User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 05 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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] On the Above again, More Egg

Oops: I apparently didn't save the edit to the Category page... Here's the current note just posted:

I apparently never saved out on the edit I was recommending. It should have looked like This example or when polished for presentation and organization, the current: Category:History of Canada . Apparently too many open browser windows, or the like. Apologies (again) FrankB 21:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] east sea

hi, would you mind taking a look at East Sea? thanks. Appleby 01:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] lying to protect wikipedia

You realise that I don't see anything wrong with doing this? In some ways I would be rather dissapointed if people didn't at least lie by omission (much better to say we have a load of effective anti vandalism measures in place rather than outlineing the ways around these). In fact that is pretty much the intention behind WP:BEANS. The probablem is aside from any issues of people steping outside their powers or whatever we have an inconsistancy. WP:OFFICE powers are not needed to block vandles. Admins have delibertately blocked the whole of AOL before now so it isn't needed for range blocks etheir. That is why I was considering the posibilty that the vandalism was to a degree at least a cover story.Geni 19:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Jeff Merkey at it again

Removing sockpuppet banners from proven sockpuppet accounts. [[1]]

And he's removing comments informing him he shouldn't be removing sockpuppet tags from his own page, claiming harrasing dialogue. And yes, I left the comment, but other than that, haven't touched his pages --Jerry (Talk) 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Danny and Eloquence

You say that I adopted a dictatorial tone towards Danny, which is quite true. To my mind that reflects the seriousness of what is going on here. Erik followed Wikipedia policy. For doing that he got banned and desysoped. There are few more serious things that can be done within a community like this. The creation of the Dannyisme account is a positive step towards making sure this does not happen again, but it is not enough so far as I am concerned. I see no reason why Danny's ordinary account should have access to any powers of those above a normal user after this incident. If anyone else had done something like this they would have been permanently banned but we do need Danny in his Foundation capacity.

I see from previous parts of Danny's talk page that similar concerns have been raised in the past so this is not exactly unprecedented in subject area. What is unprecedented is the incredible abuse of power that has taken place. David Newton 20:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Danny

Nor is this the treatment we, and particularly Eloquence, deserve. Danny is more than welcome to quit if he can't handle the stress of people wondering why he is randomly protecting pages on gimped versions without citing the Office Action policy. Or maybe he could simply say it's an Office Action, and remove all doubt and concern. --Golbez 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Article ban

Thanks for taking action. But I'd expect sysops to be taking appropriate action for each of the cases, that would actually steer all parties towards reaching an eventual resolution. Imposing a ban wouldn't be helpful, I'm afraid.

For the list of bridges, my edits were to restore the article as according to what it was like prior to undiscussed, POV and controversial edits by user:Alanmak and user:SchmuckyTheCat. For the Hong Kong national football team and District Council of Hong Kong articles, it's related to how the official full name of Hong Kong should be linked. I've requested user:Alanmak to discuss, but all efforts were in vain. Guangzhou, Community of Portuguese Language Countries and East Asian Tigers, are related to user:Alanmak imposition of the the infobox-style he prefers, to replace the inline-style suggested by Wikipedia's official manual of style. The Macao, China article is related to whether there's any official policy to avoid redirects. I've requested user:SchmuckyTheCat, who argues Macao should be spelt with a -u, at his talk page for official policy/ies, but he's not responding. For the i'm lovin' it article, I'm following McDonald's official website, but user:Alanmak keeps arguing that's merely my POV. I'd love to hear from you why I have to be banned for each of the above cases. If possible, please help bring all parties to real discussion, or else the trouble is not like getting to be solved. Thanks again, and thanks in advance for your necessary interventional actions, Tony. — Instantnood 14:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that a lot of your edits have been reverting Alanmak's edits. If you think he's being too aggressive and pushing a point of view against consensus (and while I myself cannot say, there does appear to be circumstantial evidence that may support this) I'd like to see you try the conventional methods of dispute resolution. Maybe AlanMak will respond to discussion on his talk page, especially if others chime in. If he doesn't and you still think his behavior is problematic, discuss the problem with your colleagues with a view to starting a RfC. If you have been through those steps and there are people who agree with you that Alanmak's behavior is unacceptable, then bring it to arbitration. The Committee has had problems with you in the past, but that is because you have not been patient enough to follow this route. If you do, I promise you that you will have more success in dealing with bias on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. If I were not patient the trouble wouldn't have carried on for more than a year. And if you don't already know, user:Alanmak actually disregarded user:Jiang's and my messages at his talk page, deleting them with edit summary saying "disregard bullshit", "vandalism" or no summary at all. At the moment administrators' action is urgently needed for all articles you've mentioned above. — Instantnood 15:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a classic user conduct dispute. I highly recommend that you get together with Jiang put together an RfC outlining those attempts to resolve the issue and his inappropriate response. --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please also look into each of the articles that you've named above, and see what else we can actually do? Meanwhile, the ban on me is in effect keeping user:Alanmak and user:SchmuckyTheCat edits for two weeks. Please kindly review, as an administrator, whether their edits have to be reverted. Thanks. — Instantnood 16:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a content issue, something that an administrator cannot really resolve any better than any other editor. If you think that an article is unbalanced, use an article RfC to see if you can attract other editors to examine the issue. The thing to realise is that you are not the only editor, and if you can obtain consensus then you'll have no shortage of people willing to correct inbalance. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've brought many discussion to listing on RfC, but very very few people actually join the discussion from there. — Instantnood 20:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] greetings from a former a.a person!

Just a quick note to say hello and send warm greetings from sunny Florida from a former inhabitatant of usenet's a.a. (re, for ex., the woll. fellow). After much thought (and quite a long time ago!) I concluded that that your take on the entire matter in that port 119 world was the most humane one to take and the best for all concerned, and also bailed. Drop me a line if you're ever in the Southwest environs of the "Sunshine state" so that I might buy you a nice cold brew (the way it was surely intended to be imbibed), or, alternatively, your favorite non-alcoholic imibibeable. We do have some great iced Tea and gulf seafood 'ya know. With warm regards, I am, hgoldste at that mpcs.com place aka Flawiki 01:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice to meet you. Oh I remember you a little too. --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the recollection is not all bad. I lost interest once things started getting all (borrowing an expression, probably incorrectly since we don't use it this side of the pond) "pear shaped" over in that other place, and don't bother with it anymore. It is far more collegial and enlightening, not to mention, more humane (mostly), over here. Accordingly, it's more satisfying too, as I suspect you've noticed... At any rate I just wanted to say howdy and hope things are going well with you. I'm pleased to have seen you here as we mightn't have crossed paths had I not noticed your username pop up on a talk page that was sitting on my watchlist for a reason completely unrelated to my saying howdy. Best, --Flawiki 03:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Very pleasant recollections. You were among a very few people who seemed able to keep a sense of proportion about the affair. --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Snotty

Hello. I'm confused by the redirect at Snotty to Midshipman because that term is not mentioned there on that page. Can you give me a clue? Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 17:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh it's there. The page currently contains the following text:
In Royal Navy slang, midshipmen are sometimes referred to as "snotties", and a somewhat dubious urban legend states that the three buttons formerly on the jacket cuffs of the midshipman were placed there to prevent him wiping his nose on his sleeve [2]. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! (I'd turn this Firefox option back on to "begin finding when you begin typing" but this computer is soooooo slow.) Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 20:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The external link is out of date. I'll update it. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Further bans and a block

Thank you for attempting to deal with the content dispute, but I'm afraid my right to defend my position was not protected. For this reason, I would like to apply for lifting the block and the bans, in order to put up my arguments at WP:AE. I promise I won't conduct any edit that involves any sort of revert to any of the articles you've listed on my user talk page, before my arguments are heard, and the bans and the block are reconsidered. Thank you. — Instantnood 18:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please respect the block. You may put a {{unblock}} template on your talk page and request a review of the block. I'll also note this on WP:AN in the interests of transparency. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I cannot agree. I was not notified about user:SchmuckyTheCat's request at WP:AE. I was not given any opportunity to defend my position before the block was imposed, and the block was imposed with only one-sided comment. I'm not criticising your or anybody's decision, but I just can't believe it's the way Wikipedia mechanism deals with these matters, if neutrality, justice, consensus, balances are really meant to be treasured.

" I have banned him under his probation from several articles on which he had edited disruptively. ", " Because he doesn't appear to be learning to moderate his behavior but instead simply goes to edit war on another article, I also blocked Instantnood for 48 hours for disruption. " [3] - I'd wonder if the same conclusion would have come up if my arguments were considered. — Instantnood 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please kindly explain the arguments, reasoning and rationale behind the block and each of the page bans. Thank you. — Instantnood 20:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] University of Dubuque

Tony, could you put the University of Dubuque article in semi-protected status as well? I happened upon the article this evening and an anonymous editor at [4] put in a paragraph [5] regarding a legal dispute between a professor and the school.
JesseG 02:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I semi-protected. Also removed some nonsense about parking permits. Whatever next? --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Office of International Treasury Control

Hi Tony,

Following your (IMO quite correct) decision to delete OITC fraud and the subsequent discussion on WP:DRV, I've created Office of International Treasury Control as a (hopefully) NPOV version of the article. Comments welcomed.

Could you also please keep an eye on the article - put it in your watchlist etc. - as I fully expect that it'll be vandalised by the people involved with the OITC. -- ChrisO 16:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's on my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on it. --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RE: Aucaman arbcom

Thanks for the notification. I am not completley happy with the results, is there any way to appeal? --- K a s h Talk | email 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please state your grounds for appeal to me or any other arbitrator or clerk. The arbitrators will consider whether the remedies or findings of fact are unreasonable. You may also appeal directly to User:Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Meier

I've just read the comment you wrote on Karl Meiers talk page. Maybe this diff provides additional insight, who he really is. Raphael1 20:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that edit at the time and persuaded him to remove it. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Instantnood

Hi Tony, I checked Instantnood's edits on Macao, China from Dec2005 till his/her ban from that article. I couldn't see a reason for the ban on that article. I make no comment on his/her other behviour of which, currently, I have little knowledge. I'd appreciate your reasons. Thanks. Mccready 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now checked this user's edits on List of bridges and it appears there is a legitimate reason for his/her edits. An edit summary of this user pointed to the difference between a country and a sovereign state. Hong Kong is listed as the former but not the later. Mccready 16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I've now checked his/her behaviour on Hong_Kong_national_football_team. He/she used the discussion page appropriately, organised a poll and edited accordingly. He/she suffered incivility from other users. I can't see why he/she is banned from the page. I have not looked at his/her editing on other pages and will await your comments. Thanks again. Mccready 16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


I've launched a request for review of the bans against Instantnood [6], in response to a direct request from Instantnood. Please make your comments there so that other administrators can review them. I think my bans are in line with the probation, but I will not object to any modifications made by another administrator.
Please also see:
--Tony Sidaway 18:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I've copied the comments as requested and checked the links. As you were the blocker is there any reason why you can't unblock, assuming you agree with my analysis? I'm a bit concerned that justice delayed is justice denied. Mccready 11:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

He isn't currently blocked. I don't agree that the bans are inappropriate, but I don't object to review and modification by other administrators. --Tony Sidaway 11:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks again tony, I appreciate the time you have taken. Are you saying my comments about the 3 page histories I examined are wrong? I'd be happy to know if I am mistaken? Mccready 12:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

He edit warred on some of those articles, so he was temporarily banned from them, then he continued edit warring on other articles and so he is now banned from editing any of them during his one year probation. --Tony Sidaway 12:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-Mail

I sent you one; if you have recieved and replied already, could you send again..? I may have deleted it when I was clearing out messages from the wiki mailing list. If not, disregard the latter. -ZeroTalk 12:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just went and had a look and there it is. I'll reply as soon as I can. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Sorry about that, I was simply worried I missed a potential reply from you last night while clearing out the wiki notice crap. I had over 145 messages piled up and wasn't really paying attention to detail as I was mass deleting. -ZeroTalk 19:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I presume you're not going to send it...? I've checked, and I haven't seen it. Perhaps I overlooked it..? -ZeroTalk 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question

You recently deleted one of my templates for a user box, and I was wondering for the reason for doing so. I just started to learn how to make them, so I guess I don't know the exact process of establishing them. Do I just leave it on my page and not have a page to link it to? If this page is deleted then do I have to remove the box from the Wikipedia:Userboxes page in the movies section? --Nehrams2020 17:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that you already figured out that you can place the code directly onto your userpage. --Tony Sidaway 17:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

Hi Tony. I saw your comment on Metb82's talk page. I was wondering, can he just ask an admin to ban me from a page, without them actually checking to see if it is actually disruption? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, don't worry. You could only be banned by an administrator "in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause." An administrator who took Metb82's word for it wouldn't be exercising much judgement! If you are ever unreasonably banned, you can ask for the ban to be reviewed. The probation does mean that you need to be a little more careful than you used to be, but it shouldn't be a problem if you avoid any editing that might appear disruptive to a reasonable person. --Tony Sidaway 01:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote stacking

I did not know that there was a rule against informing other users on their talk pages of a deletion nomination, and expected opposing voters to do the same. I viewed it as basically the same as when a politician airs commercials on TV about an upcoming election and asks viewers to vote for him, and while I only nominated users who had previously voted with me, I did not neglect to mention the nomination on the article's talk page and on the "articles nominated for deletion" page. If there is a rule against this, I apologise for breaking it and will avoid doing so in the future. Please also note, however, that I was not the only one to do so. - Conrad Devonshire 01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 03:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman - Topical ban

Could you tell me how this is going to work? I have these specific questions:

  1. How am I supposed to know which articles I can edit? Some articles under question: Kurds, Kurdistan, Middle East, Najis, Geber, al-Khwarizmi.
  2. Those articles I cannot edit, can I still edit the talk page and participate in any (possible) mediation?

You can answer these questions directly or refer me to some literature/examples that illustrate how these bans work. Thanks, AucamanTalk 05:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether an article is related to Iran or Persians is to be decided by administrators, who have instructions that "relatedness is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming." Of the articles you list above, I'd say you can probably only edit Middle East without breaching the ban, and then only if you avoid the subject of Iran and Persians.
You can still use the talk pages, participate in mediation, etc. -Tony Sidaway 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well this is not making a whole lot of sense. You're basically telling me I'm not supposed to be editing any articles. Is this going to be permanent or is it temporary? If it's permanent, then I'd much rather face a much harsher punishment (as if it could get any harsher) for some finite time. Something like Xebat's one-year block would do for me. But I don't like being told which articles I can or cannot edit - especially when it's going to be permanent. Any ideas? AucamanTalk 03:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are over one million articles on Wikipedia, and probably only a few hundred of them are related to Persians or Iran. So you are allowed to edit any of about a million articles. The ban is permanent but if you show good behavior it may be possible to apply to have the ban lifted. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edit war

It is not an edit war if I am removing personal attacks without violating 3RR. I have already told the user I disagree with that if they continue I will simply notify the personal attack intervention board. In addition, please do not remove my comments to the user. Paul Cyr 03:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not my intention to do so. I was merely restoring a comment of my own that was deleted by another editor. Perhaps you can caution that editor not to meddle with the comments of others. -- Gnetwerker 03:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Both of you need to relax a little. I warn you both not to edit war, and in particular I ask Paul Cyr not to mess with the statements of other editors on WP:RFAR. Please do complain to me if you think that inappropriate language of any kind is being used on that page. I can't promise I'll agree with every complaint but I will give you a fair hearing and try to be even-handed. --Tony Sidaway 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:RPA I am not forbidden to remove any personal attack on any page Tony. I understand your attempt to keep order and the fact that WP:RPA is not an official policy which is why I have not continued to remove to attacks but instead I have placed a notice on the Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Paul Cyr 03:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I don't accept your ban

Nakba day needs a mediator, Ian has delibertly caused an edit war in order to try and ban me from this article.

Look at my last edit and talk page. I tried to restore sanity to this article and avoid making it another vbattle article about the events in 1948.

I expect that you will remove the ban and help madiate the subject. Zeq 04:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that according to policy: "Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged" this apply to Ian specifically as he tried to take advantage of the fact I am on probation and inserted unrelated information (which is already in the article palestinian exodus) into Nakba day so that i will remove it. Any attempts to reason with him failed.

This editor has been following me around in the last 2 weeks. Every edit (or almost any) I made, ant where in any article got a revert or change from him (most often a revert). This is a simple issue that can be prooved. I have also asked him several times to stop stalking me. I expect that you will not take a side in this harrasment and help resolve the content dispute in Nakba day reminding ian on harrasment policy as well on his own being cautioned against creating an edit war. Zeq 04:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not lifting the ban, but I'm submitting it for review [7]. --Tony Sidaway 04:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitration

Good morning, mister, please mind Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway#Remedies as well. Thanks. --Constanz - Talk 06:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they say what you think they say. --Tony Sidaway 06:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coolcat at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Kurdish_inhabited_region

While I agree, the best way for Coolcat to stay out of trouble is to edit other articles, I think he made a valid point when he nominated this particular category for deletion. And now people are voting keep based on his involvement rather than the merits or demerits of the category itself (bad, bad!). The thing is the category is vague. Should London be considered a Kurdish inhabited region? And what kind of precedent will it set? American inhabited region, German inhabited region, French inhabited region?

I think Coolcat was right to nominate such a vague category and I don't think banning him for it is the right thing to do. If someone else had nominated it, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. Please reconsider the week-long ban you suggested (and leave a note on my talk page if you respond). - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's true that someone else wouldn't have been blocked, but most people haven't been through ArbCom about kurd edits. I think we had three people at AN/I averring that the nomination was disruptive. If you think the block was unnecessary, then discuss it with the users involved. I don't feel qualified to judge whether Coolcat's nomination was disruptive, rather I'm only willing to interpret what the users involved feel, so try to convince them. Not me. I think this discussion would be better suited to WP:AN/I than Tony's talk page. -lethe talk + 10:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Leyasu on Children of Bodom

Hi Tony, I thought I should contact you directly on this rather than using WP:AE because I'd like an opinion on this specifically from you since you're familiar with the Leyasu (talk • contribs) case. He's still claiming that what the anon editor(s) on Children of Bodom are doing is vandalism since they're removing the sources he put on the page. He also violated 1RR today on the page [8] [9]. I'm not sure if that's accidental or not, but what sort of enforcement would you recommend for that? The genre description he's been providing looks like it's a well-sourced, valid edit; but at the same time he's revert warring with the anons (who are being incivil back to him; I recently warned one of them with Template:Edit summary personal), and it doesn't look like the talk page is seeing much activity. I requested protection for that page recently but was denied it. (I didn't protect it myself in case there were any conflicts of interest.)

Also, just a general question about CheckUser. I know that very few people here are allowed CheckUser rights, but is it ok for other editors to look up anons using Whois and similar sites? I'd like to get a general idea of how many real editors there are behind the pile of anons that are reverting Leyasu (Leyasu is asserting that all of them are a "sock farm"), but CheckUser requests take a while to be processed. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 14:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to confirm two things, without trying to sound hostile.
  • A) I havent done anything other than made valid edits. I have stuck to my 1RR which is why ive been hounding Idont for help, the only thing ive done today is get hassle from an anon who is violating WP:CITE and has openly stated they will vandalise, and cleared up some POV on some articles (Gothic Metal and some other one about a record label).
  • B) Im asserting that the 220 anons are the same person. There is a fair few anons that have contributed helpfull information has it is attained. However the 220 anons have all been reverting information that IS cited in accordance to WP:CITE and was put through a RFC. I also noticed that the 220 anons were the same ones who proclaimed to be the same person in the RFC. As such openly warring on the page because they 'dislike' a form of music, and openly distrupting Wikiepdia (WP:NOT), is vandalism as i understand from WP:VANDAL. Because this was originally a content dispute i did the original RFC, since then the same 220 anons have had warnings from several WP:HMM members and admins, and have still refused to follow policy. As such, removing cited information simply to disrupt Wikipedia IS vandalism. If it isnt, then [[WP:VANDAL}] needs to be changed. Ley Shade 14:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Leyasu should avoid reverting, even if he thinks there's some disruptive editing going on. The problems should be reported on the appropriate forums.
It's okay to use IP numbers that are disclosed in edit histories for whatever legitimate purpose. They are public. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Did you receive a 3rd opinion ?

Other than Ramallite have you received another review ?

I expect that until you get another opinion you will undo this edit : [10] Clearly it is a biased edit which tries to interject issues that are covered (and debated) elsewhere. You should have taken the time to look at the whole issue before jumping in with a ban. Zeq 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't received any other opinions yet. I'm not going to revert any edits to that article on grounds of content; the edit in question seems to be about the historical context of Nabka day so it isn't out of place in any obvious way. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You have received a 2nd opinion. You have not received a 3rd. It is clear what you should do. Zeq 19:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:UBX/Communist

Would you mind posting a copy of the template somewhere? From the title, it doesn't sound divisive. TheJabberwʘck 19:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It asserts a political opinion; of course it's divisive. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That's an extremely wide interpretation of "divisive," and one that I don't think is supported by consensus - correct me if I'm wrong. Are you planning on speedy deleting all of Wikipedia's political boxes? TheJabberwʘck 20:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo and I have both expressed a belief that pretty soon all political userboxes will be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank goodness. I have not yet encountered a more meaningless and polarizing feature. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony, do you have an inside track on how long "pretty soon" will be? Just curious, and I'm pleased to hear it. Nhprman 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no "inside track". Things are just running that way. --Tony Sidaway 00:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Very good. Thanks. The Userbox issue has dragged on far too long. Nhprman 00:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the template looked like in its last revision:

Snipped because it's ugly and it's now on WP:DRVU -Tony

Hope that helps. For the record, I think Tony would have been justified in deleting it simply based on the trolling reference to Wikipedia is Communism. Nandesuka 20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree that the trolling reference shouldn't be there, but the link could simply have been removed. I'm going to ask for that to be done (and for the template to be listed on TfD) at deletion review. TheJabberwʘck 21:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In recent weeks T1 speedies for the following political and belief-based user templates have been endorsed at DRVU:

  • Template:User against Saud
  • Template:User Against Americanisation
  • Template:User Not Unamerican
  • Template:User Objectivism
  • Template:User No Objectivism
  • Template:User marriage man-woman
  • Template:User Same Sex Marriage
  • Template:User independent Iraq
  • Template:User antiparty

In the circumstances, I don't think it's correct to say that this template shouldn't have been deleted under T1. --Tony Sidaway 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The "against" ones are obviously different. But as to the supporter boxes: If the vote is to keep this one deleted, then I'll stop protesting your use of T1 and subst: all my boxes. TheJabberwʘck 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
A better solution might be to remove the boxes altogether and use prose (or you could just not say this stuff about you altogether). It looks more professional, anyway. --Cyde Weys 01:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRV/U

Stating that I am votestacking is not assuming good faith, period. I've recreated the DRV/U in progress notes to the Discussion pages of the affected templates as a regular message instead of being inline on the template. I still think that bringing the same box through the deletion process over and over again is a big waste of time, but something that affects the moral of many editors (perhaps having the boxes is affecting other editors to, it is quite a sticky situation). I support our policies, but the community has overwhelming cried out that CSD:T1 is not specific enough. There has got to be some way to get a community consensus on a userbox policy, any ideas how? — xaosflux Talk 03:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that bringing the same box through DRVU many times is pointless. I'd prefer to see far, fewer of these routine T1 speedy deletions queried.
There isn't really a lot of doubt or ambiguity about what T1 is about. I don't hear the community crying out, or even squeaking plaintively, about it.
We had the makings of a more comprehensive userbox policy but it was deliberately sabotaged by someone who gathered together a rabble. It'll be a month or two at least, in my view, before a new policy stands a chance of reasonable discussion. Personally I would prefer holding off on userbox policy formation at least until the fall. --Tony Sidaway
Thanks for the replies, I speedy things all the time from CAT:CSD and they rarely end up on DRV, same with most sysop deletions; I'm pretty sure I've even deleted some boxen(!) My annoyance with some of the ones on DRVU now are that they have gone back and forth ad nausem. If we could point people to a clear, community endorsed, policy on userboxes when speedy deleting them processing tfd would have less backlog, and drvu could go back to being about the process.
Personally though, if I speedy something, and someone complains, I usually restore it and bring it to xfd, most times it comes back delete, but if it stays as keep, them it's no big deal to me either. Even with this I've never been involved in a page that I deleted, went to DRV, got kicked to xfd; passed xfd that I thaught should get deleted again, doesn't all of the process exist to gather the consensus of at least anyone who wans to volunteer to debate it. (On many issues the consensus of the entire community is more likely abstain, and they simply don't comment at all. — xaosflux Talk 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The usual consensus-gathering methods fail for userboxes. Community consensus ends up being swamped by the minority of people who care enough about userboxes to collect them. --Tony Sidaway 04:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aucaman - Topical ban

Hello, I'd like to notify you that User:Aucaman has just created an alternate user account User:Gadolam to circumvent his ban on editing pages related to Iran and Persians. --ManiF 10:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this notification. If what you say is true, then it's a sock puppet and should be blocked. I did try to get a checkuser on this today but nobody was available. Please put a request on WP:RCU, providing whatever evidence you can, and referencing the Aucaman arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see somebody already did put in a checkuser request [11]. --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basij again

ArmanJan deleted well sourced info on human rights issues at Basij twice [12], [13] and vandalized the talk page. You told him to stop on Talk:Basij and on his talk page, which he deleted, as he did with other complaints.

Now he removed a photo claiming it to be a "well known" forgery, giving no evidence or source - the photo's authenticity has been falsely denied before [14], [15]. As the article is on attack by others too (e.g Databot) I checked ArmanJan contrib's: He put wrong PD related tags to several imgs [16], [17], [18]. He vandalized Talk:Military_of_Iran (a reasonable post by an anon) and Talk:Islamic_Revolutionary_Guards_Corps. As far as I can tell, his img uploads mostly have misleading licensing infos. Some others noted this on his talk page too. All in all he should get a stern warning. It's tedious to watch after that article. --tickle me 06:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] If I can trouble you for a little feedback

You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 18:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bgully

well, Adam88 (talk • contribs) is the only sock I can think of right now; of course he'll create others. I didn't want to block him myself, since 'legally' he more or less sat out his year's ban, and would be an editor in good standing if he actually did edit articles; as it is, he's reduced to bitching about me and my "clique" in irregular intervals, so yes, I think you can block him on grounds of that; he is not as great a nuisance as other trolls I could mention, but there seems to be no reason why he should stick around just to add to the noise ratio around here. regards, dab (ᛏ) 08:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Opening cases

Please don't use subst to open the /Workshop and /Proposed decision pages until it is fixed so that the correct template results. I'm tired of fixing it by hand. Please copy the actual templates Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Proposed decision until it is fixed.

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wiki-Sidaway

Hi. I've placed myself up for review on WP:ER. I'd like it if you could comment. -Zero[[User talk:Megaman Zero|Talk] ] 19:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Truncated statement of evidence?

Tony, your statement of evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence seems oddly truncated - perhaps you could take a look at it? -- ChrisO 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] rfa

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ridge Racer

Please see Talk:Ridge Racer#R:Racing Evolution. There's an odd dispute occuring over there, and due to the twists and bends I'm inquiring for more outside views to hopefully disfuse the situation prior to requesting protection. -ZeroTalk 03:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Administrator deletion of OITC Fraud article

Today an administrator by the name Tony Sidaway deleted the article in reference, saying that "the result of the debate was delete as misinformation". As any person who checks the deletion debate can ascertain, this is simply not true. The majority of Wikipedia users that intervened in the debate (7, to my count), voted to keep and/or move or clean. Only two, including one of the people who vandalized the article, voted for deletion.

If there is no respect whatsoever for the results of the debate, as in this case, what is the sense of having one? I respectfully request the reinstatement of the article. An explanation by Tony Sidaway would also be appropriate. >(talk) [[19]]

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Devons

My theory is that in porn as soon as somoene has had relative success with a name, a bunch of counterfeits set out to steal their market. mgekelly 14:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Trouble with a user

I have noticed a couple problems with a certain user, Earwig. I linked to his talk page as his user page contains a somewhat abrasive image, which is a slight part of my problem. I am well aware of wikipedia's non-censorship standing and its free use image policies, but I feel this user may be going too far simply to prove a point, or to cause trouble. It would make sense for one to expect such an image on a related article, but in the interest of communication between editors, it would seem to me that userpages and talk pages would be best kept within a normal socially acceptable level. Also, this editor has spent quite a few of his edits, if not the majority, adding so called "objectionable" material to articles. In some cases this makes perfect sense as the picture is relevant to the article or section it is placed in. Other times he seems to cross a line to irrelevancy and it would appear he is doing so just to be funny, or create some kind of shock-factor that wikipedia really does not need. I have brought this concern with him regarding a specific article on his talk page, but I dont want to proceed to far with this untill I am clear with what actions of his (and potential actions on the part of me or other editors) are appropriate and what is not. Thanks in advance.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Need help on User:Instantnood

The stated user has again engaged in some unreasonable edits. In Hong Kong, China at the 2004 Summer Olympics, Template:HKGold, Template:Hong Kong (PRC) and Oneworld, Instantnood has repeatedly trying to reuse the redundant flag Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png, which was replaced by Image:Flag of Hong Kong.svg. The reason given by the user was something about the color and stars, however with a side by side comparson I cannot find any differences. In article Ma On Shan, the user has keep adding past information as current (see my reasoning on Talk:Ma_On_Shan). Thanks for you attention. Hunter 18:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] user talk spam

If you're concerned about spam, then come over here and have your say. Cheers, NoSeptember talk 21:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Zeq

Hi Tony - I'm not sure if banning Zeq was the best thing to do. While he may be hard to reason with, I'm not sure that his intentions were malicious. Maybe you could reconsider or at least give him/her a chance to iron the dispute out over another day or two. Thanks. Ramallite (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] PA

Who do see is being attacked by that user box ? Zeq 19:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. Who is being attacked ? If you do not answer and since I don't see it as an attack I will restore it. Are you offended by that user box ? if so explain and I will remove it. If you think Cyde is offended ? He was the one who sent it to me .

I await your answer. You can not made arbitrary demands without explnation. Zeq 19:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Look Tony, with all due respect you can not decide on my expression of animosity. If I want to express animosity I know how to do it. This user box is not an expression of animosity toward anyone.

On the otherhand your accusation of me that I placed a PA on my user page ios something that deeply insulted me. Please revert your edit and appologize. Zeq 19:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You have me very confused here. What on earth are you talking about? --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Cyde made the userbox, not Zeq. Zeq is just passing it along. Cyde added that flippant little user box to the talk page of everyone who supported or opposed his adminship (March 9 if you're wondering). Anontalk 22:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Then it wasn't a personal attack--I apologise to Zeq for the misunderstanding. --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a personal attack against Cyde, no, but I hope you are not dismissing your concerns about the userbox being an expression of animosity. Two users who opposed Cyde's adminship felt it inappropriate and insulting enough to confront him about it on his talk page, and more still replied in kind to his "joke" on their talk pages. Even supporters recognized his "joke" was inappropriate. So, now that you know that it turns out here that other people were offended by Cyde's jab, not the other way round, I hope you extend your concern towards them and pursue censure against Cyde with all the vigilance you censured Zeq. I would suggest you ask Cyde to create a written apology to those he purposefully slighted. An administrator behaving this way is unacceptable, and it is especially troubling that this rookie administrator believed he was in a position where he could make a personal attack as his first act, and that he could do so, and did so, with impunity. This has demanded and still demands action from established administrators like yourself. Censure would send a clear message to Cyde (and all rookie administrators) that this kind of joking around and partisan sarcasm is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia, and I am sure those he slighted would appreciate, and be reassured by, a clear apology from him. Anontalk 20:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

appology accepted. Thanks. This is an exmaple that if one looks deeper one will see that things are not as they seem at first. btw, I deleted all the user boxex from my user page cause I think this whole thing (of user boxes) is silly. Zeq 05:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] No need to appologize

Tony,

Good thinking. Also it helped me take a break from this article which is something I needed. I intend to stay away from it and explore mediation.

I was not insulted by the ban so there is no need to appologize. My argument was that things are not as they seen and you may have acted hastly. Since you now fixed by looking at the issues more indeapth - no harm is done.

best regards, Zeq

Cheers. --Tony Sidaway 20:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 20:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] email

I sent you an email...not sure if you got it.--MONGO 20:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied. --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Acuman should be banned from Kurdish Articles

He will push anti-Iranian POV and cause harm to the community worst than ever in these articles related to Iranian peoples. He is already wiggling for manuvering room. 72.57.230.179 21:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, he's on a tight leash. If things look bad, just make an entry on WP:AE. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Early Closure of Triceratops Userbox Debate

I noticed that you closed the Triceratops userbox debate after it had been open for only thirty minutes. The discussion was opened by User:Pmanderson, a well-established user, and I personally feel there's no reason not to assume good faith on his behalf. It only seems appropriate and civil to just leave the debate open for at least a day; I don't understand what good it's doing to immediately close anything, even when it has absolutely no chance of surviving (though I do agree with you on this one). On the other hand, it seems like a crude slap in the face to just completely disregard his request for a deletion review, so I have restored it. I usually try to contact users before reverting their changes, but this time I accidentally did not. I apologize if doing so offended you, and please contact me (or reply here) if you disagree with my restoring the discussion. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've no objection to the discussion continuing, though it seemed obvious to me that it hadn't a ghostly chance of avoiding "keep deleted" so I closed it. No problems. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for your understanding. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion of some userboxes?

Pardon my possible ignorance/myopia, but why were several of my user boxes deleted (ex Marxism and Trotskyism)?

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vitruvian0 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSD#T1. --Cyde Weys 01:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

They were deleted because they were found by the community to be divisive and inflammatory. Template space should really only be used for templates (userboxes) that are relevant to the project, such as "this user has studied law." Userboxes that profess political ideologies often times give the wrong impression that it's okay to use Wikipedia to preach a point of view, and they often divide the community and encourage "ballot stuffing." In instances such as the recent controversy over the Cuba article, a userbox and usercategory indicating that someone is a communist could be used as a tool to bring all communist supporters to the article, to overwhelm consensus for a certain change to the article, which really shouldn't be done. Anyway, I hope this help clear things up, and if you have any more questions or problems, feel free to ask. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2006_05_25_76b6.html"