, no... let me clear: I have no idea what edits you refer to by dollyd, specifically. You may well have been right on the merit in that case (whatever our disagreement over your now disavowed method.) In recent days, I have (as mentioned) not attended DRV because I was disheartened. My comments above regarding "quality control" were general. Believe or not, I suspect I am at least as "liberal" as you are in interpreting what constitutes quality edits; but many of the matters DRV faces (you know, the "easy" cases you don't often get involved in) would be harmed if unprotected editing where allowed without checks. Xoloz 20:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, how could they be harmed? I don't think it's a matter of "liberal" or whatever, I think it's a matter of understanding how a wiki works. --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

First case -- The article at the top of DRV is "Male Bikini-wearing." This has, not surprisingly, remained deleted, but its nominator is apparently persistent, and I (for one) will assume his good faith. If DRV policy allowed undeletion and free editing on request, the nominator would request it. The original article qualified as original research among other things; this original research was the fault of the nominator, also the article's creator. Free editing, without some check, would be, I submit, highly likely to result in the insertion of more original research. I make this judgment based on my empirical experiences with nominator-creators like the author of "Male bikini-wearing," a very new user. Assuming his good faith, the nominator could still benefit from some guidance before being allowed to edit freely. Having protection as a stop-gap allows him to confront and consider objections to the article before plowing ahead, and giving more of the same poor quality content.
Second Case -- Persecution by Jews, or some similarly controversial topic, comes to DRV. You may remember the Persecution of (group) vs. Persecution by (group) which flared last year. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, virtually any edit to the page while it is under consideration will stir dissent and acrimony. Discussion of the article is difficult and charged enough without having to confront the issue of edit-fighting among various (good-faith, but annoying) partisans to the ideological dispute.


I would say that matters similar to the above described cases constitute at least 30% of what DRV must sort through. A minimal check before allowing free edits drastically reduces friction in these cases; if properly applied, it would constitute no impediment to sincere, quality revisions. Xoloz 21:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you my objections one at a time. First, if the bikini-wearing article is going to end up getting deleted anyhow, what is the problem with allowing it to be edited? If you want to give the guy some guidance, pop a word or two on his talk page or the talk page of the article. You don't need to protect the article to do that. --Tony Sidaway 06:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, you've gone a bit quiet. On the Persecution by Jews article, if it should become the subject of an edit war, just protect it as you would any other. Same if it's vandalized. Remove protection if/when the problem looks like it's resolved, same as for any other protected article. Where is the problem? --Tony Sidaway 23:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That "quiet" was my day-job speaking loudly. Anyway, the last problem with permitting editing during discussion is that the fluctuating article might make gauging consensus difficult, but even I don't think that's a deal-breaker. I'll surprise, perhaps, and concede: I think you're right. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom case

Hey, I would like to help out on the case of IronDuke and Gnewheler, and I saw that you are clerking it. Is there anyway that I can help?

Thanks! WikieZach 23:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Only if you fancy rummaging through the history of the Reed College article and its talk page and assembling a history of their interactions. It's boring, tedious work. --Tony Sidaway 06:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh that was rude! I'm sorry. What I should have said is that aid would be welcome. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:TonySidaway

Hi. Just thought I'd let you know that someone created an account with the above user name. In case it is an impostor, you should probably keep an eye on his contribs, or block him outright. If it is a sockpuppet account of yours then I suppose you can just ignore this. Cheers. Zunaid 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Curps already blocked it. I put a template into his userpage that asks him, if he's a legitimate user, to proceed with a different username. --Tony Sidaway 10:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

This Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Beckjord/Workshop#Tendentious_editing_by_Beckjord was quite helpful Fred Bauder 18:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi Tony, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi, I noticed your interaction on User talk:Anthere, and also your creation of a joke category (Sock puppets of George W. Bush) and some joke notices on User:George W. Bush and User:☺♥§¡¡PhüçGèõrgëW.Bûsh!‼!♀♪►☻.

I've reverted the joke noticed and deleted the category. No harm done, but please don't play that game again.

Could you explain what happened on the other wikis? What parts were you trying to move to meta? I'm asking this as your mentor, so please take this as a semi-official query on behalf of the English Wikipedia. If people on other wikis are getting upset at you, they would expect us, as the people who know you best, to play a part in resolving any problems. --Tony Sidaway 11:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ill summarise since this is getting complicated. Ill use bullets :)
  1. I decide being a Wikipediholic I move all pages explaining Wikipediholicism symptoms to meta on all languages.
  2. I go ahead and copy every page on every language to meta.
  3. I blank pages to take the attention of local comunities, I did not outright blank pages but leave a link to meta. I did this after creating a copy in meta.
  4. Some mistaken this for vandalism while others did not. Once I explained them this is not vandalism but a "standard" meta move (no harm is done with the move).
    • True Wikipediholic's prefer meta rite? :) Also after all meta is not english, many pages have multi lingual links (you know what I mean). If individual comunities for any reason do not want the move I have no way of forcing them after all I am one person and can only revert so far. And also I dont care about other language wikis. I did not revert a single comunity against the comunities will.
So far so good.
  1. An Anon and a Nl.wikipedian reverted me on many languages. Even if the comunity accepted the meta move such as here at en.wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipediholic&action=history or here: http://th.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%B5%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A2%3A%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%B5%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A2&diff=108621&oldid=108237
  2. Fr wikipedian reverting me on polish wikipedia: http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedioholik&action=history Id like to note unlike his claims I have discussed with the polish guys in #pl.wikipedia prior to the move. Since I know them from RC patroling efforts of mine and theirs. And again it isnt the local comunity deciding it is the Fr.wikipedia deciding for another comunity. --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Without having any discussion Anthere threatened to block me if I "forced" this issue on fr.wikipedia in a self contradictory manner. That en.wikipedia policies did not applied to fr.wikipedia (yea I know it doesnt) and that if I "forced" the issue on fr.wikipedia I would be blocked. etc. etc. (while I was beeing reverted by the nl.wikipedia guy who also has a fr.wikipedia account. Judging from his contribs he is not very active on fr.wikipedia)
So yea... thats in sum what it is. --Cool CatTalk|@ 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My belief is that it is either Davenbelle or Karl Meier (who I know is active on nl wiki) or it is some other individual I never met stalking me interwiki. And for THAT I get block threats.

I also noticed the french campaigning against my move/me while preparing the evidence.

--Cool CatTalk|@ 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can see why you might want to put such an article to meta; I can also see why your actions could be viewed by other people as disruptive or unwanted meddling. I'm not excusing their actions, but I don't think it's necessary to get into a war about this.
I think the solution would be for you to leave the different language versions on meta, but place a note (preferably in the local language) on the talk page for the local wiki version, explaining that there is a copy on meta but you'll leave it up to the local people to decide for themselves whether they want to redirect to that one.
On local languages, prepare a translation if you know the language or can find someone who does--for instance I can write good French and Spanish if you don't know those languages, or you could ask User:Rama, who is a native French speaker, to translate into French. User:Dbachmann is, I think a native German speaker, and User:Ausir is Polish. But I expect you'll have some speakers of foreign languages through your CVU contacts.
I want to counsel you to be very sensitive here. This isn't an area for speculation about people out to get you and it certainly isn't the time to get into arguments with people like User:Anthere, whose commitment to Wikipedia cannot be questioned. I know you have had to bite your tongue and do the right thing a lot, and I admire your fortitude greatly. Please, please tread carefully. An argument at Foundation level is one thing I could not rescue you from. Rather than risk that, I would step in and make a cross-wiki ban recommendation which I would expect you to observe, just so that you would not end up being hard-banned. I am not yet about to ban you, but I am very worried about your interaction with Anthere. Tread very carefully. And I advise you to swallow your pride and apologise to Anthere. --Tony Sidaway 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I will not "swalow my pride" and rather leave wikipedia, thats how my personality goes. Under no circumstances will I apologise for getting threatened. I am not questioning Anthere's contribution to wikipedia, her contribution does not give him the right to threaten me like this.
I do not fear if the argument hits the Foundation which will likely cause Anthere problems. I prefer it doesn't come to that however. If the Foundation prefers that board members threaten "good wikipedians" (aka people who rc patrol write articles) then I have no reason to be here. Also I really have nothing to loose. I am not even entrusted with admin privilages and am one step from leaving wikipedia. Furthermore, I will not observe any "cross-wiki ban" because some board member decides to play the The Almighty.
I believe justice does exist among wikipedians and Ia also believe board members are not entitled to threaten random "good wikipedians" with blocks without even talking to them. If no one else is willing I'll stand up for the "truth" or die (get blokced indefinately) while trying.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 13:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

When you argue with Anthere, you are picking an argument with Wikipedia. Don't do that. Stay out of her way. Please. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Arguing with Anthere is ok, I sometimes think she might be one of those people who enjoys arguing (A bit like bishonen perhaps *duck* ;-) Just she's obviously equally respectworthy, so argue nicely! :-) "I don't know chewie, just fly casual!" Kim Bruning 19:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea CoolCat had a mentor... Anyway, my point is not to drive CoolCat to leave Wikipedia, as I am sure many would regret him. Admittedly, I am of a short temper quite often and certainly of very short temper these days. But I also have some convictions I *very much* stick too. Note as well that I prefer talking (or arguing ?) to people, drily possibly, than just managing for a block to happen, as if by chance (which would be easy for me on fr.wiki). And when I receive complaints from Wikipedians, with which I very much agree with, yes, I prefer walking the way than just cowardly pretending all is well. Sometimes, this might reveal painful for some, but others appreciate my not hiding in a hole. Both benefits and drawbacks CoolCat. In any cases, I am fine with Tony's suggestions on how CoolCat should handle meta moves. And I wish CoolCat cools down. And no, I do not expect apologies from him. He did what he thought fine (I still do not think it was fine at all), and an apology must in any cases be given in good will, not forced. I only wish he cools down and follow Tony's piece of advice in the future. Anthere

[edit] sprotect bush

Well, I reinstated the sprotect and it lasted awhile and after, like 7 vandalisms, it was then sprotected again...guess there are a bunch of people violating wiki policy on sprotect which clearly states it is not to be used all the time. It was only unprotected for 2.5 hours, so it's hard to know if there is a peak time and when, etc. I'll check in later--MONGO 15:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Two-and-a-half hours is not bad, actually, though I'd prefer five or more. Thanks for unprotecting; showing that it isn't just me is very, very important. --Tony Sidaway 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well actually Lord Voldemort, RyanFreisling and Splash all commented... a bit hard over the shouting by a few others that, IMHO, are inclined to ignore policy for sprotect and keep it in place on the article for the forseeable future.--MONGO 11:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My block of Theodore7

Hi, Tony, thanks for your notification that the ArbCom case on Theodore7 is open. What's the reason you want me to shorten Theo's block? Do you see it as problematic for him to e-mail his statement/s to an arbiter? If you do, I would be willing to shorten the block or even unblock right now, but do you think we could have a temporary injunction whereby he gets to edit only the RFAR pages and his own userpages ? This is a user who was wreaking a lot of havoc in articles before I blocked him. He has a terrible effect on the climate of talkpages, too. Would it be necessary to turn him prematurely loose on the wiki just because he needs to edit a few particular pages? Bishonen | talk 20:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier case. Raul654 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If 4 vote to close, you may close regardless of objections by others. Fred Bauder 13:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks. I know that but this is early days and I don't want to be stepping on toes at this stage. Actually I would have gotten someone else to close because I was a participant in that case and thus recused as a clerk. --Tony Sidaway 13:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My ArbCom participations

Re 'unrecusing', I've been assuming that the formal way is just for me to append myself to the accepting Arbitrators, in the backlog cases. Charles Matthews 14:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you discuss this on arbcom-l and reach agreement on whether, and if so in what way, this would affect the calculation of the number of votes that would be required for a majority in cases where some new arbitrators unrecuse themselves? Although the calculation wasn't affected in this case, that was only because the number of participants had previously been even and shifting it to the next odd number did not increase the result of the majority calculation (which is 1+ floor N/2). Had there been 7 arbitrators active before you entered the case, the quota for a majority acceptance would have risen from 4 to 5, potentially affecting the result considerably. --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Suggestion

I have been following the new Proposed Deletion process and I while reading the log I noticed the comments you left as you removed items from the active log for one reason or another. To be kind the comments seemed frustrated. However it doesn't seem as though you contacted any of the people who tagged these articles on the talk pages to educate them as to what they might have otherwise done. In fact your comment on my article was "Oh, for heavens sake" which does not give me a great deal of information. If you would take the time to suggest to people about what your experience has showed you will likely become of an article, you might find yourself less frustrated in the future as people stop repeatedly do things that frustrate you. They may disagree with your assement, but they will at least be better informed.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry if "Oh for heaven's sake" sounded cryptic. I thought that the fact that it accompanied the removal of a "Proposed deletion" template from an article about a very, very famous poem by Longfellow would be enough to explain my sense of frustration. If it doesn't, then perhaps if you read the article as it stands now you might understand. If you still don't understand, then obviously I need to work on the article some more. --Tony Sidaway 03:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand now. Nearly all the articles I tagged where orginally from Category:Move to Wikisource so I was assuming Wikipedia already didn't want them and probably should have stepped back and looked at them more as individual articles rather than "things soon to be sent to Wikisource because they are not wanted at Wikipedia." I will be more careful in the future.---Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpages and advertising

I saw your comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:User_page#Advertising.3F and would like to get your input on this userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Check-Six

Is this type of userpage advertising appropriate for Wikipedia? Mexcellent 09:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • No it is not. I will remove the advertisement. --Improv 17:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You might want to check it again. Mexcellent 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


He's being somewhat recalcitrant, but I'm asking him gently to behave. I've warned him that he could be blocked if he persists. --Tony Sidaway 20:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About my uncivility and personal attacks

It's hilarious how one gets persecuted or crucified on here when they stand up for themselves, are all the egotistical editors and admins here completely hypocritical or are they blind? I have been attacked on all sides by individuals accusing me of being a sockpuppet and trying to put me in a bad light, so sure of course I am going to retort in an uncivil manner - I am sorry sir, but there is no way to be civil to the uncivilised, and there are far too many on here who seem to believe their opinion or belief is the word of God. I am all for debate and discussion, but when it resorts to simple bullying tactics or ganging up against and editor simply because his or her views do not coincide with those of an editor or admin then I believe there is something truly wrong here. Sure I could have perhaps minded my p's and q's and tried not to resort to insults, but sometimes it's best to express the truth as reality shows it. I am not saying I was correct in doing so - but I am naturally only human, just as you are - and when someone is continuously spyed on and attacked by certain users does not one scream out? I know this is only an encyclopedia, but I think others forget that sometimes. I think some people put too much importance upon their role as an editor here. I have always fought against bullying and those who think it is alright to "gang-up" and attack others. If you say I have a problem being uncivil please allow yourself to observe the actions of those who criticise me as well and notice the manner in which they have caused me to act out in the way I have. I think it only does justice to acknowledge that you can't accuse one with accusing the other - i.e. if people are complaining there must be a reason to it, just as people perhaps complained against me for being "uncivil" or "using foul language" you need to also ask yourself why I have done so. I am in no way trying to redeem myself infront of you Tony, even though I respect you being an editor who I've noticed has been fair and agreeable on here, but I truly questions the actions and technique of other editors on here.
I Hope at least that I have managaed to resolve some unanswered questions on here. I know I am quite tempermental and perhaps lash out - but believe me when I say I have tried to put up with this "abuse" for some time on here and tried to work with others in an agreeable manner, and I'm sure there are others who will vouch for me on this. Of course this is hardly an excuse for my behaviour, but I once again ask you to think what you would do if you feel you're attacked on all corners by individuals who simply wish to delete your efforts or push you to the edge of unreason. Yeah, I guess I could have placed a complaint to an admin, but I know for a fact there are also several admins who seem to take their "power" a little too seriously and also use it to their advantages for their "friends" on here. This is why I am hardly contributing to this encyclopedia lately, I do pop in and out every now and then, but I do not understand how people have pinned other users on me as being sockpuppets which I find ludicrous. Anyway enough of this I'm guessing you're probably fed up of reading this, however I do appreciate the fact that you at least took the courtesy of giving me a warning as I do realise what I did was wrong. Thanks anyway for listening, even though I doubt it has helped me change the balance of things on here. Good luck with the rest of it. Piecraft 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Tony, thanks for your understanding in the situation, I mean that. I could easily apply my issues with certain editors, however because of my late inactivity it seems things have blown over, for the moment. And perhaps to carry out any process against those whom I believe specifically targeted me would probably result in a less constructive results. I don't really want to be a snitch because it's not in my character to victimise others but I can tell you this much: those who have been plaguing me have been due to the whole fiasco back around December with the List of punk genres - more to the point it was mainly due to List of literary punk genres which I was the first to support in its making as a separate list opposite the musical genres. I guess the entire thing developped from a misunderstanding or what I believe to be a mis-communication on the Dark City talk page which later resulted in a witch-hunt on several articles I helped create or develop. From there I was mainly attacked (slyly) on all sides which resulted in my major erruption.
Moving on to recently I had been inactive sine the above events, and even declared so - you may also notice my inactivity from the contributions I have made. However it appears I was later branded as having several sockpuppets who were working on articles that I had also previously worked upon. I can understand that this would seem logical aseeing as the other users were either newly registered or what appears to be the case using a similar IP, but I will certify that these other IPs which have been associated to me are NOT my own, my IP changes every two days - and the IPs which have been editing those articles are not my own. I am not as insolent as to come back on to wikipedia and begin posting under an anonymous IP or newly registered username I assure you that much. Anyway like I said if the fact remains that the IP was similar I can vouch that I share my work and home IP with several others so it is equally plausible that other people I know whom I have discussed wikipedia with would probably edit or apply changes to articles I have created as well. Like I said I don't want to make a huge issue out of it but it was completely beyond me when all of a sudden I started getting attacked by user:Zoe that I was using other false accounts to support particular articles or what not when I had only recently re-appeared to see how several articles were coping that I had worked on previously. In the end I don't want to burden you with these problems because I understand you're busy enough as you are so all I wanted was to try to justify my reaction (although they were extreme). I will however reccomend as well as make sure to try to get the attention of considerate admins and editors such as yourself to help in these matters in the future. However like I said I'm not as active now. Piecraft 22:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent remarks

Dear Tony, bullying remarks like "Who gave you permission to post the above announcement of your opinion?" [1] are inappropiate and unacceptable under any circumstances. An apology is expected as is the promise that such behaviour will not be repeated ever. Pilatus 00:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry if you misunderstood my remark, there. It was intended rhetorically. --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Bullying rhetorics are discouraged on Wikipedia, such use of language creates a disagreeable atmosphere. Wikipedia editors are expected to remain civil. Pilatus 00:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain what you thought I intended by the query? I thought it was pretty plain myself. Does it really sound bullying? --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, we were discussing just such a demand made by Aaron Brennaman. He removed my announcement of my opinion from WP:DRV twice, demanding that I justify it. Of course I didn't really think you should justify the statement of your opinion, I was demonstrating what an absurd demand it was. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement certainly sounds bullying. No one needs permission to contribute to a discussion on a talk page.
Now adding one's own opinion to a policy page is an entirely different pair of trousers. No one owns a Wikipedia article, a policy page even less so. As such it is absolutely essential than one can justify one's edits to policy with the equivalent of verifiable evidence, that is with measured reasoning. Pilatus 01:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

DRV isn't a policy page--it's a place where the DRV process is executed. Since my actions in deciding to perform history undeletes may impact the discussions on DRV, it is only a matter of courtesy for me to announce my decision there. Of course I could have just gone ahead and undeleted without making an announcement, but then people would have been puzzled about why I was doing it, I'd have had to reply to their puzzled queries individually on my talk page, and so on. I think the announcement was themost sensible way of doing it--as Aaron suggested in his initial comments, it was simply an extension of the principles of Category: User undeletion, which was also subject to an announcement which is still (as far as I'm aware) on WP:DRV.. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I had hoped that you'd reaslise that, just as my rhetorical demand that you justify your statement of your opinion sounded odd (bullying, if you like), to me that actual demand by Aaron that I justify my statement of my opinion on DRV sounded odd (and yes, it did in my eyes resemble actions of a bully.)
Dearest Pilatus, please accept my deepest apologies if at any time you felt that I was seriously suggesting that you were not permitted to express your opinion. --Tony Sidaway 01:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Pilatus 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glad I missed this mess

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war--MONGO 08:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There were some strong feelings, there. I hope that in time this will come to be regarded as a watershed in the application of commonsense on Wikipedia. I hope the arbitration committee will take the opportunity to rule that the encyclopedia always comes first. --Tony Sidaway 09:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I also posted that Carbonite appears to have left at the bottom of the link I have above, and I may not be allowed to post there, so please remove and post your timestamp if necessary.--MONGO 09:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a problem as your edit was relevant to the case. --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Your timeline on this arb case is excellent, but one relevant item you might want to add is:

18:03, 5 February

  • Joeyramoney removes template from his user page

I'd have added it myself, but I didn't want to 'edit' your evidence section. --CBD ☎ ✉ 21:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added it. --Tony Sidaway 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're probably adding Dschor's involvement into the timeline as we speak, I was wondering if I could make a small request? Where you indicate whenever Jimbo "flipped x's sysop bit" I was wondering if you could ammend it to indicate "on" or "off". I know, at this time, whenever he intervened it's been to flip someone's bit off, but, you know, to help the timeline stand on it's own and all. Anyway, it's a very elegant timeline, and like CBD I don't want to dabble in your evidence section here. So, my two bits. InkSplotch(talk) 14:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

For the record, I emailed a total of 3 editors concerning my RFA - this being the first time I have ever used the email function to contact another editor. It concerns me greatly that those most viciously and irrationally opposed to my nomination can lobby intensively with impugnity, while I apparently, have no right to even mention it to anyone in an unsolicited private communication. I'm sorry you found my comments offensive, as they were intended as a tongue-in-cheek observation of the realities of Wiki life as I've experienced it. I apologise if my comments caused offense. I have had a great deal of respect for your even-handedness as an editor for a long time, and hope that will continue. --Gene_poole 22:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for apologising; perhaps I overreacted. I feel very strongly about factionalism on Wikipedia, so I didn't receive your email with kindly thoughts, especially as it was soliciting votes on your RFA (which I probably would not have seen if you had not emailed me).
Having had my attention drawn to you, though, isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you improve as an editor and in your behavior over the next few months I could well change my mind. Since I've said this, it's okay to contact me in future if your current bid fails and you try again--but please, only on the talk page, and that isn't an invitation to spam a score of talk pages. --21:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
No problemo. I appreciate your comments, but based on the general tone of the response to my current nomination I don't think I really care to nominate for admin again. Many people have a perception of me that seems to be based on the idea that I have a history of being abusive, abrasive and aggressive. This idea is almost entirely a myth that has been aggressively promoted by Samboy, who initiated an arbitration case against me several years ago - (where it was determined I had no case to answer), and who has actively harrassed and stalked me ever since.
In building that case Samboy used as evidence instances of my seeking to strenuously defend multiple articles from attacks by the many incarnations of Wik and others who attempted to ride roughshod or circumvent Wikipedia's processes and procedures. An examination of my alleged "aggression" reveals that such instances are limited entirely to sockpuppets of Wik (namely Gzornenplatz and NoPuzzleStranger), vandals such as Belgsoc those promoting actively original research, such as IndigoGenius and MPLX, and Samboy. It is no coincidence that all of these editors have either been banned outright or have left the project of their own volition after becoming involved in disputes with so many other editors that their continued involvement in Wikipedia became untenable.
Notwithstanding the above I acknowledge that in my earlier days as a contributor I certainly did fail to comply, on a number of occasions, with the 3 revert rule, and while there were instances where my opinions were expressed more passionately than some might find palatable, I have never resorted to outright personal abuse, and there are to my recollection no examples at all of any such behaviour for well over 2 years.
On the contrary, even a cursory examination of my editing behaviour in that period shows a pattern of strong co-operation with dozens of editors, on dozens of articles, on a large variety of subjects - and that is despite the fact that my intolerance for fools, vandals and trolls remains entirely undiminished.
So, in conclusion, I won't be changing my behaviour any time soon, because it is, in my estimation, entirely unproblematic. --Gene_poole 22:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lynching et al

Hi Tony. I just stumbled upon your responses at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Holding a Lynching?. I must say that I agree with you that my comment, in its own heading (RFC against Tony Sidayway) was an overkill, and may have been interpretted as a lynching. That was by no means my intention, and I appologize.

To explain myself, that was a somwhat "natural" reaction to the comments above that heading, which amounted to "Tony is perpetually wheel-warring, and RfC's against him won't work". I believe most people got my intention, with a few exceptions, but of course, that approach did not please you. So, again, that was a bit heavy-handed, and again, I am sorry.

However, I do not think it was necessary (as you suggested) to talk about this in advance with you on your talk page, or that you and me should have had some kind of prior encounters to justify such a statement as I had written at WP:AN/I. I am sure that you are aware that Wikipedia is overall a small place, and that you had gained some kind of notoriety about having disagreements with other administrators which would lead to "wheel warring" (yeah, I know you don't like the term, I know you believe it is abused, and I know that you have your own explanations for your actions).

That it to say, public criticism from persons you never encountered and who never wrote on your talk page I believe is something acceptable and to be expected. So I don't think that one I got wrong. But again, I could have handled it better.

You can reply here if you have comments, I will keep your talk page on my wathclist for a while. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your suggestion that launching into an RfC at that point and in that way was appropriate. If you have problems with my behavior. do bring them to the talk page in the first instance. Do use the dispute resolution process. Just because some editors for their own reasons like to make a noise on WP:AN/I does not mean that I am Wikipedia's aunt sally. I do need to be told, person-to-person, what your problem is with my actions. If I do not have this courtesy, then I cannot hope to address the problems. Such personal disputes cannot be solved through "megaphone diplomacy". --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is getting interesting. Paraphrasing you from your RfC, I might learn something. I would think that you would be right, if we assume that there was a personal dispute (say between you and me). But this is not how I saw it. I had never met you before that time, so I did not have any dispute to solve.

What I saw, was a note at WP:AN/I about a wheel war, with you part of it (with the proper disclaimer for "wheel war", written above). Given your history of wheel wars before, and how troubling that is for the community, I would think that in that context an RfC was more appropriate way of doing things than a dispute resolution. Wonder what your comment is on this. (As stated above, I take it more as an opportunity to learn rather than attempting to be confrontational, I believe the issue with the lynching to have been closed, and with no damage on any side.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC is dispute resolution. I don't know what ypu imagined you were using it for when you opened the current one, but the purpose of an RfC is to resolve a dispute. If you don't make me aware of you dispute, and give me the opportunitty of addressing it, what's the point of taking it to RfC, the very purpose of which is to outline the failure of your earlier attempts and to find an alternative resolution? --Tony Sidaway 04:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC is also request for comment on user conduct. By no means do I mean to make this into an argument, but I would like to point out that I believe you were aware that you were engaging in wheel warring, and of people's comments about that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of lots of loose talk on WP:AN/I. Such accusations are not the way to resolve disputes. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beckjord remedies

Hi, Tony, thanks for the message about the Beckjord decision. There's a bit of a surreal touch to the remedies, with B being banned from editing Wikipedia for a year, along with a number of detailed remedies about how he is to edit Wikipedia. Are the other remedies supposed to kick in after the year has gone by, or are they just alternative remedies that also got a lot of votes? See, if that's not clear to me, what's it going to do for Beckjord, who notoriously finds everything Wikipedian surreal and self-contradictory anyway? I wish you would add some sort of clerkly overview to clarify it. Bishonen | talk 08:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC).


It's possible that the Committee has some kind of unwritten precedence rule that says "if the editor is banned for twelve months, none of the permanent remedies apply", or something. I'll ask Fred Bauder what he thinks. Speaking for myself I can find no logical contradiction in any of the remedies so I included all of them in the final decision. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The purpose of an encyclopedia

Tony, I'm afraid these userboxes are getting out of control, as well as drawing away attention from the encyclopedia... Users are going as so far to endorse the creation of templates that are simply appalling, and its utterly baffling. Quite unacceptable. And what I'm seeing is that when these items are speedy deleted, people are utilizing the excuse of policy to take it through the tedius process of afd of deletion review as justification. Adding on to this equation, it's clear Jimbo's in opposition to the actions of such things... and we have a troublesome situation. I find this interesting, in that the userboxes are not our reasons for being here... May I inquire some of your thoughts and views on this subject...? I'm attempting to remain neutral, but such actions are not the point of an encyclopedia and I'm more than a little concerned. -ZeroTalk 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know what you think on it.. Perhaps your viewpoint on a possible policy perhaps..? -ZeroTalk 20:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a storm in a teacup. In time the fashion will pass and we'll wonder what all the fuss was about. --Tony Sidaway 20:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. There is validness to your statement - its akin to fad. A passing game. I'm sure it will shall pass over as well. -ZeroTalk 21:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special:Contributions/Muhamed

Please handle this bot (or bot like person) which tags places with Category:Kurdistan. That is his entier contribution and I don't like it.

I still am waiting for a sockpuppet check and his "contribution" is only tagging of random provices with categories. I am growing tired of this. PLEASE assist. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I already requseted for a sock check many weeks ago, and its yet to verified (or rather, addressed), Cool Cat. Apparently, people aren't interested in the return of MARMOT. On another note Tony, I discovered two users (Wiki Admin and Bob12c) engaging in blatent vandlaism on the Mega Man Zero article. They've both been given numerous warnings, and looking at their contributions, that was all they were here for. May I request a ban..? -ZeroTalk 21:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I seem sluggish in responding to your legitimate concerns. Some real life problems at the moment. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thats ok. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. -ZeroTalk 19:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] True Christians Unite

noticed you've some edits on this page. seems to me to fall into the not-notable category. thoughts? aa v ^ 21:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord

A final decision has been reached in this arbitration case.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 06:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As to the surreal aspects: The one year ban was added by the other arbitrators after discussion on irc and the arbcom-l mailing list. It is based on the notion that he is unlikely to anything but cause trouble. The other remedies kick in after the end of the one year ban. Fred Bauder 21:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change to summary

One part of your (quite helpful) summary bothered me slightly so I thought: "Hey, it's a wiki." and changed it. [2] - Haukur 09:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed this had already been passed. [3] The point is moot then, sorry for bothering you. - Haukur 10:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radiant userpage

(This note replaces a chunk of text that was fairly malicious and dead wrong). My sincerest apologies, Tony.

No problems. Please be nicer to people. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gene Poole's RFA

In your Oppose you mention email campaigning with nasty comments; could you provide some more details? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


I don't think it would be unduly compromising confidentiality if I said that he alluded to those who opposed his RFA as an avalanche of deletionists. What particularly upset me was that he was clearly pitching himself as a suitable administrator candidate on the basis of his opinion on micronations. --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, he wasn't the only person to initially assume that the avalanche of micronation article RFD's that started right after his RFA was posted was somehow related to or retaliation for that. And I'm not even involved in the micronation phenomenon in any way, other than curiosity. The specific list of stuff nominated at first looked almost like a hit list against him in particular, stuff he was associated with or had edited heavily over time. I was pretty convinced for a little while that it was bad itent, though I changed my mind after some side discussions.
That said, I thought it was settled out and people had calmed down some days ago.
I find it unfortunate that you can't release the actual email. Georgewilliamherbert 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll send you a copy if you can get Gene Poole to agree to this. --Tony Sidaway 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SPUI and so forth

Okay, I know I'm already in trouble for reasons related to this thing, but I would like to register my displeasure with the deletion of SPUI's user page. Yeah, SPUI's eccentric...and odd...and can sometimes be downright annoying, but what on earth can you use to back up your deletion? According to WP:DP (feel free to call me a m:DICK and process wonk), an inappropriate user page should be discussed with the user. Failing that, it should be listed on miscellany for deletion. The only criteria for speedy deletion relating to user pages do not cover a case like this. Now, I'm not an admin for the moment, so I can't see the deleted edits...was there a Miscellany for Deletion on the page, and was it successful? If so, did SPUI keep re-creating the page? If that's the case, then sorry for all the trouble here. If it's not, I may take it to WP:DRV. (the aforementioned process wonk comment stands here as well.) Though, amusingly, I doubt the person who this most affects (SPUI himself) really cares all that much. As such, I'm not going to get myself worked up over this one. Cheers. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, I see the note on AN now. Sorry for the trouble. Guess I just didn't expect to see it there. That and I'm trying to stay away from AN and use this sysop break as a vacation to get away from all this damnable process and argument. Encyclopedia, anyone? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Theodore7 Arbitration

Dear Mr, Sidaway, I just returned from a block that I was not aware of, and discovered that I was in arbitration. I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia after what I consider to be unfair attacks on me. I did, however, see your kind note about the arbitration which warned me ahead to go place my comments on the workshop. However, I am still recent to Wikipedia, and make technical mistakes, and not sure exactly where to place my comments. I hope I haven't made more mistakes here.

A note, I am quite tired. I recently suffered a loss of a friend, and am not up to these attacks. I was told today about the AMA - should I have an advocate? I did not know about this until today... but, I did add my comments.

Another thing: I feel this is a witch-hunt, and ganging up on me. I don't know a lot of people here on Wikipedia yet, but I admit to making mistakes, however, not to the point of banning. I am not a troublemaker; no matter what picture is being painted of me. For instance, one of the people who seems to be stalking me on Wikipedia - R.Koot - who routinely violates the Three RR rule - see al-Khwarizmi - making as many as over 20 edits on this topic in one day. He is never warned, nor blocked. Yet, he constantly hawks me and charges me with "revert warring." Is the Three Revert Rule meaning only three edits in one day? R. Koot is never blocked for these violations. He reverts immediately, no matter the factual materials, or cited sources, but he has been very hard (along with some others) on me.

Anyhow, I just don't feel I am really being useful to Wikipedia, and the attacks continue. I feel lost here. I don't understand how a person can edit and not be accused of "revert warring" by others who make many more than three reverts in one day regularly? I got one email from a user who suggested I wait before leaving, and seek an advocate, but it was never my intention to start trouble when I joined Wikipedia. I've made some common mistakes newcomers make, I've discovered, and, I admit to losing my temper once or twice, but nothing to the extent of being banned. I am a calm person, in his 40s, professional, and experienced as a journalist, editor, and scholar. However, the gang-mentality on my RFC is hostile, and as a newcomer, I just don't feel welcome, so, I am thinking of leaving just to give everyone what they want. I've never been censored, or banned from anything in my life, and I don't want to start here. Thanks.Theo 10:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Not sure if you are aware of this, so here is a friendly notification: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3. (Absolutely no sarcasm intended.) --Fang Aili 16:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

(Oh, of course you were. I should read the discussion page first next time. --Fang Aili 17:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC))
This is ridiculous. -ZeroTalk 17:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I prefer to let the whole thing go at this point; I was just notifying Tony of the RfC's existence. I'd like to give the new CSD a chance and just get on with life and editing. I might make a comment at the RfC (if it goes anywhere), but I've recommended to Rogue9 that he withdraw it. --Fang Aili 18:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Your use of the phrase "Absolutely no sarcasm intended" in an instance where you clearly intend to convey malice is somewhat disturbing. Are you sure that Wikipedia is really the place for you? It's hardly a civil way to behave, and I hope that you don't normally act in that way on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Convey malice?? I have no idea what you're talking about. Really, I have no conflict with you. I was just informing you of the RfC as a courtesy, since I saw that Rogue9 hadn't yet. I said "no sarcasm intended" because I didn't want you to interpret my use of the word "friendly" as sarcastic. --Fang Aili 18:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Then your choice of wording was unfortunate, for the opposite impression was conveyed. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Try not to jump to conclusions next time, please. --Fang Aili 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't play me for a fool. --Tony Sidaway 19:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
And about {{user freedom}}, I don't care about that whole disagreement anymore. Like I said above, I may comment on it at the RfC, to say I thought that you should have left the template alone during its TfD. But at this point I just want to get on with writing the encyclopedia. --Fang Aili 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Pages are not normally left unedited during deletion discussions; I see no reason to treat this template any differently than other pages. --Tony Sidaway 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Actually I wasn't aware of this RfC, unless it's a resurrection of some other attempt. Looking at the history of my talk page, I see no suggestion that he has ever made any attempt to resolve the matter, so an RfC at this stage would be moot. I'll stand by and await developments. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore7

Re [4] -- What are the penalties for violating the ban? (I can guess, but would feel quite out of place reporting my guesses on Theo's page, so he knows.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


If he persists in making a nuisance of himself he'll be blocked and will have to limit his participation in the case to edits on his talk page and emails to arbitrators, clerks or advocates. --Tony Sidaway 20:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Sidaway. I have written a message on your Talk Page, perhaps you did not see it as yet. However, I am not persisting in making a "nuisance of himself" - as you suggest. I am a member ofg Wikipedia, a newcomer, and resent the implication as if it is true. I would suggest taking a neutral view of this case rather than taking sides, and to review the evidence from both sides before "blocking" - since Wikipedia is NOT about censorship. I also find it interesting that the individual - Ruud - who brought this case has violated the 3RR rule many times over without sanction from English Wikipedia administrators such as Bunchofgrapes, who knows this individual. What is that about?Theo 08:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Theo just violated the ban on editing like 10 times tonight with reverts on all of the articles that have been under dispute. He also appears to be trying to frame User:Alexander 007 by making it look like he is saying things which he is not. [5] [6] We have been going though the normal means of dispute resolution for a month now, but how much longer will this be allowed to go on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris Brennan (talk • contribs) 13:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
If he's making a nuisance of himself, the injunction can be enforced by blocking. Any administrator can do this. I understand that Vsmith (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) blocked him for one week earlier this afternoon. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal vendettas

Hey, Tony, I've got some surprisingly ecentric vandals vandalising the Mega Man Zero article. I can only specualte as to their reasoning, but this is absurb. Also the user could do with a name block if the vandlism in such a short timeframe isn't enough. Note the other vandals as well. I'm speculating as to sockpupppetry. -ZeroTalk 11:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked WikiTerrorist (talk • contribs). --Tony Sidaway 11:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. You missed one however: Bob12c (talk • contribs) -ZeroTalk 11:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
And, it looks as if this bloke hasn't learned. He's constructed a new account: WikiTerrorist2 (talk contribs) -ZeroTalk 11:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Got him too. There is a section about this on WP:AN/I; just take further notices there and someone will block him whenever he shows up. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I was well aware of the post. I've made a comment over on WP:AN/I, in the case you'd fancy adding some of your two cents. -ZeroTalk 19:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undelete Template:User GWB2 now!

I demand you to stop. --Revolución (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


I cannot undelete inflammatory content. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
If you are the one to decide the inflammatory content then why do we Templates for deletion page? You had no right to delete the template Template:User_against_Iraq_War and protect it. The result of the vote was in favor of keeping it and you ended the disscussion before due time!! --Wedian 23:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you think I was joking?

Did you think I was joking when I said I would stop at nothing until you're not an admin? I was 100% serious. --Revolución (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. However I'm only trying to improve Wikipedia, as are you. There's no reason for us to adopt a constantly hostile tone or to make threats like this. --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You have deleted another template under discussion. I am sick of your nonsense, you have pushed me beyond my limits. I have no choice but to open a discussion about you. --Revolución (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you discuss me here? Or rather, why not discuss why you think that inflammatory templates should be permitted on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I will not discuss your template-deleting actions further anymore here. If you wish to explain your actions, here is the discussion about you: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Tony_Sidaway. Do not remove it. --Revolución (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I have explained my deletions in full on the talk pages of the templates and here. Please assume good faith; of course I'm not going to remove your edit, though possibly somebody else will. --Tony Sidaway 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen Tony, I'm really sorry for deleting you on IRC earlier on but did it have to go to DRV? :) Physchim62 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes! :) Momma says "hi, big boy!"--Tony Sidaway 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Draft

Thanks for creating the RfC draft. I in the draft you've made your intentions clear, and as long as you adhere to it, I'm not planning on commenting agaisnt you in any possible RfC. Thanks. ComputerJoe 21:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting SPUI's talk page?!

Who the hell ever heard of protecting a talk page? Christ. Get a life, would ya? --Analogdemon (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

He repeated the action on his talk page that had provoked the arbitration committee's ban when he did it to his user page. Trolling isn't allowed on Wikipedia.
As he is banned from Wikipedia anyway he doesn't need a talk page because he shouldn't be editing. If you want to write messages for him to read, edit his user page and put a link to a separate page, like User talk:SPUI/Temp where you can leave messages. --Tony Sidaway 00:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting items in my userspace

I'm going to be Civil, although it's really, really hard. What the hell are you doing deleting valid subpages from my userspace? This was an attempt at a compromise, per WP:UUB and several other discussions, including one on WP:DRV - an attempt to migrate a slightly questionable template that was deleted out of process (by you, of course - and AFTER it passed TFD as no consensus) to userspace as others have done with different templates that have been deleted under similar spurious criteria. You really should discuss things before acting, Tony. You really should respect consensus and discussions rather than blatantly violating Wikipedia policy again and again. Either that, or you should step down. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, I shouldn't have to tell you this, but T1 doesn't apply to userpages. It applies to templates. Hence the "T". --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You know what you're doing. You deliberately recreated a template that had been speedy deleted because it is divisive and inflammatory. Please don't it again. You already have the code on your userpage, and up to a point that is acceptable. I've no argument with you or your activities on Wikipedia, which seem to be in good faith, but you shouldn't expect to be able to recreate templates that have been deleted because they're unacceptable. T1 applies to pages created anywhere on Wikipedia, in any namespace, for the purpose of transclusion.--Tony Sidaway 09:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I call bullshit, Tony. The template was deleted because you didn't like it, plain and simple. Your deletion activities indicate the same pattern. When you wanted a template deleted, you'd just delete it, regardless of consensus or policy. Usually you'd cite WP:IAR; if that wouldn't work, you'd twist WP:NPA, and if that didn't work, you'd contort or abuse some other policy to get your way. When T1 was created (With caveat - it shouldn't be used for deletion sprees - oh, like these) - without consensus I might add - you jumped right on it - now you don't even have to make up excuses to justify your actions, you just have to pretend that it's divisive. It wasn't deleted for being innappropriate, it was deleted because you wanted it deleted. Be honest with people, Tony. The lies do not become you.
Yes, you're right, I know what I'm doing - I'm doing the same thing many other editors are doing, including such contributors as Crotalus horridus (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates, but beware - it includes discussions designed to garner consensus, and I know how offensive those are to you).
I also know what you're doing - using your admin privelages in ways they are not intended to be used, shunning process and consensus, and spitting in the face of users who dare to attempt compromise. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We have a strong consensus that some content is unacceptable for Wikipedia. You cannot subvert that by assembling a subset of Wikipedians and getting them to agree to suspend it in one particular instance. Consensus involves all of us, not just a few people who persistently strain the patience and goodwill of Wikipedians by seeing how far they can go. --Tony Sidaway 09:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2006_02_13_2e54.html"