User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 06 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] Blockage

Thank you for dealing with User:Minun Rules the world. HighwayCello 20:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Tony Sidaway 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just for you

If you want I could create a regex for you to use in WP:AWB to replace all the signatures you commonly come accross in your talk pages. Yes, you can manually add page names to the que in AWB. Interested? --Mboverload 03:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I was working on a similar set of regular expressions: Replace <span [^>]*> with nothing, </span> with nothing, <font [^>]*> with nothing, and </font> with nothing. The only thing it doesn't fix is embedded links to other subpages or user pages, so that'd probably have to be done manually. --Elkman 04:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't use scripts on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 08:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
At all? why not? You're missing out, they make rote things a lot easier... If there's a reason not to other than personal preference, I'd like to know about it before they get banned or something! Lar 15:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the point. I seldom do anything by rote on Wikipedia, and for those that I do I use transclusion. --Tony Sidaway 18:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Appreciate your comment

Thank you for the comments at [1] Terryeo 12:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Remember to contact me if this happens again. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Iloveminun's RFArb

As I was involved in the Iloveminun case, should I make a statement on the RFArb (now or at evidence stage, assuming it is accepted)? The policy seems rather vague about this. Smurrayinchester 15:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Should I too? User:HighwayCello 15:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyone involved may make a statement at this stage, and I think statements from those involved in the case would be most welcome. Keep it simple and brief. If it's accepted, anyone may file formal evidence, whether he has made a prior statement or not. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Myrtone86

I got an email from this user asking me to review the situation. I basically support the blocks etc, but as I pointed out on User talk:Myrtone86 you could have been more civil in your block summary. In general I find myself agreeing with a lot (though by no means all, but that's not the point) your actions, but think it might help if you'd be just that little more civil about going about them. Petros471 17:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My summary didn't strike me as uncivil at the time. Pithy, perhaps. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I really want you to see my side

I have been called a troll and a vandal by user:grandmaster and maybe I am uncivil, but I do know that he is being false in both his edits and behaviour.

I already added this to your page, but look at this once more;

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 by 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.

Also please look via the history the editing he made using the source he himself validated. --72.57.230.179


Additionally here is more proof that I was being civil [[2]] and that user:Grandmaster is making false statements. I also want to say someting else it is ironic that he went out of hs way and would dlete my work even if little things were not verified, but his own claims and edits have not been verified for a long time and are in need of citations for ages now on the same article, Azari. 72.57.230.179
Ready for archive. --Tony Sidaway 14:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ready for archive. --Tony Sidaway 14:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bad user

Alright? I was hoping you could have a looks at this user - User:Feline1. He really is a nasty piece of work (look at some of the stuff on the Revolver (album) talk page and directed at User:Brian G. Wilson. I realise some of my comments towards him could be construed as personal attacks. I couldn't help myself, he's very antagonistic (though I have been trying quite hard not to loose it with people - please judge me with that in mind). He has reams of evidence of poor behaviour and needs something doing about his general bad attitude. In fact, it's not even his personal attacks which I find most distasteful. It's his sumgness, the way he reacts to well-intentioned users by insulting them, branding them "morons" for simple mistakes. He seems to feel this is accepotable behaviour. Knock him down a peg would you please?--Crestville 15:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're all doing good work, and sometimes I know a bit of badinage is okay. Just remember that there is a human on the other end. I think you're both in danger of forgetting that (he may be as offended by your insults as you are by his). If you have to work together, I suggest that you bring specific problems to me before they degenerate to insults, and I'll do what I can to ensure that you can reach an amicable agreement. If someone is persistently engaging in newbie biting or general incivility, please make a report on WP:ANI. or WP:PAIN. --Tony Sidaway 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, but this lad is a constant offender. I'm asking you to keep an eye on him because he is a constant offender, his attacks go beyond mere banter - it's a certain horrible level of condecending self rightious aloofness and he never seems to get collared for it. That other one you warned me about is some Jakson nut who has, under various guises, vandelised both my user page and the Jackson page. I've tried using ANI on him but no admins have taken any sort of action. Again. I appreciate the sentiment though. Cheers as always.--Crestville 17:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Any feedback? I find it odd that the person who blocked me twice for my so-called "appaling behaviour" would be so dismissive of another user who is clearly much more acidic and difficult to work with. No offence, like.--Crestville 20:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I work on a lot of different issues and it's possible that I dropped the ball on this one. Why not make a report about the fellow's behavior on WP:ANI and perhaps some other less busy administrator will take it up. --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Look forward to working with you

These two diffs ([3] [4]) by Georgewilliamherbert are really on point, I think. You removed them, in the only display of removal of thoughtful, well-meaning advice I've ever seen by a non-vandal. Vandals and you, that's who's in that club.

I really look forward to working with you Tony, when you come on board with the whole collaborative nature of this project - the part where people recognize that other people are really important, and go out of their way to be excellent to each other. It'll be good.

If I had a long and obnoxious signature, the primary reason I'd be keeping it by now would be that you've set up a dynamic where the only way I can change it is by losing a battle of wills to you, and I fully understand why someone wouldn't want to do that. If you were smart about it, you would ask people to change their signatures in a way that they felt like they were being really cool by doing it, not really brow-beaten. These are skills you can work on, and improve.

Seriously, read at MeatballWiki, try to find some things out about how to motivate people to work with you rather than against you. "People skills" matter. This is Wikipedia, this is the future. Get sophisticated about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I hope you seriously consider everything GTBacchus has wisely said here. It doesn't matter if a lot of people agree with your point: the way you make it and go about things sriously rubs people the wrong way. I don't give a whit about signatures. If anything, I'm in your camp, and I think the ones you've been refactoring are rather absurd. I don't think it's worth ruffling feathers about. Sure, it's the wiki way to do something like changing it yourself when you don't like it, but once it begins to irritate others, it's not worth the payoff; it makes things worse for a minor grievance. What is more irritating than signatures is calling people silly sausages and telling them they're playing silly buggers, and staying stubbornly still, when a simple bit of patience would make this go away. Perhaps if I ws the kind to get worked up about these things (which is hard for me to imagine) I'd think these people were silly sausages, but I sure wouldn't say it and pollute the community over it, and I wouldn't continue to provoke them, even if it were on a silly point. Dmcdevit·t 07:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop calling people silly sausages and telling them to stop playing silly buggers. I absolutely don't mean to ruffle feathers. --Tony Sidaway 07:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And, yet, this is what I've tried to communicate from the beginning; I do not mean to imply that GTBacchus and/or Dmcdevit has in some manner achieved an "importance" of any kind that I or any other user has not, but how is the appeal from these two worth noting while mine was "tripe"? This is a serious question; among other things, it may help other users learn how to communicate with you in a manner that actually fosters communication. Given the response I have received from you even as I am hardly young, green, or "new", what can be done to foster a greater sense of community when you are approached in whatever fashion by those who are young, green and "new"? RadioKirk 03:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've read your comments. You seemed to be trying to get into some odd proceduralism you appear to have made up out of whole cloth, to the effect that we mustn't refactor "compliant" signatures, whatever those might be. If "tripe" was an inappropriate word, I'll have to find a new one. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Rfa brought and dropped already? Wow, I guess I should stop letting RL interfere with Wiki (grin). Seriously, I have noted the reasons for my actions, from start to finish. It was only well into the process that you presented a rationale that moved me to place a disclaimer at the top of AN and AN/I. Since we allow users to customize sigs, please recognize that it does "ruffle feathers" for these users to see them changed—it's not about whether we can refactor, it's whether doing so and then ignoring and/or removing legitimate objections, and then doing it again with little or no comment, violates WP:POINT (obviously, I believe the block of a non-admin who did the same thing would have been hailed). A disclaimer on the top of any page bearing your name is, I think, a wise idea; if, however, a user objects anywhere outside your user space, and their sig otherwise complies with policy (I notice the character limit is now gone), it should stand unluss discussed first. Finally, let me reiterate that I believe your block to have been the correct action, required of me per my "job" as a janitor. While some of your actions have struck me (correctly or otherwise) as "me first, community second", I do not know you as a person and I do not make any judgment in that capacity. This went long, so, apologies and thanks for reading. RadioKirk talk to me 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I just realized I haven't taken the opportunity during this signature affair to tell you how much I think you're seeing the Wiki in just the right way. Refactoring the way you're doing is entirely consistent with how I understand this medium working. Nevertheless, that understanding isn't quite universal here. People have a lot of preconceptions about what should and shouldn't happen, some of which are inappropriate, but they're still prevalent. At this point, it becomes a question of what to do about that. One strategy is just to start doing something specific to make things better. If someone objects, they're the one in the wrong, not you. It's not a legitimate objection, because it's based on a fundamental misconception of how the Wiki works. Eventually, they'll figure it out; meanwhile, they're just making noise, which can be safely ignored.

That strategy, in the way it handles (or declines to handle) conflict, is very weak, and prone to generating too much heat, at least in the current context. Nevertheless, I agree with your goals (cleaning up talk pages, reinforcing proper wiki-culture), and think it's important to identify better ways to achieve them. I think you may have not expected the amount of vocal opposition you would attract by refactoring signatures? If you saw conflicts like this ahead of time, maybe you could avoid them more easily? Please let me know whether you think I'm making sense. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You're making sense, but of course it's completely impossible for me to predict when and where a conflict will occur. However I think it's very easy to exaggerate the magnitude of a conflict, and this one was really very small as these things go. I think there has been a general revision of thought among those who originally opposed the idea, and this will become more and more evident in due course. People learn. The outcome is good for the wiki and the community. --Tony Sidaway 03:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say completely impossible, but that's a small nit to pick. Nevertheless, I agree that learning is happening all around, and that's good. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Barnstar

{{award2|image=WikiDefender_Barnstar.png|size=100px|topic=The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar|text=For being a great member, dealing with vandals, and just being a great admin!!! <tt>'''[[User:Sunholm|Sunholm]][[User talk:Sunholm|(talk)]]''' </tt> 16:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC) }}

That's a very nice thought, but I'm not a member of the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
But you are a great admin and member! Will you be able to help me get some articles to featured status - if so, post on my talk page!! --Sunholm(talk) 16:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I've adjusted it to reflect that. In answer to your query, I am implacably opposed to the Featured Articles system. I strongly recommend making small incremental changes to many articles as the best way to improve the overall quality of material on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've copied the award to my award page, where it will occupy pride of place until my Nobel Peace Prize comes through. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of university professors of social science, history, law, and theology who partake of Wikipedia, and surely some who are sufficiently irreverent as to be willing to nominate for an NPP whoever ultimately resolves the userbox issue (although, to be sure, it's unlikely that one individual will resolve the issue or that a singular and universally-applicable solution will come to pass), inasmuch as he/she will have returned the project (assuming arguendo that it's elsewhere now) to its encyclopedic roots; we take as axiomatic, of course, that the project is necessarily beneficial to mankind. Your style is perhaps too bellicose for the Committee's tastes (but cf., for example, Henry Kissinger, the 1973 Peace Prize laureate), but I'll be sure to mention you in my acceptance speech. Joe 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bot

I've got a bot running on my own personal wiki that gives warnings, blocks users with the following edit summaries:

  • (username)
  • (impostor/too similar to existing user...)
  • (spam-only user)

Would this be useful??? --Sunholm(talk) 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: It blocks pagemove vandals too! --Sunholm(talk) 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't do bots. I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Goodbye - rm clutter

Ok -- what gives? -- Jason Palpatine 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the clutter. The animated gif was disruptive and the huge amount of extraneous formatting was unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it appeared to be in keeping with the discussion. I suppose your removal was too. --!70.218.7.80 03:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony: Thank you for the head's up. I appreciate it. I'll keep it simple from now on. -- Jason Palpatine 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, just bear in mind that the discussion pages are generally pretty focussed and shouldn't be treated as a place for embellishment of the kind that might be allowable on your user page. On the animated gif, you may not realise that it soaks up a lot of processor power and should only be used where strictly necessary, such as in a relevant article (and preferably, in my opinion, as a linked image rather than inline). --Tony Sidaway 14:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Userbox debates

I've come up with a solution to end the userbox wrangling that currently exists: I (and anyone else that wants to help me) will write a 'how-to' guide on creating userboxes, and userbox policy.

This might help, hopefully. --Sunholm(talk) 10:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Please write about your proposal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes. Someone else may have the same idea, and perhaps have made a start, and it would probably help if you all get together and collaborate on it. --Tony Sidaway 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I changed my signature to something simpler

Here's the code:

[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·[[User:Ikiroid/Desk|desk]]·[[User talk:Ikiroid/Help Me Improve|Advise me]])

A little longer, yet a bit more helpful than my last one:

[[User:Ikiroid|<tt><b><font style="background:green" color="white"> The ikiroid </font></b></tt>]]

Tell me what you think.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty good. I appreciate your decision to make the effort. --Tony Sidaway 15:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Have a good day!--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Am I just feeding trolls?

I see that practically everyone else has disappeared from Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability in the face of Sbharris and Light Current. Am I just feeding trolls? Should I stop? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently a guy who trolled the policy pages was blocked. If sbharris is that kind of editor, the same may happen. If not, we'll either set up a ramped series of blocks to stop him, or we'll suddenly go "Wow, you're right! Wikipedia policy is a heap of poo!" And then block him. :) --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm astonished that nobody slapped a WP:POINT warning on him when he tagged the policy as unverified. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbcom

Thanks, I wasn't aware that's how it was done on that particular page. I thought it was like the Workshop page and was just responding to a petty comment about me. I'll write up my own rebuttal. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries, feel free to point out if if miff anything again ;). And again thanks for recusing yourself as a clerk in this matter. I know you have strong feelings, for SPUIs position if I'm not mistaken, however your honesty in recusing yourself has not gone unnoticed and is very much appreciated, especially considering it is in this ugly mess of a dispute. JohnnyBGood 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well in the end we're all on the same side, something I try hard to remember. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I should add that, although you're correct that on this issue I feel I may tend to side with SPUI, I've also been involved in controversial administrator decisions with respect to SPUI. For instance I delete his user page. Both considerations played a part in my decision to recuse. --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] You?

Is this really you? Chuck(contrib) 02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that really is Tony. He is a handsome fellow, and particularly popular with dominant males. --Distal Orthograph 07:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I should be so lucky! --Tony Sidaway 08:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sockpuppets and ArbCom evidence disputes

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker/Evidence First off, check out that history. Second, User:Leyasu1 and User:86.132.135.23 seem to be sockuppets of User:Leyasu, who's under a long ban for escalating arbcom ruling violations. Better to see it all. Also check out User talk:Deathrocker and User talk:Kevin Breitenstein for a discussion I got into with Deathrocker about modifying evidence for arbcom made by others in their little sections. Kevin_b_er 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And User:86.132.134.145. Thought those were the same IP at first, they're not. Kevin_b_er 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dhimmi

Tony, without taking any stance on the Jewish Encyclopedia, which I've not the expertise to evaluate, your protection of Dhimmi on the basis of User:Islami's tag is unwarranted. User:Islami has not once, to my knowledge, appeared on the talk page. His involvement reflects only User:Ibrahimfaisal's solicitation of religiously-motivated meatpuppetry[5].Timothy Usher 10:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We protect articles when there is an edit war. The version on which they're protected doesn't matter. It's just an opportunity for you to discuss the matter and reach consensus on how to proceed. If in three days or so I pop my head in and discover no discussions then I'll know that it's time to unprotected because protection did not work. --Tony Sidaway 10:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough.
As for the broader issues, please don't arrive at speedy judgements. It's not my nature to impugn people at random. If you'd have frequented the space that I have, I've little doubt you'd have had it and then some by now.Timothy Usher 10:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I was just commenting on what you and Pechor got up to on WP:ANI. It's not a good first impression. --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
And based on this "not good first impression", you've decided to smear any arguments that we make whatever their merits? Pecher Talk 11:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If I am insinuating, please give an alternative explanation of your usage of the word "perverse" to characterize my arguments. Pecher Talk 11:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


I haven't addressed any of your arguments (unless you think that my off-the-cuff opinion on the citation of old encyclopedias was a "smear"). Your combative approach here isn't helping to mend the poor impression I formed from your dismissal of IbrahimFaisal's complaint a "whining about being on the losing side of a content dispute".
I'm sorry if my comment, "it seems simply perverse to exclude references to the Jewish Encyclopedia where relevant" was harsh. It follows from our routine use of material from encyclopedias of the period. Your argument that the material is outdated is another matter. It may well be outdated but I have not been presented with, or considered, evidence to that effect, nor shall I because I'm not going to get involved in the debate.
I'm not about to become an involved administrator in that article or any related article. However I do think that there may be conduct issues related to the article. --Tony Sidaway 11:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"It's not a good first impression."
I understand that, and I think I understand why. The key is to understand that this is not some arbitrary prejudice, but a reaction to an ongoing pattern of insufferable behavior. Allowing userpage soapboxing sends the wrong message, which same take to heart - to wit, that wikipedia is a place where we all come to represent our "POVs" against competing "POVs" - that is, that wikipedia is a battleground. My notion - and correct me if I'm wrong - but my notion is that Wikipedia is a place for serious scholarship. I'm here because I'm pro-life/Muslim/transsexual/vegetarian/Christian/Socialist etc. etc. is the wrong way to look at this. That's why I'm against userboxes, not any technical point about templates vs. "userfication", and similarly with the signature debate. Serious scholars don't bother with such nonsense, and if we're to become a citable encylopedia, neither will we. Editors which see Wikipedia as a forum for personal expression should be strongly encouraged to take a hike. And it's become very difficult to see, on the one hand, serious scholars like Pecher working their tails off to create densely and reliably-sourced informative material, and on the other, religiously-motivated, spam-solicited POV swarms coming around to arbitrarily attack it. Wikipedia should encourage the former, and discourage the latter. Mindlessly dubbing all conflict "edit-warring" based on revert-counts alone is, in a very real sense, an abdication of responsibility re the rightful point of this project, which is not, in fact, building an interfaith community - this is, at best, a mere means to an end - but building a respectable, scholarly encyclopedia. If I'm wrong here, please let me know as soon as possible.Timothy Usher 11:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If you think this editor's behavior has been "insufferable" and you can demonstrate the failure of good faith attempts to resolve the problem, raise a user conduct RfC. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Leyasu

I am offering to mentor this user after their 3-month block. It's a chance to try a new skill (mediation), so I'm offering myself for it. --Sunholm 19:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. The best advice I can give is that you get involved in the Deathrocker arbitration:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker
It's quite probable that Leyasu will be subject to sanctions as a result of that case. You should know what you're letting yourself in for! Please also contact an arbitrator involved in the case (Fred Bauder is quite active) and let him know that you're offering your services. --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll mentor Deathrocker instead. See User:Sunholm/Deathrocker mentorship for details. --Sunholm(talk) 19:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Harmil

I don't know what the policy is on a person adding themselves to a case after the arb committee has agreed to hear it [6]. Harmil was involved but lightly, for example he was never part of the mediation Anyway you decide what you want to do. jbolden1517 00:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's okay to do that. If it's inappropriate the Arbitration Committee will ignore it. Anybody, whether a party to a case or not, can edit the evidence page and workshop page of an arbitration case. The discussion pages associated with those pages and of the proposed decision page can also be edited freely by anyone.
Sometimes the Committee will add someone else to the involved parties, against his will. This is controversial and always upsets the person involved, but it's quite legitimate. The Arbitration Committee's job is to resolve disputes conclusively, not play with procedure. --Tony Sidaway 01:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Anything the ArbCom chooses to do is okay by definition. They have added folks to cases before, even when their involvement in the case was tangential. My advice? Do your best to stay out of the way of the ArbCom. --Paleoglot 02:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This isn't quite true. For instance the remedy initially specified for Stevertigo was loudly rejected by the community. --Tony Sidaway 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Conservative POV??

Hi Tony, I wonder if you were going to go through WikiPedia and remove all references to "LGBT" and "Sexual Orientation" on the grounds of POV and people leaving their partisanship at the door? Ros Power 14:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is an LGBT campaigning noticeboard, I'll remove it. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:LGBT notice board a campaigning noticeboard? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.. I personally wrote each of those invitations; it was cross-posting not spam. See Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming. --Facto 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If was spam. Don't do it ever again or I'll block you. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! --Facto 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trying to brazen it out. "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view". You spammed. Don't do it again. --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no attempt to sway consensus. I individually invited editors that showed interest in conservative issues to a project page where we can share articles of interest. Admin User:Samuel Wantman did the same thing when he started the WP:LGBT . See [7]--Facto 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Ros has been asked to educate herself about our policies, guidelines and procedures on Wikipedia many times, but persists in refusing to do so (or refusing to comply with them in her editing). Just for your information. Exploding Boy 15:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Clerk actions

This is probably superfluous, but Essjay created the template {{Clerk-Note}}, which makes one of these Clerk note: for his experiment in having clerks help out WP:RFCU. It's in the main template space if you wanted to use it to deliniate Arbcom clerk actions. Thatcher131 17:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It may come in useful. --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To let you know

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3 --User:Chcknwnm 00:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Responded at length. --Tony Sidaway 09:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A request

Hello Tony Sidaway,

I have a request. Could you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed

The question is whether "Jewish Encyclopedia" could be cited in wikipedia (Pecher argues that it is outdated). Your input is appreciated.

Thanks,--Aminz 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We have entire articles based on the 1911 Britannica, so it seems simply perverse to exclude references to the Jewish Encyclopedia where relevant. --Tony Sidaway 10:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll copy/paste your comment to the talk page of Dhimmi. --Aminz 10:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, Tickle me is making personal attacks and assumes bad faith. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed_II

Thanks. --Aminz 17:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, I really can not continue discussion with Tickle me, unless he writes more politely. --Aminz 18:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a look, but he really doesn't seem that uncivil to me. --Tony Sidaway 07:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Dabljuh

Hi. I'm quite positive you're well informed of this editor's behavior and his actions about wikipedia. As per the section on WP:AN/I, its been established his deratory comments have been a consitent problem since the time of his account's creation. Since then, he's taken to the evasion of blocks by (presumely) rotating IP addresses. This in itself isn't a problem, since this has been dealt with previously in the past; a brief note to Brian would settle this.

The problem is the behavor and the outspoken comments by new editors who don't proceed to take this seriously. Depending on the comments made on this user's talk, I'm going to proceed with an community ban purposal on the incident noticeboard. This is quite likely to fail by merit of the defense of said editors. However its curcial we attempt dispute resolution and additonal measures at this point before we contact Brian and construct a file to the Arbitration Committee, which currently seems very likely. -ZeroTalk 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes, you have my support in this. I will however be too busy to pursue this myself; I may soon find myself too busy off-wiki to do much. Please approach some other reliable administrator and ask them if they are able to spare the time needed. --Tony Sidaway 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I gave you notification in case you wished to recluse yourself as a clerk and add a comment. This is my first arbitration file and I would like to verify its done correctly. -ZeroTalk 08:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh he said he rejected arbitration as a fundamentally flawed process, so I took him at his word and blocked him indefinitely. I can't see why he bothered hanging around if he can't accept the fundamental rules of the place. --Tony Sidaway 07:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I loved your cutting of this particular Gordian Knot, Tony, well done! —Stormie 21:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User:Dschor mentorship

Tony, would you be willing to follow through on your offer to mentor User:Dschor? I think he would benefit from a slightly lighter touch. --Paleoglot 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, just keeping him blocked is a much better idea. --Cyde↔Weys 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How so? --Igneoglot 05:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't find his response to my offer encouraging so I dropped the idea. A mentorship can't really work unless both parties trust one another's good faith. --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You might want to suggest that someone else mentor him, then. He seemed interested in the idea. --70.218.44.122 01:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I think I'm the only person who would have the patience for it. If someone else is interested, good luck to them. --Tony Sidaway 07:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] aha

I believe that WP:AGF has been redirected to Wikipedia: Ignore Bad Acts. Hipocrite 20:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite. --Tony Sidaway 07:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rogue Admin Cabal - Saint Tony

Image:TonyPatronSaint2.png With apologies to KillerChihuahua (talk • contribs). --Colita 01:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lovely! --Tony Sidaway 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Glad you like it. Rouge from a Rogue. --70.218.57.64 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

More or less done with this case now. --Tony Sidaway 07:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikiproject Deleted!!!

Hello, I am the founder of a Wikiproject that you just deleted. Could you perhaps give me an explanation for deleting it? Thetruthbelow 23:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, could you please explain your reason behind deletion of the new WikiProject set up only minutes ago. This was no April Fools joke neither trolling. Please explain. Moe Epsilon 23:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what on earth possessed you to produce this utterly unwikipedian trash. --Tony Sidaway 23:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, I have taken it to Deletion Review. Next time you decide to make a comment, please try to remain as civil as you can. Thank you! — Moe Epsilon 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My friend, I know that you deleted the Wikiproject with only the best intentions in mind, but we created the project with those same intentions. The project wasn't just about user pages, it was about helping both new and old editors with the technical side of wikipedia that they could use later on for articles, templates, etc. Mr. Sidaway, I greatly respect you and the many positive things you have done for Wikipedia, and I beg of you from the bottom of my heart to reconsider the deletion. Thank you, Thetruthbelow 00:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're not going to explain why you created this poisonous nonsense? --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that it was poisonous nonsense and I deeply apologize if it offended you. Thetruthbelow 00:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
See What Wikipedia Is Not. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Will (message me!) 09:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sceptre, you're demonstrating the pointlessness of using templates where English should be used. I've no idea what you consider to be a personal attack here. I've consistently commented on the extremely toxic nature of the material as far as I'm aware. If I have inadvertently commented on a person of course I apologise, but I'm not aware of having done so and I will remain unaware unless and until you actually type some words onto this talk page, in English or another language we can both read, explaining which particular statement you consider to be a personal attack. --Tony Sidaway 09:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Not Scepter, but you may want to look at "what on earth possessed you" and, of a lesser severity, "why you created this poisonous nonsense". The former clearly implies a problem with the person (he's possessed). The latter could be understood as a false accusation of vandalism. In both cases, the preferable actions would be to (1) avoid accusations, instead focusing on the negative content rather than the creator of it, (2) avoid the use of "you" if possible, especially if it is being used in a negative light and (3) avoid loaded terms that don't add anything like "poisonous". BigDT 13:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh "what on earth possessed you?" It's just a figure of speech. Like "What got into you?" Possibly a transatlantic problem. As for the word "poisonous", I don't think that'a inappropriate in the circumstances. Vile, contagious, utterly against Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Tony, I would refer you to the stay cool essay linked in the previous user's template. Item #2 says, "Don't label or give names to people or their edits. Terms like "racist" or "fascist" (or even "moron") enrage people and make them defensive. When this happens, it becomes hard to have a productive discussion." I don't know that I can put it any better than that. By saying things like "poisonous", "extremely toxic", "utterly unwikipedian trash", etc, you are placing the other user on the defensive. Rather than inviting him to reconsider his potential error, this hostile terminology is more likely to cause him to become more dedicated to his opinion because he will now be emotionally involved in it. By leaving out such terms, you remove emotional attachment from the issue and make it more likely that agreement can be reached on the subject. If I call a coworker into my office and berate the lousy code he wrote, it's only going to make him defend his actions. But if, instead, I calmly explain problems with his methodology, I help him learn from the experience and write better code in the future. BigDT 14:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Changing timestamps?

Hello again Tony. I saw that in this diff you changed a timestamp of a user's comment. While it looks like it was a complete accident, I would appreciate it if you could try to avoid this in the future. Happy editing! -- Where is Where? 00:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like I really messed up in that edit. I also noticed that Splash inadvertently removed one of my votes in another edit. I suspect this is a side effect of all the edit conflicts we're having. I'll try to restore anything that has been trashed, in a few hours when that discussion becomes less busy. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Where is Where? 01:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Leyasu sock (?)

Hi, I know you blocked Leyasu's previous sock puppet Leyasu1 (talk • contribs), but it seems he/she has created other MetalsMainLady (talk • contribs) as you can see, the user signed up only today and their only edits so far are on 3 articles that Leyasu was indefinetly banned from editing, reverting back to preious versions by Leyasu. [8]

Earlier in the day, he had tried the same thing using anonymous IP's 86.136.231.107 (talk • contribs) & 81.157.83.1 (talk • contribs) with the exact same reverts, on the exact same article (Gothic metal, Speed metal, List of heavy metal genres), could you sort it out please?... thanks - Deathrocker 01:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there are two IPs that qualify as potential socks for Leyasu. These are the IPs: 217.218.173.227 and 81.157.83.1. My suspicions are based on activities including reverting and editing banned items. Thank you for dealing with this matter. --Andy Blak 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] npa "infantile troll"

As a friend of snotty, and having heard of the others, and knowing that timewise they wouldnt be on, hope I hadnt over-reacted, some of snottys friends think its a great joke! Thanks anyway, will be interesting to see when it tries to emerge again. Keep up the good work! SatuSuro 01:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've no idea what this is about. Who is snotty? --Tony Sidaway 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, an over-reaction on my part. a nick name for one of the admins who had been targeted as having a personality problem, which you corrected the vandalism. SatuSuro 09:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removing comments

Also, I saw that you were removing other people's comments. However, in an arbcom decision, the arbcom ruled that removing personal attacks should be done sparingly; thus, I would think that this would imply that removing other people's comments in general should not be done except in the most extreme cases. Please let me know what you think. Once again, happy editing! -- Where is Where? 01:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In general I adopt a liberal approach to removing clutter from my talk page. This has nothing to do with the Remove personal attacks policy addressed in that arbitration case. Rather, it's just my way of dealing with the high traffic on my talk page, and the need to keep it focussed. Here's a list of recent removals:

It isn't that unusual for people to put nonsense on my talk page. It doesn't remain here long. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I agree. Nothing terribly horrible with removing things from your own personal talk page (after all, Jimbo Wales once did it; although note that doing so does violate Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). However, I have seen that you have also been removing stuff from other pages, like here, but I understand now that this might have been a total accident. Anyway, thanks for your time! -- Where is Where? 02:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV vs. NOR?

Tony, this issue has come up across a number of unrelated articles. Suppose the scholarly literature is itself biased, enough for it to seem obvious to a significant number of talk page editors. Is it our responsibility to account for this bias, or would that constitute original research?Timothy Usher 07:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we present the scholarly literature in a neutral manner. If the researchers within the field are producing biased work (and this does happen in small, narrowly defined fields) then this will presumably be evident to their colleagues outside the field and the opinion of the wider academic community will tend to contradict their views markedly. The problem I think we have with the Dhimmi article at the moment, I think, is that the language of the article is itself heavily loaded, and the facts presented are not set in context. This was the sense of the example I gave. --Tony Sidaway 07:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't the only article I'd had in mind, but it is present there, too. Aminz is a collegial and reasonable editor who is trying to find some good sources to balance it out. Bless sins' presented one art history book to support the claim that Dhimmi lived in mansions, while another cite was proven to have been egregiously mischaracterized. It goes downhill from there.
At the same time, I can hardly disagree that the language is loaded, and reflects the point of view of its writers. Toning down unnecessary language is a worthy goal.
Anyhow, you've answered my general question, and have confirmed my understanding. Thank you.Timothy Usher 09:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mr. Sidaway...God of Wikipedia

Wasn't Zero also having troubles with User:Moby Dick? I'll look over the details at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick, but about all I can now remember is that I concurred (and still do) that Moby appeared to be a Davenbelle sock. What would you want me to add...and do you have any of the further diffs to demonstrate this evidence?--MONGO 10:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I just thought it would be polite to let you know. --Tony Sidaway 10:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes it was...do you need me to add anything?--MONGO 11:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really. I think we've about covered it. --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User talk:Myrtone86

An unblock request has been posted there, which appears to be valid (as I can't see any new posts being signed with the disruptive signature.) Therefore, please could you unblock, or provide another reason/elaboration why the block should stay? Petros471 10:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See this at 0518 this morning and this yesterday. He's gone back to using PAGENAME to put bogus .com.au email addresses into his signature, for which he was blocked before. --Tony Sidaway 10:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Those are not new posts, they are edits to existing posts. I have seen no evidence that the disruptive signature (and yes I agree the PAGENAME thing is disruptive) is still set as Myrtone86's signature. New posts are signed like this. Petros471 10:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I boobed. Unblocking. --Tony Sidaway 10:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Petros471 10:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Have you seen worse?

Hey, as someone who has kept an eye out for this type of thing, have you seen a greater discrepency between length of comment and length of signature coding than this? I already asked him to change it up, but didn't know if this was the worst. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This?
[[user:GangstaEB|<font color=black>G</font>]][[user talk:GangstaEB|<font color=red>a</font>]][[user:GangstaEB/Esperanza|<font color=green>n</font>]][[user:GangstaEB/pagemap|<font color=orange>g</font>]][[Special:Contributions/user:GangstaEB|<font color=blue>staEB</font>]] [[user:GangstaEB/friends|<font color=yellow>&</font> <font color=purple>friends</font>]]
It's horrible, perhaps even worse than the one being used by Cuivienen until recently:
<!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—<font color="gray">[[Wikipedia:Concordia|C]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|uivi]]<font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>[[User talk:Cuivienen|nen]]<span style="font-size:85%;"> on [[Tuesday]], [[6 June]] [[2006]] at 14:54 [[UTC]]</span>'''<!--Cuivienen's signature ends here-->

Cheers, --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Provocation?

What are you talking about now? I was reverting a POV (and possible vadlised) edit, and giving a reasoned explianation as to why. Where's the provocation in that? Would you rather I not revert such POV edits and compramise the quality of the articles? You've still done nothing about Feline1 and you're monertering every little thing I do, calling me on the smallest, most insignificant things. Are you trying to pick on me or something? That's uncalled for, coz I'm doing good work. I don't need threats of blocking, it's uncalled for. Byeee--Crestville 18:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Curse you Sidaway! I so wanted to loose my temper with you, but as ever you are very reasonable, you silver tounged charmer, you. I'll try to tone it down, but please try to understand, when dealing with subjects in your original, more heavy handed approach, editors can get wound up be vandels, but with the best interests of wikipedia at heart. This leads to provocative edit summaries, and as such, perhaps could be dealt with in a "softly softly" appropach. While what you did was right, I'm sure you can understand my initial annoyance at been threateded with a "last warning" when I had acted with good intentions. We are, from the day we're born, 'till the day we die, always learning, always amending our ways. Take care.--Crestville 19:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Applies to me too. --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't think of it that way.--Crestville 10:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Spamming

Tony, User:BhaiSaab has been spamming a number of User talk pages, every one of whom but Zora is listed as a member of The Muslim Guild, where Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad was proposed for deletion: [9],[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].Timothy Usher 00:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply: [16]. BhaiSaab 00:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you block him. Please do not try to involve me in your petty wars. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have posted here if he hadn't. Timothy is not an admin though, so he can't block me. BhaiSaab talk 01:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The admin in question

While you were busy on my talk page, I was busy naming the admin in question.

Not that I expect that to make any difference, at this point; it's obvious that your disruptive out-of-process deletions and wheel warring have the support of the admin community, since in the numerous times you've been taken to dispute resolution, not once has anyone so much as slapped your hand. That's why I won't do it. I wouldn't have a whelk's chance in a supernova. Jay Maynard 00:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I go out of my way to avoid disruption. Letting the userbox thing fester for five months is proof of that. You may be right about not standing a welk's chance, but don't try to lay that at the door of others. Now you have named the admin, and it's Metamagician3000, but I notice that the history of his talk page contains not one single edit by you. What's going on? --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Going out of your way to avoid disruption would not be, for example, speedy-deleting userboxes out from under a concerted effort to implement WP:GUS. Going out of your way to avoid disruption would not be "cleaning up" legal signatures you didn't like in the very RFC in which you're the subject for doing so, thus showing contempt for the dispute resolution process itself. Going out of your way to avoid disruption would not be re-deleting a page that's under DRV and salting the earth in a blatant attempt to prejudge the outcome.
I haven't gone to Metamagician3000's talk page because I didn't believe it would be necessary, since I hadn't intended to drag him into the dispute. Still, he took me to task for daring to suggest that some admins' actions were not based on a desire to be consistent, and if you really care that much, I'll find the exact quote (though it may be a few days back in the DRV history, and I have no idea how to search history pages). Jay Maynard 01:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What does "speedy-deleting userboxes out from under a concerted effort to implement WP:GUS mean? Are you accusing me of sabotaging the reduction of userboxes to mere novelties and freak-shows? My friend, I was at the heart of it, every step of the way. Of course any talk page can be refactored, why do you think there is a problem with this? Of course all pages that must be deleted from Wikipedia shall be deleted, whatever the vote-packers on DRV may say.

You claim that you "hadn't intended to drag him (Metamagician3000) into the dispute" and yet that is precisely what you set out, deliberately, to do. --Tony Sidaway 01:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when are you the ultimate arbiter of what shall and shall not be on Wikipedia? That's exactly what you're setting yourself up as with statements such as "Of course all pages that must be deleted from Wikipedia shall be deleted, whatever the vote-packers on DRV may say." and deleting pages accordingly. If that's the case, what's the point of *fD and DRV?
No, I did not set out to drag him into the dispute. I was pointing out an inconsistency in the statements of admins on how things should be run around here. It doesn't matter that Metamagician3000 is the admin who made the other statement. It matters that there is inconsistency. Jay Maynard 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not the ultimate arbiter, I have a pretty good idea of what happens. You ask What's the poin? Well obviously it's important to gather opinions. But we don't gather opinions and say, for instance "copyright law says we must not do this, but consensus opinion is that we do. We are not engaged in a suicide pact.
If you didn't set out to drag him into the dispute, why did you attribute an opinion to him and then, by implication, extend that projected opinion to all administrators? I'll await Metamagician's reply, but on the fact of it your report of what he said, as relayed to him on his talk page, does not seem to be consistent with your earlier claims. --Tony Sidaway 01:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If the idea is to gather opinions, then deleting a page on which opinions are being sought seriously damages that process - and if it's desirable int he first place, it's desirable to allow it to run to its conclusion. Your action said that you don't care about the opinions that DRV is there to gather - yet another way you show contempt for others. Yes, there are some tings that warrant speedy deletion with no recourse. This is not one of them, as evidenced that there are lots of admins who disagree with you in that very discussion.
I ascribed his opinion to all admins because nobody disagreed with it. Jay Maynard 01:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's set the rhetoric aside for a bit. Could you please just provide a diff linking to the statement you ascribe to Metamagician3000? Since you seem to be ascribing the opinions that you read from this statement to all administrators, I think it would be a good idea if we all knew what common opinions, precisely, we administrators assumed to hold. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If I can find it. I'm not at all sure how to go looking for it. It's in an old DRV (or maybe TFD) discussion (where "old" is "more than a few days ago"). Jay Maynard 01:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay. But if you're going to make accusations that you intend to extend to all administrators it probably helps to have some kind of documentation. In arbitration, I commonly haul stuff out of history going back six months and more, it's not that difficult. And the cases I deal with apply to one person, not an entire class of Wikipedia editors. --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding how to find it, if I may interject, I'd probably start here and do a page-search for the word "user" (if you think it was a userbox discussion). He also might remember making the statement. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (This comment is directed to Jay, not to Tony; I actually thought this was his talk page until I hit "save". -GTBacchus(talk) 02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC))


[edit] I hope this was not intentional

Tony, What is this edit about? I'm assuming you didn't mean to remove my comments and the comments of others? Thank you for commenting that the LGBT board is different from the conservative one. But if you accept the viability of the LGBT board, can you see how the Politics board could evolve into something equally viable? I don't understand why you are taking such a heavy handed approach to the politics board. It came out of discussion on how to make the conservative board acceptable. As you state, it is possible to have a notice board that is acceptable if it presents issues to a diverse group in an NPOV way. Why not help shape the politics board in this direction instead of polarizing people by summarily deleting it. People with strong points of view can become good editors if they are guided in how to edit in a neutral way. I strongly object to most conservative positions, but I believe that the most extreme conservative stance can be presented in a neutral way. -- Samuel Wantman 01:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


That looks completely screwed. I've noticed a few weird edits like that recently but nothing quite so horrible. Could you please replace the removed material on my behalf? I'd rather not try it myself in case something similar happens again. My apologies to all involved. --Tony Sidaway 02:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2006_06_25_3f31.html"