User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 06 07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Image:Zoso.png 2 Your recent DRV close 3 Re: protect page 4 Reverting on CSD talk 5 Your recent userpage deletions 6 User hate TfD & WP:SNOW 7 FYI 8 Ethnic groups in the United States 9 RFA Messhermit 10 Cyde's ANI 11 Onesixone 12 Rovoam 13 Civility Warning 14 Suggestions for better writing? 15 I shall be careful 16 Re: suspicious? 17 Regarding WP:SNOW 18 Islamophobia 19 Feedback request 20 user space layout 21 Software resoponse to deleted articles. 22 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve 23 Missing templates 24 {{deletedpage}}

[edit] Image:Zoso.png

===>I dunno After viewing the pages you suggested, I don't really have any insight into the matter. My guess would be that it's completely fair to use, as much as if I had an album title made up of "3Ə¥ŋ" (in case you don't have Uncode, that's four random characters...) -Justin (koavf), talk 17:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm quite sure that the name is uncopyrightable, whatever writing system is used. It's the copyright on the image that concerns me. --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in (Koavf's talk page is still on my watch list from the wax lips question last night) but I just wanted to point out that the "runes" in that image aren't any language at all. Each one (including the "zoso") was created to represent a different member of Led Zeppelin. So they're not public domain; they're original works of art made to look like ancient symbols. That being said, since it's album cover art (and, actually, it was only on the spine - Led Zep's 4th album is technically untitled), it seems to me it should be fair use. If entire album covers can be depicted under fair use, surely a tiny part of the cover can be, too, no? Kafziel 18:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't the design of the symbols (which are all derived from other sources), or the choice of runes, but the specific depiction produced by artists working on behalf of Atlantic Records or Led Zeppelin in 1971, or in similar contexts for Swansong Records or Led Zeppelin. Or anybody else, for that matter. As it happens, today User:freakofnurture has produced his own artist's impression of those symbols, and release the image into the public domain. This is free content and we can use it forever, and moreover it is recognisably the sequence of symbols chosen by the members of Led Zeppelin to represent their fourth album. --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent DRV close

How is a request to go through process and have a template that was deleted BY THE NOMINATOR, 5 days before it was supposed to be closed "imbecilic, obnoxiously stupid, vacantly silly? That even seems offending. --Rory096 04:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The templates were utterly useless, of no value to the project, and not worth wasting time over debating. "I'm an aeroplane"? Good grief! --Tony Sidaway 04:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

While true, then they could have been deleted through process, not blatantly out of it. I did recommend a relisting. --Rory096 04:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys keep saying "Take it to TfD", but the reality of the situation is that that does not work. --Cyde Weys 05:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that means consensus says that it shouldn't be deleted, so what's the problem? (Though I do think that those templates would have been deleted, from what there was of the TfD so far.) --Rory096 05:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If they're crap, they should be deleted, and the quicker the better. Wasting time over debating this just so we can say we've done it "through process" is exactly what I meant when I said "fatuous". --Tony Sidaway 05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And what is "crap?" Shouldn't the community decide that? --Rory096 05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There you go obsessing about process again. Crap is stuff that doesn't serve the project. --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's an arbitrary thing. What some say doesn't serve the project, others might think is helpful. Why shouldn't there be consensus before deleting something? --Rory096 05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we had enough of a consensus to delete crap like that. --Tony Sidaway 05:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, so does it really matter if you wait a couple days to do it, just to make sure? --Rory096 05:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it matters. The less time we spend debating crap like this, the better. --Tony Sidaway 12:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll just throw some WP:SNOWBALLs at you two. Behave! ;-) Kim Bruning 13:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony? Behave? Better grab your trout. --70.218.62.240 02:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: protect page

"protected because being used as an attack page by a blocked user."

Are you going to block me now Tony. I hope not. I am no longer blocked. I was unblocked an hour ago. I mentioned no names in my comparison, and stated only facts of what happened, other than in my conclusion. I am interested why you didn't respond to my email. Did you read it?

Unfortunatly, I cannot block other users or protect other's pages, which puts me at a definate disadvantage.

I asked for your help because I thought that you were fair and even, even though I disagreed with your view on copyright. The message was never responded too. I have repeatedly stuck up for you as a fair and even admin, despite some other wikipedians saying some nasty things about you.

Signed:Travb 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot condone personal attacks. The correct way to deal with what you perceive as abuse of power is to follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that happens all the time. Not. --70.218.62.240 02:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting on CSD talk

I think it is less than helpful to revert edits on the talk page. A reply would have been sufficient to reduce their stated view that they are constantly reverted on the page, and then attempt to have them contribute to the policy in a more mature manner. Ansell Review my progress! 01:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean this? No quarter to trolls. This isn't Usenet. Seriously, no quarter. It's either trolls or encyclopedia. No in-between. --Tony Sidaway 01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - that was an obvious troll comment and should've been removed on sight, not justified with a response. --Cyde Weys 01:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am a bit naive about trying to keep editors on wikipedia. Its a good intention of course on my part. Ansell Review my progress! 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to encourage trolls to edit Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 02:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Part of my naiveness is that even trolls can turn into sensible editors if you encourage rather than inflame. However, naiveness may be forced to leave in the future. Ansell Review my progress! 02:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen trolls convert in my limited time here. 1 in a thousand is what it seems like. If it was 1 in 10 I'd say it clearly was worth the effort to be encouraging... not sure about it at the ratio we are at now. ++Lar: t/c

I respect your efforts. I don't claim to be right, but my actions are based on over a decade of Internet experience. This could mean that I've learned some bad habits. I just think that 1 in 1000 is pretty low. More important, perhaps, is the risk of driving good people away. I tend to the view that driving trolls away makes for an environment that most editors can live with. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And, while not commenting on this case, even users accused of being trolls may not be and may make good edits. Speaking of which, you may have missed my post above. 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 of wikistalking was new (ie 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). This leaves the door open to indefinite personal fiat and goes against the philosophy you've articulated that the purpose is not punative but to achieve good editing behaviour. Your comments would be appreciated on when I should be able to make good faith edits on pages Slim edits. Thanks. Mccready 08:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting talk page edits is a bad idea in general. Even if you think the comments are 'trolling', others may find them useful, or even intelligent. Please don't try to impose your limited worldview on the entire encyclopedia. Talk pages are for talking - let people talk. --70.218.62.240 02:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent userpage deletions

Now, I am quite perplexed about this one. Looking through your deletion log, you just deleted 4-5 userpages saying vandalism edit only. Am I correct? DGX 21:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• • OK, and why have you blocked The-thing now. He's not a troll. What evidence do you have to support that statement. DGX 22:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! DGX 23:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously he's a silly troll, because he trolls! But he also performs useful edits so I've reduced his block to something more sensible. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I fucked up here and have a apologised to The-thing. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --MONGO 03:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

:) --Tony Sidaway 03:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony! DGX 18:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User hate TfD & WP:SNOW

I appreciated your taking part in the the recently-closed DRV on Template:User Hate here. In closing it, you cited WP:SNOW. In reading WP:SNOW (which I was unaware of before -- thanks for pointing it out), it says:

If an issue raises no controversy, and therefore doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process. /.../ In cases where any doubt is raised, it is always best to settle it through the full process. /.../ One of the major rationales for process is building consensus. Aborting process because someone thinks the conclusion is obvious relies on an assumption on the part of that person; it may be wrong.

My reading of that is that WP:SNOW supports not taking this template back through TfD if & only if the issue raises no controversy. To me, even if "no controversy" is interpreted loosely, the less-public nature of the DRV process & the amount of debate on both sides of other userbox TfD's evidences a controversy of some kind. In the more-travelled TfD, other nearly identical deletions attracted a much more diverse set of positions & comments.

Also, by my reading, WP:SNOW calls for settling (an issue) through the full process whenever any doubt is raised. As some modicum of doubt has been raised, I'm having trouble understanding why this shouldn't go back though the full TfD process. My take on this is that it's more like a veto process than a vote process in that any doubt matters.

None of this is to say that the application of WP:SNOW to this is in any way a wrong thing to do. I am trying to understand this action in light of what I read in WP:SNOW. While I'd like the original TfD to be reopened & allowed to complete over a longer timeframe, I'd specifically like to know how this closure result springs from the guidance provided by WP:SNOW. You've been doing this longer and on a much more deeply involved basis than I have, so I hope you'll take this in the spirit it's intended. Thanks.--Ssbohio 13:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:SNOW means that because it's obvious that the template hasn't a hope of being returned to TfD under deletion review, we can close the review. If ten people say "keep deleted" and only one person says "undelete", we've got the classic Snowball scenario. --Tony Sidaway 14:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate your quick response. My feeling is that if the article were TfD'd again, then the same kind of diversity of opinion we've seen on other userbox TfD's may well come into this userbox's TfD. The part of the application of WP:SNOW that I'm getting hung up on is that it is applicable when the issue raises no controversy, and that, when any doubt is raised, the full process should be used. Is it my reading of WP:SNOW that's at fault, or am I missing something in the discussion of this TfD that fits into WP:SNOW as I'm reading it?--Ssbohio 15:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that, irrespective of what happened at TfD, if the template were undeleted, it would be speedied immediately under the T1 criterion. It's pointless just going through the motions if the end result will be a deleted template. --Tony Sidaway 15:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• While I don't agree with a T1 of this template as it's (to me) obviously humorous, I do understand where you're comeing from and, you're probably right about what would happen. I'm still worried about covering controversial actions under WP:SNOW, but your reasoning is clear & logical. Thanks for taking the time to walk me through this. May I offer you a limeade? :-) --Ssbohio 15:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I've issued a strongly worded warning to Moby Dick about stalking [1]. This is grounded in remedy 2 of your arbitration case (about harassment by Davenbelle, Stereotek and Fadix). --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

I am curious though if it would be posible to take a few precations.

• I'd like to make sure Moby Dick has no "other" sockpuppets lurking around me. If he had like 10 accounts it would be very hard for me to gather any reliable evidence.
• Posibly keeping logs that make a checuser posible longer than a month if Moby Dick decides to stalk from a different alias. These logs can be kept on wikimedia servers away from public reach.

--Cat out 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You might like to drop a request to Mackensen or someone else with the checkuser bit. The suspicion of sock puppetry and the pattern of problematic behavior are sufficient to merit keeping tags on him, in my opinion. --Tony Sidaway 17:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious to know how the user just happened to search through the history of userpage completely unprovoked and make such a fuss about it. This accusation is extremely vexing [2]. What do you think..?-Zero^Talk 17:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic groups in the United States

Request help and advise. Another editor insists on reverting my work. I removed the article 'Irish people' from the Category 'Ethnic groups in the United States' because it does not belong there. See the category purpose and the other articles in the category. The article 'Irish American' is in this category and properly so. He argument is basically that many Irish nationals (not Irish Americans) live in the United States so the 'Irish people' article should be included in this category. Thanks Hmains 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much difference. A lot of Americans are of Irish heritage and a lot of English speakers, including Irish, choose to live in the USA, so there probably should be something in there. How you do that in the end is a matter for careful and respectful discussion. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Messhermit

I have to complain regarding the fact that I'm the only person "banned" from editing the Peruvian-Ecuadorian related articles. As stated in the talk page, the other user involved in the dispute clearly made the same mistakes that I did, and he had the advantage (because of my College Final's) of presenting his evidence before me.

I will not challenge Wikipedia's authority to enforce a ban against my person. However, I found that is rather disturbing that the other wikipedian involved in this dispute can see this decision as a "Victory" and state his personal "POV" on those articles, clearly violating Wikipedia's Rule of NPOV.

Thus, I need to know to whom I should speak here in Wikipedia, in order to point out that serious flaw that, at least in my view, has being allowed to persist. Thanks Messhermit 03:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a clerk to the Arbitration Committee. I'll forward your concern directly to all members of the Committee. You may also want to email Jimbo Wales, whose email address is at User:Jimbo Wales. He can consider appeals and reverse or modify arbitration decisions. --Tony Sidaway 04:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyde's ANI

I am sorry, but PLEASE leave Cyde's ANI entry in its place...I would not have put it there except that I have taken several steps on and off Wikipedia to solve the situation...and none of them have prevailed. Thanks. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 23:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. WP:ANI is not the place in Wikipedia for dispute resolution. Please turn this into a RfC. --Tony Sidaway 23:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd echo PHDrillSergeant's concern. Please in future refrain from refactoring in this manner. While ani is a high-traffic page and I do support quick removal of clearly off-topic posts, this was not appropiate. A large number of people had commented, discussion was ongoing, and you are close enough to this that you should not have been the one doing the refactoring even if needed doing. There are lots of editors around, and if something actually is crying out to be done, it usually will get done. If it appears that something requires the special love that only someone closely involved can give, it's probably a good idea to let it go.
brenneman^{L} 11:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to see WP:ANI turned into a place for trolls to come to flame administrators,and we've seen of late some exceptionally poorly grounded complaints about administrators. Your own behavior on that forum has only inflamed matters, and I have mentioned this in the past but you seem to be very slow in takin the hint; I feel that you're in danger of turning into another Everyking; please amend your most disgraceful habit of indulging in personal attacks on that page.

You will note that, contrary to your false claim, I did not refactor any complaint about myself. Again you cannot resist indulging in baseless personal attacks. Stop. --Tony Sidaway 12:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is difficult, but please do attempt to actually read the material you're responding to. "Complaint about [your]self?" You were involved, as stated before. I'm endlessly fascinated by your ability to see any criticism as a "baseless personall attack" while the beam drifts unnoticed in your eye. Don't bother to respond here, I'm removing this page from my watchlist. - brenneman^{L} 13:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not and am not involved in any of Cyde's activities. I'm not going to make edits on your talk page. --Tony Sidaway 14:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Onesixone

Well you know full well it's merited - he's a vandal and he uses personal attacks (which is already 2 bad things to my one and he didn't get blocked). This is the reason I'm annoyed. I've said it before and it's been ignored - why, when I went to Firefox with these complaints, was I blocked and Onesixone allowed to continue to vandelise the Jackson page? It just seems vindictive.

Anyway, I was unaware that the line on bad language was so strict (even IN context) so yeah, I'll tone it down.

And please don't block me for legitimate critism again, Firefox clearly handled the situation poorly and lacked communication.

All in all, the way you approched the situation was, on the whole, much more helpful.

I thank you for it.

BTW, is it true that I'm not allowed to manage my own talk page as I please? Or that you are allowed to change things on it? Just asking.--Crestville 13:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In general you can handle your talk page as you please, but removing warnings from administrators is controversial, and it pisses us off. I know it's annoying to have that there but you can archive it in a week or so and I don't think anybody will mind unless an established pattern of warnings is set up (which I think is highly unlikely in this case if you continue to be as civil as you have been since that last block).

I've not really looked at OneSixOne yet, although I did warn him about his retaliation [3]; I may have a closer look if I have time or if you bring up good reports of what he's up to, but you don't need to rely on me or Firefox.

Please bear in mind that administrators are only human. We do make honest errors, and it isn't considered polite to be nasty about another's honest mistake. It wasn't that you made an honest complaint (which you did) it was that you chided Firefox with "this isn't good enough" or something similar. I felt that letting you back to edit the encyclopedia while in that frame of mind would be inappropriate (if you'd go for an admin who had the power to block you, how would you treat other editors?)

As a rule of thumb, use common sense but always err on the civil side. This isn't like a forum, where you can play tit-for-tat; it's a much more heavily policed environment which we try to keep friendly for all editors, and where we actively discourage the kinds of badinage that make forums so lively. The reason is that we're focussed on producing an encyclopedia. It isn't permissible to attack someone, even in retaliation for a personal attack. Instead the accepted procedure is to go to their talk page and tell them about the No personal attacks policy, and ask them not to do so again. If they keep it up (against you or anyone else) document this in some way and make a report at, for instance, WP:PAIN (Personal attack intervention noticeboard).

Civility and No personal attacks are hard, non-negotiable policies on Wikipedia. We do our best to keep flame wars of all kinds at bay, with some success.

Also look at the pages WP:AIV (vandalism) WP:AN3 (Three-revert rule) and WP:ANI (other serious incidents) as possible places to report serious ongoing problems with a user and get administrator intervention. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rovoam

Hi Tony, I suspect that Test56 is a sockpuppet of Rovoam, who was permanently banned from Wikipedia. It is apparent from the nature of his vandal edits to Artsakh, and the nationalistic comment he left at the talk page. Also, he had a sockpuppet with a similar name at Russian Wikipedia, and today attacked a number of Azerbaijan related pages there as well. Could you please check the activities of this person? Grandmaster 19:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as a Rovoam sock or work-alike. --Tony Sidaway 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Grandmaster 20:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility Warning

[4] Please don't make personal attacks such as this. Doing so violates WP:CIVIL. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 20:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No problemo. If it looks like a personal attack, that's good enough for me. I'll withdraw and apologise. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a good rest of the weekend! :-) --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 21:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for better writing?

Hi Tony :) - do you know of any book or have any other suggestions for improving writing skills? (Hopefully encyclopedia-related but general is good as well :)). RN 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I recommend Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, which has all the basics. Eschewing pompous verbosity Writing short sentences helps. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! RN 04:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I shall be careful

You on my talk page in response to my request: in response to my request for comments: I suppose that if I have a concern it's with your mass-spamming of user talk pages. It's probably better to place such requests in a single location--on your own talk page or user page is best--where those who are familiar enough with your work to watchlist them will see it.

My reply: Thank you Tony - yes Tony, as you had asked me to call you Tony and not Mr. Tony when I had a talk with you a year before. I shall be more careful, and shall avoid "mass-spamming". I will also not do "select-spamming" (?). No, sometimes, I will have to do "select-spamming". I was just kidding! Now, I am leaving you in peace for few weeks. About a year back on 22nd April 2005, You gave me an exceptional new comer barnstar, and I thank you you every year for the same. In case, you find that I have done some exceptional work during last 12 months or next 12 months, please do not forget to give me another barnstar! --Bhadani 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: suspicious?

I would have to agree with you on that. We talk about Wikipedia things in real life in order to keep our talk pages short!

By the way, would your comment have anything to do with my comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration? I just though some of your past actions were questionable, that's all. The Gerg 23:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I saw that you said that you hated me, and I wondered why because I had never heard from you before. I visited your talk page and commented. As it happens, I was nominated as an administrator by a friend and neighbor, David Gerard, whom I have known for eleven years. This fact played no part in the nomination debate, but if it had I think it could only have helped other editors to make their mind up, just as we tend to trust real life acquaintances more if we are introduced to one another by a mutual friend.

I hope that we can, in time, progress from hate to a kind of understanding of one another. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I responded to your note on The Gerg's talk page. Unfortunately, he then chose to remove my comments, so I'll repeat them here, in case you were interested in a reply. — GT 05:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking generally, only for these two. Here I think their real-life friendship presents a conflict of interest where they're more interested in pumping each other up than doing what's best for the project. Between the repeated RfA nominations of each other and joining organizations like QRVS, it seems like these two are more interested in "gaming" Wikipedia. I'd be more convinced that either one of them was a worthy adminship candidate if someone else were to review their activity and then go through the trouble of nominating, rather than see more of the same between these two where their friendship creates the support, rather than a sincere opinion gathered from their contributions. — GT 20:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think that assuming good faith is best here. If they're making RFA nominations for one another I don't see the problem. If neither is held in especially high respect then the endorsement is of little value. If one is held in high respect then his regard for the other seems like a reasonable factor to take into account when evaluating an RFA nomination of the other. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding WP:SNOW

...because, whatever, it had its moment at this point, it WAS closed within 8 hours, but re-opened because closing it early was rather rude. I don't know why process is continually ignored in this case, but whatever, at least it got its hearing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Process is a problem for Wikipedia. Left to itself, it would eat up the encyclopedia and replace it with a big list of rules. --Tony Sidaway 01:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a balance. Too little process

[edit] Islamophobia

Greetings Tony Sidaway, since you're commenting on the talk page of this article I thought you should be aware of this related discussion and how it relates to WP:NEO. Thanks. Netscott 19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think that you could avoid using raw shortcuts on Wikipedia? WP:NEO means nothing to me, but being a native English speaker I can readily understand the phrase "Avoid neologisms". --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and sure, I will WP:Avoid using raw shortcuts... :-) Thanks. Netscott 06:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

== anarchy, Too much == stagnation. Kim Bruning 01:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Very true. I would say that, even if we do not record it, there does come to be a de facto process that grows organically. By recording it and making it official, though, we regain some measure of control over it and can enforce uniformity so as to yield fairness. Once it's out in the open, we can ask ourselves whether this is really what we want; otherwise, it all goes on out of sight and out of control. Al 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sort of. In practise if you pin down process too well it becomes a handle for trolls. The three revert rule is a classic example of this. Trolls learn how to manipulate the rule, and so administrators have to be very discriminating about how they apply it. It's probably better to look at the overall behavior and demeanor of an editor than to count reverts. --Tony Sidaway 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback request

Hello. In the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal it was mentioned that you had made approaches to editors in line with jimbo's request, with good results, so I would like your opinion on another way of tackling the problem from the user angle. The full context is in Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal#Guideline_to_solve_this_problem_already_exists.3F, but in a nutshell it would put more emphasis on the Wikipedia:User page guideline being followed. First, by having a *large* warning/reminder on top of *all* the Wikipedia:Userboxes pages, as part of the problem, I believe, is that new users are not aware of the guidelines, and by the time they are, they are too attached to "their" userpage. Also on Wikipedia:Userboxes, include subst in all the templates by default, so those that don't understand transclusion (which I think are those most likely to edit war when their page is "changed") automatically gets subst (but those that understand the pros/cons of transclusion can still do so. Finally, if users ignore the guideline, and fill their pages with non-wiki stuff, be that 1000's of shiney boxes, attack statements, or userfied nn-personal bios, then the page can be referred to Mfd, as userpages are a privilege., so if abused, can be taken away. Most of this (e.g. Wikipedia:User page warnings on Wikipedia:Userboxes) could be independently of any userbox/criterion for speedy deletion proposal, and I believe it has the advantage of being covered by existing policies and guidelines as they are now, so might be less contravertisal. Any comments, or do you think that this is unworkable?

As a side issue, is it technically possible to have a "/etc/skel" type effect for new users? E.g. when a new account is created, the standard welcome message is added, and so on? the reason I ask came out of looking at the proposal of Wikipedia:Protected Userpage and I had the idea that if all userpages were semi-protected by default, it might reduce the vandalism, while still allowing established users to fix things, but would also ensure that new editors first focus was editing the enclyopedia, and not their user page, as I'm sure you've seen new users join up, set up their user page so they can start work on wikipedia, but never get around to that vital second step.

Well, this comment ended up a lot longer than I originally meant, feedback on the above appreciated. Oh, I do see the irony/humour of my suggesting mfd'ing userpage for breaching a guideline, when I disagreed with you blocking someone for breaching one! But I hope you understood my reasoning, even if you didn't agree with it :). Regards, MartinRe 17:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think semiprotecting user pages would solve any extant problems. If user page vandalism were ever to become not only common (which it isn't yet) but overwhelming in volume (which doesn't seem likely), we might consider this.

I didn't so much make approaches as prepare a list of people whom I knew, with a view to asking them to consider Jimbo's proposal. What I found was that, of the 900 or so people whose userpages or talk pages were on my massive watchlist who were actively editing, only around 10% had userboxes that might be considered at all contentious on the "political, polemical or religious" grounds adopted by myself and Jimbo Wales. I consider this to be such a low proportion as to be unworthy of serious consideration. Since then (three months ago) polemical userboxes have become somewhat of a damp squib. Few editors seem to care enough much about them and I think they seem to be slowly disappearing without much of a fight. I don't think any further policy on userboxes is needed at this time. The arbitration committee clarified existing policy and established conditions on the wiki that are extremely hostile to such abuses. --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user space layout

Thanks for inspiring my user space layout. (Although mine is very spartan and uses no images.) Kimchi.sg 03:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

np. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Software resoponse to deleted articles.

I have noticed that once an article is deleted, all references to any edits to that article will also be deleted in a user's contributions. This was indeed the case with me vis-a-vis the 1911 EB project (I made innumerable annotations to the 20-some pages involved, and for a while, you'd get nothing but screenload after screenload of edit notices of in my user comments).

I know an admin can 'undelete' an article, which seems to mean they can look at it. I wonder if one can look at anything deleted from user contribs via deletion of an article.

Specifically, there is one set of exchanges between Jaysuschris and myself that I cannot find; as I recall it was on a talk page where he thanked another user for his support against me (perhaps his or another's sock puppet). There was another exchange where, looking at this user's edit history, I made a comment that Jaysus had forgotten to change accounts. This would have probably been in February, perhaps earlier, maybe into early March. This is why I believed JC was one of Nussle's trolls, following the example of Capitol Hill staffers in vandalizing articles.

If there is a quick and easy way of determining this, it will save me many laborious hours of viewing all of his edits. Has JC asked that anything be deleted? How can one tell? Reviewing myself, I behaved abominably, but there was provocation.

I would also add there is someone lurking behind this who posted some vile anti-semitic material in my mail -- Sean Black resolved this. I'm told it was an aol account. I don't think this was JC, in that the edits were mostly in the sandbox; a kid probably.

I also add that an admin's ability to eliminate any trace of any previous posting -- including ones in their own mail -- adds to my current paranoia. --FourthAve 00:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea what this means. Eliminating emails? --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve

This arbitration case has closed. FourthAve is banned from Wikipedia for a year, and is placed on personal attack parole, probation, and general probation. This will be enforced by block. I have carried out the one-year-ban in my capacity as an administrator. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Read for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing templates

I didn't create the originals, but I did create the later versions with just the bold text, as place fillers for the people who had already invoked the templates in AfD's. By removing the templates and replacing them with deletedpage, there are now a huge number of AfD entries that show as comments but the actual vote is missing. See, for example, the first response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial niten ichy ryu. Did you really want to do that? Fan1967 02:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 02:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{deletedpage}}

Please remember to list every page you tag and protect from recreation at WP:SALT. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, instruction creep! ;) --02:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)