User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 06 03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Template:User Alt Acct Master 2 What it means 3 Trolling over signatures 4 Speaking of signatures... 5 Retraction 6 Instantnood 7 RfC 8 Your Rfc 9 Speedied article rescue 10 RfA Thank You! 11 Re:Your comment 12 I am really have problems with user:Grandmaster 13 RFC #3 14 Userbox 15 WP:PP

[edit] Template:User Alt Acct Master

It's already been decided by many in the undeletion debate and by a TfD discussion that these by no stretch of the imagination fall under CSD#T1. And have you read the rewording of the userbox: "This user has multiple Wikipedia accounts." That is perfectly acceptable under WP:SOCK. Restore the template immediately, as your unilateral action here is quite unacceptable for an admin and is a highly counterproductive effort to make a point. Have you read WP:SOCK? These userboxes are policy. How on earth could they be "divisive and inflammatory"? I might also add that I find your behavior on the undeletion debates--your early closures of discussions, your closing highly controversial debates in which you have participated, and your uncivil and rude remarks--extremely immature and inappropriate. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, matters that are this controversial likely should be TfDed rather than speedied, per WP:CSD and just because it would save you a lot of headaches. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To say that any userbox, particularly one like this, is "policy" is simply preposterous. Of course they're not. See my response to David Levy on this. In short, the userboxes misrepresent policy quite comprehensively by giving the impression of official support for alternative accounts. --Tony Sidaway 21:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Multiple accounts have legitimate uses" (WP:SOCK). There is official support for alternative accounts, when they are used legitimately like mine are. I return to my original opinion that you wish to see the policy change to reflect your belief that there is no legitimate use for alternate accounts, although there is--this is not the way to go about making that change. There's nothing "preposterous" about this userbox; on the contrary, having a method, such as this userbox, to alert others that I do use legitimate alternate accounts, is absolutely vital. In any case, there is absolutely no way on Earth that this userbox falls under WP:CSD#T1. Nominate it for TfD if you disagree with it; don't abuse your administrative priveledges, go against the policies set forth by the community, and ignore the previous TfD and the current discussion to get rid of it. That's called WP:POINT (you might want to try clicking the link and reading the policy, so you're familiar with why your actions are counterproductive and destructive). AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I shall warn you once. Cease your personal attacks or you will risk being blocked. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. My intention was not to attack you; I'm simply quite flustered and dismayed by your actions, and despite your attacks on me (such as "You've got to be joking, bonny lad"), it was entirely off-color to imply that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. Nonetheless, I would like to have a rational discussion to reach some agreement on this userbox, and I would like to ask you once again to undelete it and seek consensus to delete it before doing so. Frankly, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this userbox; rather, I feel it necessary to the community, but we seem to have different interpretations of WP:SOCK. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

AmiDaniel is quite correct in stating that these tags are actually recommended at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You broke a transclusion when you deleted the templates.

You claim that I've misinterpreted the policy. With all due respect, I'm still waiting for you to cite the passage(s) in which it's indicated that all uses of multiple accounts are prohibited. As I mentioned, I only see the exact opposite. —David Levy 22:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting a response to the arguments posed by myself and David Levy. I'd also like to add that I just did a quick tally of the undeletion debate: of 36 votes, 16 (44%) voted to keep them deleted, whilst 20 (56%) voted to undelete / restore / redirect / rewrite. I hate tallying votes, but I just wanted to illustrate the point that, regardless of whether you believe the template is divisive and inflammatory, the community has of yet reached no consensus (meaning it defaults to undelete), and actually more support undeleting the templates than keeping them. Isn't it better in these situations to side with the will of the community, rather than your personal beliefs? I feel that if the debate has currently gained more support to undelete the templates than to keep them deleted, it seems rather clear that WP:CSD#T1 was not applicable here. AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I voted to keep the original templates deleted, because I believed (and continue to believe) that they were divisive and inflammatory. The new wording, however, is not even borderline. This deletion obviously was out-of-process (based upon an entirely false rationale), and Tony has stated on many occasions that such an action may be unilaterally reversed by any administrator (and I agree). I don't intend to wheel war, however, so I'm posting here as a courtesy. It would be nice if Tony could return the favor by at least responding. —David Levy 02:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any point in responding to someone who keeps falsely claiming that I have deleted something either out of process or against policy. --Tony Sidaway 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony I know it is difficult to keep up with policy these days but WP:SOCK still allowes for alt accounts (although for some reason you have to call them alt accounts rather than sockpupets). Since you appear not to want to discuss the issue I have gone ahead and undeleted the templates.Geni 18:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative accounts have always been "allowed" by policy. They are deprecated, however. Having these inappropriate templates gives the wrong impression. I note, however,that they're not in widespread use and so there is no serious problem. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What it means

It means that I will be loyal to them not there actions, so if they are doing something wrong I will support them (i.e. I will still be there friends and I will try to make there day better) but I not support what they did wrong. ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

But if you still wish for me to reword it I will. (only because you asked nicely). user:ILovePlankton|User_talk:ILovePlankton 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I should explain that what concerns me here is the possibility of the following scenario: suppose a friend of yours gets into a bit of an argument on the wiki about some issue, and he's banned. Suppose he comes to you and asks if he can use your login to make edits. The loyalty document--which I'm sure is intended to foster fellowship, and not wrongdoing--in its current wording would seem to suggest that it would be okay to breach Wikipedia policy, risking a ban, by giving him your password.

I feel that it would be a good idea to think a bit more about this with a view to avoiding the possibility of encouraging Wikipedians to do something that is bad for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I will change it later, I don't have the time right now. ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Better? [1] ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 03:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 03:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling over signatures

What you wrongly call trolling I call a move of solidarity. You were in the wrong, accept it and move on. The user and myself are under no obligation to remove any images from signatures that are not disruptive. JohnnyBGood t c 19:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Should you persist, I think you'll find that your perception of the situation is somewhat awry. I'll assume for the moment that you're too bright to push the envelope. --Tony Sidaway 21:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't condecending. And for the record, you cannot object to the image in my signature as there is no solid basis for it in policy or guidelines beyond that you don't like it, which last time I checked isn't a valid reason to remove it. Have a nice day. JohnnyBGood t c 21:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That's rubbish. If your signature or the way in which you use it should become disruptive, nobody needs to be able to point to a specific line that says "JohnnyBGood isn't allowed to have a stupid signature" to ask you to knock it off and, should you continue trolling, block you. --Tony Sidaway 21:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

True if a signature is used in a deliberately disruptive way, such as if I had a picture of you with a O\ then you obviously could argue it was trolling. Or if it were overly large or was racist etc... you could argue it was disruptive. However just having an image isn't a "disruption" as it harms no one and isn't against any existing policy or guideline. JohnnyBGood t c 21:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, doing something "for solidarity", is obviously deliberate, and doing so in this context is trolling. If it becomes disruptive then you may find yourself in trouble. Do you want to do that over something as trivial as a signature? I don't think so. Have fun but be careful. --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion it's trolling, however seeing as you're the opposite party in this dispute I'm not shocked. Anyway peace out. JohnnyBGood t c 00:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of signatures...

If you get a chance, could you please take a look at this? Is the whole "external links in a signature are a bad thing" position correct, or am I way off here? Kirill Lokshin 20:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it depends on the links, but in general I think they should be fairly strongly deprecated--in other words, someone who has an external link in his signature should have to prove that it's necessary to his communications, which I should think would be a rather hard thing to do! --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And I'm guessing that obvious advertising for an external site presumably wouldn't qualify as "necessary". Thanks for the feedback! Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The onus would be on the editor to prove that he wasn't simply link spamming. I suspect that this is a case for "block first, ask questions later." --Tony Sidaway 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retraction

In view of histrionics that have gone on since, I humbly retract my request for an apology as above. Thanks. -- Samir धर्म 06:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I and all Wikipedians recognise that your request, although I may have considered it inappropriate, was made with the best interests of Wikipedia at the top of your mind. --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Instantnood

How can we use these two weeks to craft a real workable solution to steer his edits to be constructive rather than disruptive? Only an arbitrator can propose new remedies, but there isn't anything to stop me from proposing it to an arbitrator to propose is there? I do like Alai's proposition that we ask 'nood if he would voluntarily refrain or otherwise have input into an effective restraint, but given his demands to enter mediation, and his lawyering about "the injustice" of opening the last arb case to anyone who would listen I don't have good faith he would volunteer. SchmuckyTheCat 19:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm discussing possible remedies with an arbitrator now. They're fully aware of the situation and may make a revision to the remedies in due course. Feel free to email an arbitrator (see WP:AC for the names and email addresses) or contact then on-wiki via their talk page. You can also sometimes find arbitrators on IRC. I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss the case with you. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty rare that I have time to deal with IRC. :) Dmcdevit recused himself from the last case for voting, but he particularly might be open to proposing something new and letting others vote on it.

I also wonder about this: if we proposed to him to agree to 0RR for the next two weeks and he agreed, do you think it would be appropriate to unblock him and see what happens? SchmuckyTheCat 19:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to lift the ban now, because it has been discussed and imposed. The revert limitation idea is sound, though. I'd like to see if he could live with a maximum of one revert per article per week. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I userfied it for you. --Shanel ^§ 04:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Linked from my "Various" page. --Tony Sidaway 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Rfc

Hey Tony, I know I wasn't on your side during the whole thing, but I had a quick question about the actual page. I see that it's been userfied. The edit counter doesn't show any of my edits to that page and the discussion page, and the edits are gone from my contributions. It doens't seem right that people that spent the time commenting on a subject, even if the RfC got deleted, have their contributions taken away. Just wondering what you think and/or if anything can be done. Just wondering what even happened to the RfC, as I can't find any existence of it. Thanks, and sorry for the heated debate that ensued above on your talk page and in the RfC. Added after striking: I found that my contibs changed to appear that I edited you user subpage, rather than the RfC. So all thos Wikipedia namespace and Wikipedia talk namespace edits I made are gone? (I know I shouldn't worry about the edit count so much, but it seems rather important these days during adminship, which I will go for eventually.)

Also: One more quick question I've been meaning to ask an admin. How did "minor edit" become a link on the editing page where you check the box for "This is a minor edit"? I used to hit the words to check the box, and now I keep going to the link instead on accident. Do you know if there is a discussion on this somewhere. Regards, Chuck^(척뉴넘) 06:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make to the encyclopedia if a very small number of your edits are counted as userspace edits instead of project space edits? Is this some kind of wind-up? --Tony Sidaway 12:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The boilerplate such as "This is a minor edit" is I believe configurable as a wiki page in mediawiki space, so it should be easy enough to get it fixed if there is a problem with it. I suggest that you ask about this on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Tony Sidaway 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedied article rescue

Hi Tony. Is there currently any organized effort to double-check speedies and restore accidentally-deleted good stuff? (I've looked at the speedy process again for the first time in a while, and I was a bit disheartened to see that the de facto process is rather looser than the criteria the community has set out. I've seen pages nominated for not meeting WP:CORP; one was actually deleted, even though it had recently had a consensus to keep on AfD.) -- SCZenz 15:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

At the moment I'm not active in that area and nobody else I know is. One thing I plan to do with my tool server account is to produce a review tool for speedies. The conditions are certainly much better for this kind of thing because it's harder to redelete an article undeleted on reasonable policy grounds. --Tony Sidaway 15:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Until your tool is available, is there any approach better than just wading through the deletion logs? -- SCZenz 15:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well you can compile lists of admins (particularly newly created ones) who may be prone to bad speedy calls. If you find them making poor calls, this gives you the opportunity to start a dialog which may be productive in improving their hit rate. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I might be one of the folk SCZenz is referring to as I did delete an article for not meeting WP:CORP, which was a bad call (I don't think it had been previously AfDed.. That particular article has since been restored and the author counseled on what is needed for it to pass muster. . it was Ten Ren Tea which had a speedy at the time, but I see now has a PROD. Please feel free to let me know if I mess up! ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, thanks for responding to me a moment ago re SlimVirgin in the discussion about whether another admin was getting special treatment after he abused a user and 3RR'd. I thought I'd bring the discussion here because it didn't belong at length where it was. You may recall I was "banned" by Jayjg and FeloniousMong from editing pages SlimVirgin was editing. The ban was for alleged wikistalking, although the definition was a new one not involving harassment. The changed wikipedia philosophy disturbed me. ie wikistalking minus the element of harassment. The mantra “go edit elsewhere in the million articles” is being increasingly used in power plays.

The problem for me is which version of the Jayjg/FM "ban" I follow - "newly edited", "recently edited" but not new, the "last five or six" SlimVirgin has edited - or FeloniousMonk's interdiction - the ten she's editing at any given time (each of these four are from the words of J and FM). And for how long is the ban? I'm wondering when I will be able to make good faith edits on such pages (another admin who initially offered to mediate is now too busy)? J and FM have both threatened to block me on sight if I happen to edit an article in any of the above circumstances. This leaves the door open to indefinite personal fiat and goes against the philosophy you articulated a moment ago, that the purpose is not punative but to achieve good editing behaviour. Mccready 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thank You!

Thanks Tony,

I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. (In your case, since you've had the tools longer than I, my best use might be menial labor!) My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. Your support was undoubtedly the most surprising (and, in one sense, the most touching) of my RfA. I'm not about to become maudlin or anything, and I'm sure we'll still disagree from time to time, but your words did mean something to me. I'm sorry, once again, for having been sometimes too harsh in chastising you in the past.

No, I know a good chap when I see one. You're one of those. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, if I'm allowed to jump in on a comment that has nothing to do with me, I'd like to say that I have often noticed that you're willing to support people with whom you've had disagreements, and it impresses me very much. We've never really edited the same articles at the same time, but I have a feeling that if we did, we'd be on opposite sides! So it's nice to know that we could disagree without pettiness and grudges. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 23:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Your comment

I'm a bit upset at what you said here. I don't think it's quite appropriate to attack RadioKirk's signature and then tell him to leave wikipedia. He's been quite active as an administrator, and it's not worth deflating his spirits about the project over how to handle a rogue anon.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 01:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

He's an administrator? Heaven help us! --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a few things most people don't like to have to tell other people. We don't like to have to tell grown men to wipe themselves when they're done going to the bathroom. We don't like having to tell workers to not act unprofessionally in the workplace. Similarly, I don't like having to tell experienced editors like Tony Sidaway to keep a civil tongue. But apparently, sometimes one must do that. Tony, you're being incivil. Knock it off, please. Thanks. Nandesuka 02:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible that you seriously believe that expressing reasonable doubt on someone fitness to be an administrator is "uncivil". In which case I apologise for giving offence.

However, I don't think it's an extraordinary thing to say, when an editor demands that another extend good faith towards a self-admitted vandal, that the editor isn't really thinking about the encyclopedia, but about something else entirely, and would be better off looking for another project, devoted to something fluffy and wonderful, but not perhaps as useful. When it emerges that the editor is himself an administrator, a certain amount of consternation is appropriate. A quite ample amount. --Tony Sidaway 02:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your sardonicism towards his opinion is a bit disheartening. I may side with your reasoning in the arguement, but that doesn't mean I'm giving you the incentive to mock him. RadioKirk's system of reasoning reached the conclusion that it would be best to acknowledge and forgive the editor. Argue over his opinion and the way to resolve the issue, but don't attack something completely different. So far as an administrator he's done a decent amount of work with blocking and reverting vandalism, so to question that status is a bit out of line too.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being in the least sardonic about this. I am genuinely dismayed that a person can make it to administrator and still be arguing that an admitted, self-congratulatory vandal is worthy of good faith. There's something seriously wrong with our RFA process if that kind of thing can slip through. --Tony Sidaway 03:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What I dislike is the ascription to RK of less-than-encyclopedic motives. It's eminently possible that two editors, even two administrators, might differently appreciate how best to act in order that the encyclopedia should be improved. Ikiroid, supra, properly adjudges the situation: Argue over his opinion and the way to resolve the issue but not over whether his desire to improve the encyclopedia is deeply- and sincerely-held. I'm altogether confident, for example, that each of Bob Dole and Bill Clinton believed an implementation of his views to be best for the country in 1996; even as I think Clinton's ideas better to advance my goals apropos of America, I understand that Dole is a sincere actor genuinely motivated to improve the country. Here, it's likely best that, where two editors share a goal but believe in very different strategies toward the achievement of that goal, they talk reasonably and civilly about their differences, with salutary results devolving on the project; vituperation certainly doesn't advance encyclopedic goals. Joe 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about his motives, but I do question his fitness to be an administrator. We do not extend good faith to vandals. --Tony Sidaway 04:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I support Tony here. We don't extend good faith to proven vandals. AGF is not a suicide pact. --Cyde Weys 04:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Err, we don't? Then why do we give vandals 4 warnings before they're blocked? --Rory096 04:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In the case of blatant vandalism, no such warnings are given. The sequence of warnings is given in order to avoid newbie biting in cases where an editor is just using Wikipedia as a sandbox. Even then, only the first and possibly the second extend good faith. The case here is of someone who openly admitted deliberate vandalism. No good faith can be extended. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely we can assume good faith that they're reforming, as benon and others did? --Rory096 04:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You give four warnings to vandals before blocking them?! Good grief!! --Cyde Weys 04:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course! {{test}} {{test2}}/{{test2a}}, {{test3}} and {{test4}}. Most admins at AIV won't block with anything less than a {{test4}}. --Rory096 04:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then most admins are letting way too much vandalism get through. If vandalism is ongoing, block first to protect the encyclopedia. If it's stopped for awhile then you can leave various warning messages. --Cyde Weys 04:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the templates; I've used them myself. But this isn't really germane to the argument. --Tony Sidaway 04:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, your failure to see that your comment was out of line is distressing. Whether you agree or disagree with his opinion on the matter at hand, telling him to move on and picking on his sig is very unhelpful. Most reasonable folks are able to see that reasonable, well-meaning people can sometimes disagree- you would benefit from gaining that ability yourself. Friday (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with telling him that he's on the wrong project if he thinks good faith can be extended to self-admitted vandals. This isn't that kind of website.

His signature, now you mention it, this is what it looks like in edit mode:

[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; color: #161;">Kirk</span>]] [[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 9px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]]

That's appalling. Of course I would like him to change it. --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

His signature's length can be easily fixed. He can replace the whole <span style="font-family: courier new;> with <tt>, and all of the rest under span style (except for the color) are uneeded. Also, he could put all of the text under one span. So now we get:

<tt>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Kirk</span>]]</tt> [[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;"><tt><small>talk to me</small></tt></span>]]

which yields

RadioKirk talk to me

Doesn't seem so bad now, eh?--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 17:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious about this? I cannot see the rendering in edit mode. All I can see is over 200 characters of crap.

By the way, did you know that, in edit mode, your own signature looks like this?

<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]][[user:ikiroid|<font color="blue">'''kiro'''</font>]][[Ego, superego, and id|<font color="black">'''id'''</font>]] <small>([[user talk:ikiroid|talk]])</small>^{([[User talk:Ikiroid/Help Me Improve|Help Me Improve]])}

Out of courtesy I assume you are not taking the piss. Please do something about your monstrously stupid signature. --Tony Sidaway 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about me. I just wanted you to apologize to RadioKirk for telling him to leave. We all apologize at some point about something.--User talk:Ikiroid 17:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly apologise if I'd wronged him. I make no apology for saying that if he means it about requiring more history than a nakes and self-congratulatory admission of vandalism to drop good faith, he should go and find another project on which to practise his vandal-friendly approach. It can only do more damage here. I'm only appalled that he is an administrator--which at first I did not appreciate. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am really have problems with user:Grandmaster

I am looking for Admin involvment. No one seems to be responding. He tampers with talk page material. He threatens me. I add a userbox to the Project page to which I am a memeber of and he delltes it. I make it perfectly clear to him how it is legit but he pretends he hears nothing even though he responds. You can also see by his discourse thay he is being insincere. A new reason every time. I want administrative involvment. He is also cultivating a culture of intimidation and monopolizing articles through this edit wars or by sheer numbers. This is not fiar and harmful to the community. 72.57.230.179

I don't know whether Grandmaster is out of order in threatening you (or even if he is doing so). However in inserting a partisan userbox into a neutral WikiProject you are certainly acting in a highly provocative manner. Please stop doing that. --Tony Sidaway 12:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please have a look at his talk page. This person is known for his disruptive behavior and has been blocked many times for edit warring and trolling. Most recently a couple of minutes ago. I warned him that he cannot add to the wikiproject page userboxes that are not endorsed by other members, but he would not listen. As for liberated Azerbaijan template, it was created by some Azeri users as a response to the template in support of independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. This anonymous user understood it as a reference to Iran, which it was not. I don’t mind deletion of that template, but we have many similar templates, including the one it was created as a response to. I think we need to decide what to do with them all. I personally never supported such userboxes and never placed them on my user page. Grandmaster 13:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tony, please next time make at least a announcement before deleting any templates from WikiProject Azeri. Baku87 18:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87

If it was you who recreated it. please don't do that again. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That template is a reponse to the indepence supporting Nagorno-Karabakh template, they are allowed to have such a template then other should be allowed to have a liberation template, it has nothing to do with Iran, so please dont remove it again and if you can correct the previous liberation templates, I cannot get those working. Baku87 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Where is the Nagorno-Karabakh template? --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It’s here: Template:User N-K, but it looks like it’s been recently removed. I was not aware of that, but still many users keep using a code of that template. Grandmaster 19:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well people are permitted to express their opinions, to a degree, on user pages. It's the templates that are the problem. --Tony Sidaway 19:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but it’s still a divisive stuff. Anyway, thanks for your interference, I hope we want be having problems with this anonymous user anymore. His behavior was very disruptive, and his block log speaks for itself. Regards, Grandmaster 19:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what I just pasted on the discussion page of the project; please read as follows;

This is about freedom of speech. You can not decide on who join or not because if you do that then what is to stop you from letting others with opposing views join. I am here to make sure that the Azari articles excel and are factual and I continue to struggle to do so. User Baku, you leave messages unsigned, user:Grandmaster you use pages to verify things that re not even mentioned on the page like the one for Music of Azerbaijan. I am allowed to place that user box there and editors can pick is they want to use it. There are other user boxes that are only used by one person. I do not seem to recall in consensus in making them. You are being hypocrites because you created one of the user boxes calling for a ‘Liberated Azarbaijan’ which I see not one of you has removed to strengthen your arguments. You are nurturing a culture of bias and misinformation.

If you want to see who is in the write please go to the Music of Azerbaijan article and read the history and what was being asserted by myself and bby user:Grandmaster. Also then read the source he used for his claims. Then please look at the talk:Music of Azerbaijan. I am being demonized, but at least you will see why I am upset with what these users are doing. This is not fair. You can openly see that this user is being devious just if you look at his editing methodology. I even tried to compromise with him in various articles, but he deleted my arguments on the actual talk pages. And when it comes to edits he has the numerical numbers through his allies over me who ususallly don't know about the subject and I get blocked for making legitmate edits via the 3RR. 72.57.230.179

[edit] RFC #3

Where did RFC #3 wind up getting archived off to? Al 21:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind: found it here. Al 22:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you click on my "Various" link on the pretty topnav, you'll find it in the list. --Tony Sidaway 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Nathan felt that I might be keeping it just to have a bit of a giggle over, and I didn't want him to feel that. --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

I appreciate your concern. To be honest, I doubt anyone will be provoked by it, as people who are familar with the debates of the past few months will know the meaning behind it.(Especially the "Classic T1" part). If it was still in template form, I'd be more concerned though. If I do encounter any problems, rest assured, it will be removed. Regards, --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 20:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is precisely because we know the history of the past debates that it is so provocative. It's a gross display of incivility. I want you to understand this and what that implies. --Tony Sidaway 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PP

I shortened my sig. Also, you don't have to worry about delisteing full/semi/move protection. My bot does that automatically. I unprotected a rash of pages hit by the anti-Alikavar vandal two weeks back, and it took care of all of the WP:PP work [2].Voice-of-All^Talk 22:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a great bot. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)