User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 05 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Statements and evidence in Aucaman RFAR 2 Email 2.1 What Do you Advise on this? 3 For Fuddyduddies 4 Chavez boxes 5 Chap rape 6 Top of the page/jargon 7 RFC against Messhermit 8 An opinion please. 9 Aucaman RfAR 10 User:TwoVryl 11 Cool Cat 12 cheesecruft? 13 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fadix 14 Image:AbortionIsMurder-01 15 Aaron 16 Thanks re my email

[edit] Statements and evidence in Aucaman RFAR

When you opened the Aucaman RfAr on 29 March, you left out several statements previously made on the WP:RFAR page, including my own ( [1]) and Zora's ([2]) defending statements, and several of those made against Aucaman. Is there any special meaning attached to this? Will it be okay for the authors to re-instate these on the new page? I myself plan to re-submit a new version on the evidence page anyway, but I'd very much like to have Zora's statement preserved for the Arbcom's consideration too. Also, in my earlier statement, I had argued for widening the case to a larger group of participants, on the grounds that Zmmz' role is that of a spokesperson of a whole group acting in concert against Aucaman. Can this still be done, will it be okay if I include evidence to that effect too? Thanks for your advice. Lukas ^(T.|@) 07:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

From memory, I think I was following the new practice of moving to the case page only statements that appeared to have been made by people listed as parties to the case. However there is no hard-and-fast rule about this, it's just a rule of thumb that we use to try to keep the case page relatively uncluttered. Zora's statement is on the talk page and will almost cetainly have been read by arbitrators, especially as he's a well known, experienced editor whose judgement is generally trustworthy. But I'll move your statement and Zora's to the main case page just in case. --Tony Sidaway 08:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I hadn't actually seen our statements had been on the talk page all along. Lukas ^(T.|@) 17:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And to answer your other question, if you include sufficient evidence on the evidence page the arbitrators may decide to widen the case. You can also put proposed findings of fact based on that evidence on the workshop page. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I sent you one...--MONGO 09:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I read it and replied. Meanwhile I see that someone has posted about this on wikien-l. --Tony Sidaway 10:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Do you Advise on this?

What would you think about the wisdom of posting a discrete link to this notice at the very page top Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals, and how do you like the concept? Something in a box saying See this New Notice (Flashing lights and sirens wouldn't be enough as far as I can see!)

• what other actions might be in order- RFC, VP, Adds at head ends of CAT:CAT. The utility and desirablily seems self-evident.

Sigh! Back to content edits! Best regards, FrankB 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In the skin that I use, Cologneblue, the categories of a page are listed at the top right hand side of the page--this applies both to articles and to subcategories. If you check a category page in the skin that you use, you will probably find that the parent category is listed somewhere. --Tony Sidaway 01:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. Yeah, I've been using the default (name unknown), which buries them way down the bottom. I'd never even noticed them in wikiP outside an edit screen until I got back last month, so browsing with them couldn't happen. Makes me wonder how many users ('customers'? i.e. not editors) are missing the same thing. Perhaps the default ought to be 'Cologneblue'.
• Sorry for getting excited and reinventing a wheel I'd not seen. Probably part of hitting the 50's--my eyes have been a real pain for all close work until Friday when I got a computer prescription bifocal, so I can even read hardcopy and work on the screen w/o switching between glasses. It's been a trial this past two years. I've lost track of how many complaints I've made to webpages for using such small fonts when they didn't scale up font sizes using IE6. At least our software works for all browsers that way.
• I think I'll try out the skin! Sorry to have bothered you, though someone did note that listing the Main article or articles would be useful thing, and in fact seeing some Cats like that was what inspired the idea when looking for a way up the tree. I've annoted that below the original post with 'Egg on Face' subsection reflecting the point, especially for long Cat pages, the explicit note up high also makes some sense. I'll have to explore the presentation of all the skins.

Best regards, FrankB 04:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For Fuddyduddies

Hi Tony. Recall when I originally joined wikipedia and I created the Seven Samurai 20XX article as my first contribution...? I've gotten around to creating its subpages and expansion, and I'd be feel quite gay if you could take a look at it and provide some feedback on how far its come. -Zero^Talk 01:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems good. --Tony Sidaway 01:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I spied your comment on the talkpage, and I decided to go back and finish what I started. I think its lovely I did, too. Could you leave an update of any other qualms you would prefer ammended on the talkpage...? I feel the combined editting skills of you and I could really make something. And why is that surprising...? Its a wiki. Please feel welcome to assist. -Zero^Talk 01:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chavez boxes

Why did you delete the userbox on Chavez? Politics in Venezuela are polarized along pro- and anti-Chavez lines, so they were no different from any other userbox expressing an opinion. Tjss 15:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In general I think the expression of such opinions constitutes an unsuitable use of the transclusion mechanism and particularly of the Template namespace. I deleted a pro- and anti-Chavez userbox because they happened to catch my attention and they clearly fall under the "divisive" criterion of the T1 CSD. You should feel free to describe your opinion of Chavez on your userpage if you think this will help other editors to understand your edits, but it would probably be better if you simply strove to avoid importing your personal opinions into Wikipedia in any form. --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous when you're talking about a user page. Most of the userboxes available express opinions, including everything from the Basque seperatist movement to being a Vegan to being an Athiest. If you don't believe me look at the userboxes under "Regional politics" or some other category. I am recreating the boxes. If you disagree, start a VfD or bring it to the arbitration committee. You don't get to unilaterally delete things; THAT is Wikipedian policy. Tjss 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chap rape

According to our rape article, Eurpoean rape of a male subject from a female is apparently acceptable:

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came into force on May 1, 2004, rape in England and Wales was redefined from non-consensual vaginal or anal intercourse, and is now defined as non-consensual penis penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person. The changes also made rape punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Although a woman who forces a man to have sex cannot be prosecuted for rape under English law, if she helps a man commit a rape she can be prosecuted for the crime. A woman can also be prosecuted for causing a man to engage in sexual activity without his consent, a crime which also carries a maximum life sentence if it involves penetration of the mouth, anus or vagina. The statute also includes a new sexual crime, called "assault by penetration", which also has the same punishment as rape, and is committed when someone sexually penetrates the anus or vagina with a part of his or her body, or with an object, without that person's consent.

I cannot possibly comprehend the European concensus for the inclusion of that law. Anyone should be charged with rape for not following the obvious morality issue of violating another's body. Apparently European law confroms itself differently than the rest of the world's common sense. That is so far over the mark that I had difficulty believing it when I first read about it. I regard the actions of the prosecutors in this case as quite inhuman. It certainly should not happen in UK law, which treats other cases of direct infanticide altogether more sensibly in my opinion.

In the common American courts, (such as the case of 1998), almost all courts and of the world's majority thought this unlawful.

Glad I live my safe Japanese home. -Zero^Talk 12:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Our articles on this subject aren't very good. The Sexual Offences Act, 2003 provides for up to ten years imprisonment on conviction following indictment for sexual assault (touching an unwilling person in a sexual manner when one doesn't reasonably believe that he or she consents). The Act also makes the defendant liable to life imprisonment if the assault is penetrative (in the case of a man, this would involve penetration of the anus with any object or part of the body).

The act also extends the meaning of rape to include penetration of the mouth with the penis without consent. In the Sexual Offences Act 1976, the law of rape only applied to vaginal or anal penetration. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's good to hear. If you look at the recent acts of rape, Male rape has risen, and while its still in the lower percentage in respective comparison to male on female, its some cause for concern. I suppose in 1976, the English merely made an assumption of only the female sex being rape victims. However, a bit of time passage, and lots of goodwill, and the law has become more respectible in this regard. Thanks for putting my qualm to rest. I was fully knackered after my late-night essay construction last night. Seeing this piece of information sent me into full rant mood today.

When I recover some free time, I'll do more research on this subsection, and we can put our heads together again. -Zero^Talk 19:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top of the page/jargon

Given that your second statement refers to a reduction of jargon, I was wondering if you realised how jargony the first statement on your page is? I have no idea what it says. The juxtaposition is actually quite funny; it certainly does strengthen the second statement. Guettarda 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the first statement is an in-joke, so it's a bit exclusive. Fortunately it's of no great consequence to the running of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC against Messhermit

Hello there! Due to College, I'm being a little bit busy with some other topics besides Wikipedia. My question is: I have a RFC against my person, and I want to know if there is some sort of time limit to present my other side of the story. Thanks! and I'm really waiting for the answer. Messhermit 14:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Messhermit? No, it's okay. I suggest that you leave a message on the talk page of one of the more active arbitrators, say User talk:Dmcdevit, explaining that you'll be too busy to contribute properly. They can, and would probably be willing to, shelve the case until your return. If you're not going to be editing Wikipedia for a while, then there is no urgency, and there are other cases they can get on with in the meantime. If you don't get a positive response, come back here and I'll see if I can help. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tony. I find Messhermit's request very strange. Please consider the following points:

• This Arbitration concerns Messhermit's behavior toward me, as you can read on the Request for Arbitration page and the Evidence page.
• The Arbitration Committee considered the evidence and opened the case on April 7.
• From April 7 to April 17, Messhermit has been very active on Wikipedia, as you can see on his public User contributions page.
• During all these days, Messhermit has been particularly active in the article about the Cenepa War. Please see the History Page, where he proceeded to add a {{NPOV}} tag (and be rude to others who wanted to remove it) [3], [4], [5], [6], to remove entire sections of it (including links to references) [7], [8], sometimes replacing it with new data [9], sometimes not. [10]. Some of Messhermit's comments toward me and other in the Talk Page have been very rude and uncalled for [11], [12]. Interestingly, this article (which was mostly written by me) was quite stable until I requested the Arbitration.
• All of a sudden, Messhermit says he is busy.
• Messhermit has had enough time to put into question the validity of this Arbitration (a "political trial" based on conveniently presented evidence, as he calls it), and to ask for support from third parties [13], [14].
• I have my daytime job, so I am busy too. Still, I found the time to present my evidence in detail. That is because I sincerely believe that Wikipedia has rules and procedures to deal with these problems.
• It looks like I have had to undergo all this without responding in kind, and then see how Messhermit asks for a postponement of the Arbitration (whatever the results are).

Like I said, I find all this very strange. In view of the evidence presented here, I would like to ask you to please let this Arbitration to continue as normal. I think this issue between Messhemit and myself cannot go on indefinitely. Best Regards -- Andrés 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I have valid reasons to doubt that Messhermit is being sincere on this request. As you can see, he is quite active on Wikipedia: [15]. I don't know what's going on here. Andrés 04:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An opinion please.

If you have a moment, could you take a peek here? My instinct is to revert it as unfounded opinion (NOR?), but I want to seek a more experienced opinion before acting. Thanks. --InkSplotch^(talk) 03:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you copy those words to the talk page and query them. There may be a source for this--Pratchett or Gaiman may at some point have acknowledged drawing directly on The Omen. I don't see it myself but it's about fifteen years since I read the book--which is not one of my favorites. If nothing is forthcoming by the end of the Easter weekend, remove the words from the article until someone can source the statement. The copy on the talk page will still be available for editors to work on. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

On the above, I'm familiar with Practchett, and it seems likely owning about half his works— pretty good at comedy though. I'd advise searching some of the web forums specific to sci-fi community, or perhaps start in B&N and Amazon reviews of books (this will likely turn up immediately if reviewed there). I think he's in Baen's Bar, or would hope other discussions in online communities would lead you to right place. OTHO, why not just use {{fact}} and {{disputed}} and post a note on both the (users) talks that the statement needs supported. Ahhhh Two edits total, I see now!

(This co-posted to user talk:InkSplotch before closing this edit) FrankB

Thanks for the advice, from both parties. It appears someone beat me to it anyhow, but I think I'd have gone for Tony's suggestion. Using {{fact}} and {{disputed}} seems a bit cold before I've made any attempts at direct communication. I'd rather drop a note on the article talk page, or that user's talk page, first.

For my own research, I find lspace.org a good resource, and of course the author interviews linked from there or neilgaiman.com. Terry Pratchett doesn't contribute to Baen's Bar, only because (so far as I know) he's never been published through Baen. I'm not as certain about Gaiman. I think the confusion lies in a few homages to The Omen found in their book, but then it's full of homages to many sources, books, movies, and more.

Anyhoo, enough babbling here. I wanted to post to say thank you (and because this is where I started the conversation, I tend to keep editing in the same spot - tho I appreciate the cross-posting).

--InkSplotch^(talk) 22:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aucaman RfAR

Here's a little request to you as the Arbcom clerk. There's been a flurry of editing at the Aucaman arbcom case recently. One involved editor, Zmmz (talk • contribs), has a habit of making his contributions in very many small steps and of going back to them for minor corrections and additions very frequently. I find this clutters up the page history and makes it rather difficult to react, especially when he changes his contributions after others have already commented on them. Could you perhaps ask him to use some sandbox space or offline editing for preparing his contributions? Also, if he wants to retract or modify things he said after they have been commented upon by others, wouldn't it be more appropriate for him to strike them out instead of just deleting them? Thanks for your attention. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a complaint against User:LukasPietsch's conduct on Aucaman arbcom case's evidence page. It appearers that the user, in conjunction with User:Aucaman, are gaming the system. User:LukasPietsch submitted a set of evidence two days ago [16], containing false and perjured statements, which were commented on [17], and formally replied to [18] in a new section on the evidence page under user LukasPietsch's own section. Now today, user Aucaman has resubmitted user LukasPietsch's evidence all over again [19] at the bottom of the evidence page, under his own name, with minor cosmetic revisions, and with a new disclaimer that "The following were prepared in close cooperation with User:LukasPietsch, but User:Aucaman is responsible for the accuracy of the evidence" and then user LukasPietsch simply removes that whole section of his evidence [20], for the accuracy of which he is responsible, and had already been submitted two days earlier and commented upon by others. This looks like a blatant attempt at denial of responsibility, recycling and repetition of the same " evidence", as well as confusing and misleading ArbCom members. --ManiF 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just done in order to save page space. You can hold me responsible for what I wrote in whatever way you like. It's never been a secret that Aucaman and I co-operated on the evidence (see User talk:Dmcdevit#Evidence for the RfAR, plus E-Mail communication to Tony). Aucaman's revisions aren't cosmetic, they are added evidence. Khokhoi's comments on my parts quotes exactly what I was saying, so there's no danger of misunderstandings. Tony, if you think it more appropriate, I have no objections to re-instating that section. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Zmmz is entitled to edit his evidence on that page in whatever increments he sees fit, and to modify it in the light of comments and other evidence. User:LukasPietsch and User:Aucaman are also entitled to cooperate and redact their evidence in the way described. This is normal in an arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:TwoVryl

Blocked this person as a sockpuppet of Vryl (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), who you blocked a day or two ago indef. Just thought I'd ping you in case you felt that this was a violation of AGF on my part. Syrthiss 16:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well. looks like he admits to being the same guy, and the tone is decidedly unwikipedian. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So you have indef blocked TWO accounts for reverting a banned user, Jeff Merkey[[21]]? You might want to take another look at this Tony. Vigilant 20:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As a bonus, from this link [[22]], you can see that Merkey was banned BEFORE you instituted your indef blocks. Vigilant 23:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool Cat

Will you be around IRC later tonight, say around 8:00? I'd like to talk to you in your capacity as Cool Cat's mentor about the #wikipedia-en-vandalism issue before I file an arbitration case. Thanks, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's currently about 2100 UTC, 2200 local time, and I'm around, but I am going soon. I will be back later. I've no idea which timezone your "8pm" is intended to be in. But I'm often around quite late at night into the early hours, so give me a go. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was running out the door when I typed that, and didn't even think of the difference in UTC and EST. Didn't end up mattering, as I was suprised with dinner and a night out, so I didn't get a chance to get on. I'll try to find you today. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 18:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cheesecruft?

well that 's a new one--^mmm cheesey goodness 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but we need to keep the administrator pages clear for Wikipedia business. If there is an on-wiki problem that needs administrator attention, please raise it in language, and with references, that will make the problem apparent. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fadix

Since you have tried to resolve the dispute, I feel you may be interested in the disupte. The Rfc was filed primarily with concerns about personal attacks and the lack of civility. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I think you should advice Coolcat to step out of debates which he has no clue about. I have no problem that he engage in discussing about the issues I was discussing with Grandmaster, but not to pursue his personal vandetta. It has cooled with Grandmaster and I find Coolcat pulling oil unconstructive. Also, the discussing between me and Grandmaster has already gotten the attention needed and one of the problems has been resolved I really don't see the point of CoolCats RfC at this point. Fad (ix) 03:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AbortionIsMurder-01

Hi there - whatever happened to freedom of expression? What I am saying is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. How can anyone defend the vile practice of terminating unborn children WHO ARE ALREADY SOPHISTICATED BEINGS AND PERSONS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT? Also, if I'm not allowed to say that, then why can I and hundreds of other Wikipedians are allowed to say that "This user does not understand the 'American English' language, nor does he bloody well want to"? --RichardHarrold 22:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Go and read WP:NPOV and in particular WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I've deleted your replacement image, too. -- ChrisO 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron

As an involved party in the matter, you probably shouldn't have been the one to block Aaron. Phil Sandifer 05:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As a clerk, it's not like I have much choice in being involved. I'm not taking any crap from people who want to make clerking harder than it already is. --Tony Sidaway

Oh, I agree with you. It just... makes us look tackier if you, who have a past of dustups with Aaron, block him for something you were involved in. Especially when there are uninvolved clerks with a past of dustups with Aaron to do it. Phil Sandifer 06:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tacky is a good word. I think your explanation of not wanting to "take any crap" pretty much says it all. This looks to me like a temper block. If that's how it's going to be, I'd rather see you put your time in somewhere other than clerking. Friday (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Phil was the right person to do a block either given HIS past history. You two and Aaron need to stay away from each other, period. He should have known WAY better than to change one of your headings (even if he was perhaps right about the heading... The text you wrote was in my view very accurate and helpful but was it "official"? ) and you should have known better than to escalate to a block over a heading change without at least trying to talk about it or ask for help. IMHO anyway. I would ask you to let it go at this point and not escalate any further.

As Aaron promised when he stood, he's starting an RfC on himself and his time as Admin so far at the 3 month mark (coming up soon) so perhaps you might want to consider if you can say something constructive /thoughtful/well reasoned there. I feel your initial comments on Aaron's RfA were pretty amazing, they must have been hard to write for you. Even if you subsequently ended up changing your mind, my hat was off to you for that, sir. I'll reiterate, if there's anything I can do to help, you have but to ask and I will try. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This may be good PR, but do you honestly think that it won't make his recent misbehavior absolutely transparent? That good ole history link, you know, shows that he planned his campaign in advance, and clearly intended to abuse WP:RFAR for the purpose of his tawdry political ambition. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think, Tony. I may be a bad judge of people but I see he and you both as good people, bereft of tawdry political ambition, and wanting to do what is best for the encyclopedia. If you have particular links that you think I should see I would appreciate being made aware of them. ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks re my email

Thanks for fixing things per my email (removing item from history). Next time I'll combine WP:AGF with WP:AWPC (Assume Wikipedia Policy Cluelessness). Martinp 15:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. --Tony Sidaway 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)