User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 07 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole 2 Closing Blu Aardvark 3 Fresh Start 4 Fresh Start 5 Yo... 6 TfD 7 fudgepacker 8 Irishpunktom arbcom case 9 No semi-protection? 10 Urgent matter 11 Just an FYI 12 From deletion review 13 Raul654 and Linuxbeak 13.1 Update: New Sock 14 Sorry 15 Dodging CSD T1 16 Stuff 17 Removing autoblock? 18 If not mine, Tony, then whose? Yours? 18.1 More specifically, then 19 Breakdown of common sense 20 My minor involvment 21 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole

Thanks for your note, it now has enough votes to close. Thanks for your help. :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Tony Sidaway 11:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing Blu Aardvark

00:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) - 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC) is quite a bit shorter than 24 hours? Kotepho 01:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I normally close them immediately there is a net four votes to close, unless the motion was made less than twenty-four hours previously. This is my interpretation of the closing procedure. The first motion to close was nearly four days previously. --Tony Sidaway 02:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a particular problem, but if that is the correct/current procedure the policy should be updated to reflect that. "...twenty-four hours shall be observed between the fourth net vote to close the case..." prohibits it in my view (well, unless you read it as the case is closed, but just the remedies aren't in effect). What is an extra day in something that takes a month? Kotepho 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, reading Wikipedia:Arbitration policy I see:

"A grace period of a minimum of twenty-four hours shall be observed between the fourth net vote to close the case and the going into effect of those Remedies passed in the case, unless four or more Arbitrators vote to close the case immediately, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have voted to close the case."

In practice, I just went by the procedural instructions on the arbitration template: "24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close." I'd no idea that the arbitration policy was so instruction-bound on this matter. In practice I think most of the cases close pretty much routinely within the meaning of those instructions, because four is usually the majority of involved arbitrators and, if there is a dissenting vote (making three-to-one), this is resolved by two more arbitrators voting to close (making five for close, one against). This latter case happened the other day on the Locke Cole closure, which due to James F's opposition was stalemated for several weeks until Morven intervened.

If in doubt, I send a memory-jogging email to all the arbitrators. Some motions to close are stalemated for weeks on the mailing list, which can be frustrating for those of us who cannot see the deliberations (if any). -Tony Sidaway 03:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While they may be within the letter of the policy, the way it is worded (in my opinion) sounds like closing without the grace period is intended to be an exception. The policy fails to define what constitues being active on a case, voting on a motion? commenting? does a vote to accept count?

If you only have the bare minimum of arbitrators on each case (a majority of total active, so things may pass--which seems to be the recent norm) the only time 4 is not a majority of those active on a case is when there are 14 active arbitrators (8 needed for majority to pass motions, 5 would be a majority active then).

If it is only intended to apply when there is contention in the case and more than the barest number of arbitrators are involved or there is opposition to the closing, it fails in cases such as Netholic (8 active, 5 close 1 not close, 5 is a majority of 8, so it could close instantly).

Thus, I'm not even sure when the grace period is intended to be used frankly. Oh well, it is a minor detail. Anything that was left untidy or objected to could always be fixed by a motion in a prior case or some such. Kotepho 05:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh Start

No more fire-breathing, no more. :-)--Fahrenheit451 15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Listen to David Gerard. He's been dealing with this kind of thing for as long as I have, if not longer. --Tony Sidaway 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand now. Got to fly above it all. --Fahrenheit451 16:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh Start

No more fire-breathing, no more. :-)--Fahrenheit451 15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Listen to David Gerard. He's been dealing with this kind of thing for as long as I have, if not longer. --Tony Sidaway 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand now. Got to fly above it all. --Fahrenheit451 16:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yo...

I know that. I'm siding with you in a non-descript way ;-) CQJ 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what? <puzzled look>

Welcome to the bob-sleigh ride. --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD

Hello again. I'm contacting you in addition to other experienced contributors for feedback on a TfD discussion. I think a potentially very disruptive template is on verge of being kept. If you have time, please take a look at this TfD discussion, letting me know if I'm wrong. [1] Best regards. 172 | Talk 23:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Contacting other users for feedback is the sprit of peer editing that makes Wikipedia work, not "spamming." I have been contacting various users for specific reasons: they tend to participate in matters like TfD discussions, they have lots of experience, and they are familiar with my work to enough of an extent that they won't be surprised about receiving a message from me. (I am definitely not contacting users whom I know will vote a certain way. I have had editorial disagreements with just about all the users I've contacted-- you included. At times these disputes have occurred on deletion pages.)

In addition, just about all the contributors I've contacted have responded positively about similar requests for feedback on my part in the past. You were the exception, but I thought I'd give you a try, given your experience and knowledge of policy. I respect that you don't appear to be willing to collaborate with me. I understand that wish; there are editors with whom I rather not collaborate as well. So I will no longer contact you. Respectfully, 172 | Talk 00:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's appalling. I cannot imagine that you truly believe that this kind of selective mass solicitation has anything to do with Wikipedia. Please reconsider. --Tony Sidaway 00:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As I told Naconkantari, another user who questioned a previous request for feedback on my part: I was contacting only a relatively small group of users for a specific set of reasons, not "spamming." I was contacting only the following: (1) users who have established solid reputations in the community for long-time, quality contibutions to articles on [the subject] (2) long-time users who know me well and whom I know, giving me an idea that they may be interested in the subject (3) users who are currently active (4) and finally users I have contacted in the past regarding similar requests who tend to respond to my talk page posts. Again, I was not "spamming" anyone but seeking feedback from some of Wikipedia's top editors; this is a prime example of the kind of peer editing process on which Wikipedia is based. Upon giving my actions more consideration, he ended up concluding, "Very well, as it seems like a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia" [[2]

You did not meet the forth criterion. So, again, I apologize for contacting you in particular. Nevertheless, as Naconkantari suggested, my requests are a good-faith effort to improve Wikipedia. I have contacted solid contributors who have established reputations for well-reasoned, civil feedback on deletion pages. They only share one main characteristic in common: They are dedicated, competent Wikipedians. Again, they do not necessarily share the same POV on anything; each of them has disagreed with me from time to time over the past three years. As long as I am a Wikipedia editor, I will consider contacting them from time to time. After all, they are often a lot more clear and insightful than I am. 172 | Talk 00:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fudgepacker

i agree on the inclusion. i just disagreed with the juvenile matter of which is was described. Drmagic 00:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, me too. --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irishpunktom arbcom case

Thanks Tony Sidaway for copying over the details from the proposed deciscion area. That made me re-evaluate the details of the case and make further commentary. Cheers. Netscott 17:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Of course it doesn't take a clerk to do that, so feel free to monitor the proposed decision and copy over anything you think appropriate. That way the discussion on the proposed decision will be widened beyond the arbitrators themselves--which is the whole point of a workshop. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I'll bear that in mind in this case and in future ones should they arise. I'm curious, I'm not a party to this case and as such I can not make motions in it but if I could I'd motion to have the proposed deciscion relative to David (User:Dbiv) re-evaluated. Any suggestions? Netscott 17:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Anybody can make a motion on the Workshop. While you may not be listed as a party to the case, if you were involved in the events your actions may be considered and remedies may apply to you, whether or not you were originally listed as a party. So it's probably better to just jump in and propose motions.

If a remedy has been proposed in the proposed decision in this case and you disagree with it, the best way to influence it is to copy it to the workshop and make a comment on it. --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, your suggestions have been very helpful and I've followed them. I'm not sure if I should make a motion now or not... I'm thinking not with only two members of Arbcom having signed on to the proposed remedy regarding Dbiv. One last suggestion in this regard if you would :-) ? Netscott 17:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The best time to make a suggstion is while the people who need to act on it are still making up their minds. Strike while the iron is hot. --Tony Sidaway 11:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No semi-protection?

You claimed in Talk:Ayn Rand that you semi-protected my talk page, yet it is not semi-protected. I would like it semi-protected, though I don't think it's fair to claim you did it as an excuse to delete my comments on that talk page. -- LGagnon 23:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have semiprotected it. See the page history. You can add a semiprotect template yourself if you like, but I figure it was unnecessary as long as you and I know it's semi'd.

I'm sorry if my deletion seemed unfair. The real reason I removed your comment was because it was a violation of Assume good faith. --Tony Sidaway 23:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't check the edit history; I assumed it was required for a template to be placed during semi-protection (as I've never seen it done without one before), and I also didn't notice it on my watchlist. As for my comment, at this point I can't really assume good faith consistently with the people editing that article. They have broken every Wikipedia policy and guideline in an attempt to force out criticism of Rand from the article. They've attacked me numerous times in the past, and have only slowed it down now that an admin is working on the article. After having to report them for personal attacks and vandalism over and over again, it's hard to not blame them when one of their own (plus sock puppets of that/those person/people) starts vandalizing my user page as a partisan attack. I assume good faith when I can, but it's hard to do so when you are dealing with known repeat offenders who won't quit offending. -- LGagnon 04:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that, even if you are right about some people who edit that article, it surely cannot apply to everyone except you who edits that article. This is really not acceptable behavior, to make such broad brush accusations of bad faith. We have a dispute resolution process and I urge you to use it as an alternative to making such accusations, which can only worsen the editing environment. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, dispute resolution doesn't work. I tried it before, and the admins there seem to be unwilling to work on anything that's either "not a big enough problem" or "too hostile" (whatever that means). They reject any attempt I make to solve a problem through their methods, so it's pointless to make use of them.

Second of all, I wasn't talking about everyone other than me; there are neutral editors there that do not have anything against me. I was referring to the pro-Rand faction, a distinct set of editors who are notorious for violating policy in the process of making the article's POV more pro-Rand. They already have a record of vandalism and personal attacks that admins have warned them for (one was even banned recently), and it was one of their own (who is a sock puppet for one of the others) that started the vandalism against my user page. I don't know which one of them owns that sock puppet yet, so my warning had to be directed to the group rather than any single one.

On a side note, I could use semi-protection on my talk page too, as they are vandalizing it as well. -- LGagnon 16:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent matter

Could you please read the top paragraph of my user page and give me advice on what to do about this? --TJive 15:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the user that appeared today? --TJive 16:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just an FYI

It is not my style to ever talk behind another's back so this is a link to a comment I just made re a discussion on the RfA process where I cited your specific admin style. Nothing I would not say to you directly if we were chatting but in the interest of transparency this is a little FYI for you. Let me know if the comment is one youd like to discuss further, and as per thanks in advance GIen 16:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll not be surprised to find that I disagree, at least mildly, that users supported at RFA because they are liked are worthy on that merit alone. This in my mind is completely the wrong reason to support a candidate for administrator. I've opposed editors I personally liked and supported editors I didn't get on with, and I'd look with extreme distrust on anyone who would defend a support for adminship solely on the fact that he likes the candidate. --Tony Sidaway 22:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely concur with your final sentence above. It was never my position that votes should ever be made solely due to liking the canditate. A contributing factor yes however, - Glen 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the playing field. That's what rfa is about, currently. I rarely see a nomination pass like the they used to, when editors were chosen for their usefulness to the encyclopedia. It’s a popularity contest. I don't even waste my time there anymore. Administrative quality has descended substantially. That's a little sad. I take note that, similar nonsense has occurred over at DRV and MFD. "We are interested in process, not content". Such turning points in wikipedia are very disgraceful and paticularly dissapoint me. -Zero^Talk 22:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From deletion review

• Talk:DRv Thread 1 • thread 2 • thread 3

Tony, arising from the discussion in these threads I ask that you refrain from closing reviews early, or that you've participated in, or of your own actions, and refrain from closing reviews with other-than-factual closing summaries. I have been closing less reviews in the last few weeks, but if there is a perceived shortage of admins to close DRv discussions, you need only leave a note on my talk and I'll make the effort. brenneman 05:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on those points. --Tony Sidaway 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I'd ask then that you review the talk to date. While there is general agreement that a rule would be overkill, so too is there consensus that these are actions to be avoided. More to the point, they serve no purpose. So as there are suggestions to stop from, well, almost everyone but you, please take heed. - brenneman 01:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you've succeeded in arguing yourself into a corner where you cannnot but grossly misrepresent the feeling of Wikipedia on a number of matters, including this. I simply observe that I rarely close deletion reviews (this is a Good Thing), and those that I do close are closed in the best interests of Wikipedia and remain so. I have ignored the petty niceties which you and a few others have tried and failed to have encrusted into Wikipedia's already overburdened system of rules. Of course you're going to be a little concerned about this, but Wikipedia is really not about doing thing's Aaron's way, as I think you must have realised after all this time. --Tony Sidaway 10:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be Civil. Wikipedia is not Tony's way either. The policies "encrusted" in Wikipedia are for a purpose and get rid of the possibility of one person (aka, you) deciding what stays and what goes. There is no clear-cut line on these things, and it takes a community discussion to decide these things most of the time. Please respect that. Thank you, Chcknwnm 14:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Was it the word "encrusted" that struck you as uncivil? I'm glad that you agree with me that no one person decides what says and what goes. --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that appears to be the point of the disagreement. All to often it appears that Tony is the one person who decides what "says" (sic) and what goes. Just because you close a deletion review early doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you. And the plain fact is that on a number of occasions, these closures have been challenged by other wikipedians, and these challenges have been ignored and suppressed by you. This is the problem Tony: deletion review should not be the place where you define for the rest of us what the "feeling of Wikipedia" might be, as if you have priviledged access to that feeling. Just follow common sense unless there is a compelling reason not to, and people will stop complaining. --70.58.207.128 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen any significant complaints, and I recall none that have prevailed. Rubbish that needs to be killed gets killed. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is part of the problem, Tony. You are acting as if you are the sole arbiter of what complaints are "significant", and you feel free to remove complaints that you find "disruptive", even if the only disruption is disagreement with you. It is hard to complain when you are faced with an administrator who is determined - complaints just seem to disappear. You need to let other wikipedians comment on your actions without fear of retribution. You are not the "decider" when it comes to what is "rubbish". That is a decision that is (or should be) made by the community. --71.36.251.182 16:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your characterisation is borne out by the available evidence. Just because a few people make complaints, doesn't make the complaints valid. You say I feel free to remove complaints that you find "disruptive". Well if I did encounter such complaints I expect I would remove them, but I'm not aware of having encountered such complaints relating to me.

While I'm not a decider (there is no such thing on Wikipedia), I simply observe that my decisions tend to prevail. This is of course expected, and nothing special. But it does need to be stated, if only because you're implying that this was all the result of some unspecified jiggery-pokery making complaints "disappear". You know that bit in Star Wars where Obi Wan says "These aren't the droids you're looking for." and the Stormtrooper replies "These aren't the droids we're looking for.". That was just a movie. --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That was an entertaining piece of obfuscation. Just because you conveniently don't remember removing comments relating to yourself doesn't mean it didn't happen. The wonderful thing about rollback is that the evidence is hidden. I expect that you will use these tools in the same inappropriate manner in the future, but would suggest that doing so will probably simply lead to more complaints. If you need more evidence, it is not hard to find. Try DRV. --70.213.233.192 03:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not obfuscating, just wondering what you're talking about. I certainly do often remove comments relating to myself from this talk page, if that's what you mean. Use of rollback in such a case would not conceal this.

When you refer to "more complaints", I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that complaints about procedure not being followed are quite common but this is rarely regarded as problematic where the results are acceptable (the Snowball clause being just one expression of the state of affairs pertaining). When the complainants freely admit that the procedural rule not being followed does not exist and morever probably should not exist, I don't really see how the complaints can be taken seriously at all. --Tony Sidaway 11:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of occasions that come to mind where you cited WP:SNOW when closing DRV discussions well before the 10 day period (or even one day, in some cases) had elapsed. In some cases, when others attempted to comment on this, the comments were removed. This is larger than simply the issue of your closing debates that you have a stake in. This is about closing debates with insufficient concern for the purpose of DRV. --71.36.251.182 17:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raul654 and Linuxbeak

Thank you for responding and moving my comment to the appropriate place. Blainetologist 18:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Tony Sidaway 01:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update: New Sock

And another sock-puppet created by Leyasu; exact same articles, same reverts, signed up today. Strappingthesource (talk • contribs) [3] - Deathrocker 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I reverted the wrong page. Sorry for that. Anonymous__Anonymous 12:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No hassle. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dodging CSD T1

Hey Tony, I hope enough time has passed since "the rebellion" that I can amicably wish you a happy Fourth of July. I left this message about the following issue for User:Cyde but thought that it'd probably be prudent to bring it up with you as well. It was brought to my attention that a userbox I recently speedeleted as being divisive was recreated in userspace and posted at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs. I'm removing it from there and will be deleting it out of the user space. I noticed that Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs is now filling up with userboxes that have been "Germaned" or speedied. I'm going to delete them as violating the spirit, if not the letter, of CSD T1 and making WP:GERMAN irrelevant, and was hoping for oversight from other admins. Let me know if you have any thoughts on the issue. JDoorjam 16:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this, though my opinion on whether the speedies are appropriate in the circumstances will depend on whether the contents violate the spirit of our Wikipedia:User page guideline (which I think it the appropriate test to apply to T1 in the circumstances).

If Userboxes/Beliefs has now substantially filled up with userfied userboxes, it should be adopted by some user and userfied, then in a month or so the link should be removed from project space. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff

I've sent you an e-mail. -Randall Brackett 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the view. I have replied and asked another question as well. -Randall Brackett 23:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing autoblock?

Tony, could you explain how to remove an "autoblock"? Thanks. Jossi 19:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You go to Special:Ipblocklist and search for the username. You may have to search several pages back to get all autoblocks. There is an "unblock" link on each autoblock, so you just click that and enter an unblock summary. Repeat until you're sure all the autoblocks have been removed. --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If not mine, Tony, then whose? Yours?

Copied from User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#Trounced

I've got no problem with stamping your principles into the dust. We're not here to uphold those. To describe "strongly endorsed" as highly biased in the circumstances is simply inaccurate. A blatant attack on Wikipedia was crushed by a strong endorsement, and I'm very proud of that. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked in an above section if you could please attempt to be nice, and attempted to serve an obliquely reminder you had been officially asked to do so. I'll now ask again that you abide not only by our shared conventions as editors, and not only as per our five pillars, but as a requirement of a ruling of the Arbitration Committee: Please be civil.

Not only was that response exceptionally incivil, it fails utterly to acknowledge the content of the DRv discussion in question. Less than sixty percent of those who participated suggested this be kept deleted.

Regarding the points I've raised with your closings as well as your "strong endorsements", I'll try to eliminate any clutter that may have been obfuscatory for you is the discussion:

• In the "Closing discussions you've participated in" section, of those who expressed a clear opinon, 50% suggested you quit:
  • "no different from AfD" brenneman
  • "poor form" Metamagician3000
  • "dissent a little" + "I don't see the need to hurry" Splash
  • "no problem" The Land
• In the "Admins closing their own reviews" section, the consensus was even more clear, with only Rossami dissenting:
  • "Discussions should not be closed by any involved admin." Paul August
  • "silly to let people close reviews of their own decisions." W.marsh
  • "It's a conflict of interest" Deathphoenix
  • "bad practice" Metamagician3000
  • "get a neutral admin" Ansell
  • "An absolute prohibition against closing any discussion in which you've participated is overkill." Rossami
  • "inflates the appearance of abuse" badlydrawnjeff
  • "Even the appearance of partiality should be avoided." Lar
  • "The right thing must not only be done, but must be seen to be done." Jay Maynard
  • "We have enough admins to manage without you in this one case" nae'blis
• In the "Closer notes" section... I'll spare you the blow-by-blow. Here are your edits, though:
  • 20:11, 20 June 2006 "Close, kd, strongly endorsed" (Closed DRv)
  • 20:13, 20 June 2006 "Kept deleted. Strong endorsement" (First note to DRv log)
  • 00:44, 24 June 2006 "Strong endorsement should be recorded. Wikipedia spoke that day." (First reversion to DRv log)
  • 03:29, 24 June 2006 "Utterly beyond belief." (Second reversion to DRv log)

While it has been me who has raised (and pursued) this issue with you, it's borderline perfidy to imply that I'm alone in asking you to stop actions of this sort. So, I'll ask once more and then abandon this attempt at dialog: Please stop closing deletion discussions early, that cover you own actions, or that you've participated in. Please also cease editorialising in deletion discussions.Aaron Brenneman 01:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Flattened.

No, seriously. If you think there is now consensus for a policy decision, stop inflicting ridiculous formatting on my talk page and go for it. I continue to find your behavior and overall attitude utterly beyond belief.

I do find it amusing that you record that I have been "officially" asked to be civil, while you fail to record that the very same order included you,too. And you could hardly claim to be more civil than me.

And the answer that you don't want to hear is:

Not yours, not mine: Wikipedia's. --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And hang on a bit: "Please stop closing deletion discussions early, that cover you own actions, or that you've participated in." That's utter nonsense into the bargain.

And "Please also cease editorialising in deletion discussions". Oh no. The closing admin decides. If two thirds of editors oppose undeletion on review, I'll call it a strong opposition. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, what makes you think I'd ever support the idea of administrators closing reviews of their own actions? I surely must have missed something here in all the froth. --Tony Sidaway 03:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More specifically, then

You're committing the pathetic fallacy. Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion, it's a collection of sparks and wires used to store a series of communications. The question is how do we determine community opinion.

Clearly I do not understand how you are determining it. Does the above referenced discussions indicate to you that there is "a general agreement" that editorialising on closes is an acceptable practice? I'm very clear on your view, so I'd like to understand what you think of the views of the others who took part in that discussion.

Aaron Brenneman 04:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't know how you are determined that any of the above, which I find interesting but somewhat tangential to my work on Wikipedia, pertains to me. If there's a specific deletion review close that I got wrong, let's talk about that. This vague stuff seems to be more about Aaron Brenneman making up lots of pseudo-policy and coming to my talk page with rather vague suggestions that I've been up to something I shouldn't, and asking me to stop. Now if I've closed a deletion review involving a deletion decision made by be, I'm not aware of it--perhaps you could be more specific. Oh the suggestion that I was "editorialising" on the close, I find that quite surreal. There was a strong endorsement for deletion and I recorded this fact. --Tony Sidaway 09:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps interesting questions are whether Tony would have commented on the opposite factually if this case had arisen, and whether others admins would have made similar comments in this case (ie is the individual affecting the result?). Stephen B Streater 07:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think closing any discussion should be prohibited in non-controversial cases. Someone involved may even appreciate the issues better in some cases. Stephen B Streater 07:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This case was a very clear cut abuse of Wikipedia and should never have even reached miscellany for deletion or deletion review. The item should have been deleted and the spammer blocked for disruption. --Tony Sidaway 08:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breakdown of common sense

Someone edits something... another decided they don't like it so they revert it. Is this revert the start of the edit war? Or is it the person who re-adds what was removed starting it?

This is the fundamental question which I think causes a breakdown of the rules of wikipedia and the rational level of common sense.

If I were to now go back into Here and add the wiktionary entries back in I would be accused of starting an edit war... yet is that truely fair? Should I now have to discuss my own original inclusion instead of you having to discuss your own reasons for removing it in the first place? Where is the common sense in that? Effectively anyone could revert anything knowing full well that if the other person puts it back in then an edit war is claimed.

I read your reasoning for removal but totally disagree with it... so what gives you more "power" in having your way correct and mine not? Why shoul the document itself now stand with it removed until I can gain consensus in having it added back in a second time?

So all in all I think we are repeating the same mistakes of the passed, ignoring common sense and that which is obviously reasonable (if these terms did not require defining then there wouldn't be so much discussion on the topic right? Yet you seem to feel that despite all this discussion the terms historically prove themselves somehow... clearly you beleive you are correct while every single other person who has questioned them is wrong. Good faith?). Enigmatical 22:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no more power than you. My reasoning either convinces you or it doesn't. If it doesn't, we continue to work together in pursuit of consensus. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But that is my problem. Why is that working together in persuit of consensus only occurs after you have reverted the change? Why doesn't working together occur before you revert it? or why doesn't it happen after I have restored it after your reversion? Can you see my point?? Enigmatical 01:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me completely. I expect the pursuit of consensus to take place, before, during and after. The order of editing is immaterial, only the consensual result matters. --Tony Sidaway 01:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Then your actions diametrically oppose your words. If you truely believed in consensus taking place before, then you would have raised the question in talk rather than just reverting it and then stating your opinion. So if the order immaterial, why revert it in the first place? Enigmatical 03:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. If I did what you suggest, then it would mean that I believed that the order mattered. But as I already told you, I don't. --Tony Sidaway 03:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to assume good faith as well in doing exactly what you say you do. You did indeed change it first and then seek its discussion afterwards, thus indicating by your action that order does matter. So please don't tell me to assume something you clearly are not willing to show yourself. Your edit did not add to the conscensus, it took away from it and you haven't even bothered to go back into the talk page to discuss the points I raised. So clearly you dont even care about the edit in the first place which makes me wonder why you did it. Lead by example, not by empty words please. Enigmatical 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're trying to browbeat me and score points. This isn't very productive. --Tony Sidaway 15:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see existing discussions on this topic so that we can get conscensus before modifying again. Enigmatical 01:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My minor involvment

Tony,

Given that the issue is now before ArbCom, I urge you to reconsider the bans you placed on me. My involvment was minor. This is an issue that many Wikipedia articles are involved in and I did nothing that caused disruption. With me or without me the results (getting to ArbCom) is the same. Tnx. Zeq 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem before me was pretty straightforward. An editor under probation was reported, on credible evidence, to be involved in a problematic situation. I banned you from the locus of the situation and in doing so undoubtedly helped to remove you from suspicion of worsening the problem. You were not banned from discussion and if your arguments had merit you had the opportunity to persuade other editors and to help to resolve the disputes amicably (I hope you took the opportunity to do so). I'm not going to lift the bans. --Tony Sidaway 15:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you know that from some of the articles you banned me there was no dispute as made 1 single edit in those.

In the Israeli paratheid I made 3 -4 edits (out of thousands). Many others have so far tried and failed to resolve the bigger dispute. My role is neglegent. Zeq 17:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Zeq (talk • contribs) is not a party to the current ArbComm proceeding at "Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid", and was not mentioned therein until he inserted a position statement and other edits into the request for arbitration. --John Nagle 17:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

John, Zeq can be a party to the ArbCom case if he wants to be, and may add others, unless the Committee itself decides otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony,

As you can see [4], Homey is now using the ban on me as an excuse to avoid mediation- using the argument that since I banned I should not have a say.

He conditioned his acceptence to participate in removing me from the mediation.

Given the time that passed, my minor involvment and the amount of people involved I expect that you will reconsider. As you can clearly see banning me ahs not improved the situation, it may have done the reverse. Best, Zeq 11:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Homeontherange's removal of your name, but I don't see that it affects the status of your ban. --Tony Sidaway 12:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He used the ban as an excuse to avoid medaition. (sayingthat a banned editor can not take part and until I am removed he will not agree.)

Tony, given the amount of peiople involved and the disruption caused by others (such as Homey), the use of sockppupets on this article and the violation of every possible wikipedia policy in this article i don't see how my ban contributed anything. Is it just a personal vandeta against me ? Clearly my ban did not contributed to calm. maybe just encourgae the extrimists to try and get more people banned (hence the RfA) . You need to give medaitaion a chance:

• Either convince Homey to accept the mediation with my participation or remove the ban. It is long overdue.Zeq 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for Homeontherange's behavior. Please take your concerns to the mediator. --Tony Sidaway 13:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you are responsible. Why ? because you took action that impacted his actions (weather you liked it or not, intented to it or not - you have helped removed what he saw as an obsetcle). This clearly was not helpfull to promote dialogue.

2nd, as you are well aware, there will be no "mediator" unless all parties agree and right now Homey is uing your ban as an excuse not to participate in the mediation (hence - no mediation will take place)

3rd, you need to think hard did your action were indeed at the benfit of the project. Continuing to ban me now serve no purpose at all: The article should be mediated and if not it will be under ArbCom review - so any action I will take will be reviwed carefully hence no need for the ban (or if you unban me and I disrupt you can ban me again.) In fact, if you remove the ban so that homey does not have the excuse I just might not use my regained right to edit the article and just participate in the mediation.Zeq 14:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that the bans I have imposed in your probation are effective in keeping you out of trouble. --Tony Sidaway 23:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus/Evidence and proposals and comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus/Workshop. Fred Bauder 13:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.

Please note that Alienus is requesting his account be closed. [5] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, hold off on that for a bit, can you? Maybe he will reconsider. He is still not assuming good faith, which is part of the problem, although I can see how his faith has been tried. Perhaps he will have a change of heart. If not, I will be disappointed, as a number of us were really putting ourselves out on his behalf. ^^James^^ 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)