User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 07 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Discussion at Village pump 2 Procedural question 3 Statements by banned user 4 RfC 5 Signature 6 You are out of order 7 Recusal 8 Internal spamming 9 Cool Cat refuse to disengage 10 DRV, yet again 11 bad cop 12 Abusive Patrol 13 Re: User talk:Karmafist 14 A new userbox you might like 15 H.E. Case 16 Mail 17 Your comment on my RFA 18 Re: Spamming 19 Evidence page needs cleanup 20 First image on the Web 21 Incivility 22 Edits to User:Betacommand/disscusion/Welsh ? 23 User:Mike18xx 24 Re:Afd of First image on the Web 25 "put a sock in it"

[edit] Discussion at Village pump

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.--AndriyK 13:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Responded. Thanks for notifying me. --Tony Sidaway 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Could you please visit that page once more? The outcome of the discussion is still unclear. Thanks.--AndriyK 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Procedural question

Fred is now listed as a "no" on Arbitration. Does that mean if Arbitration goes ahead he will not be hearing the case? Homey 21:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, he can vote in any case unless he has recused. The arbitrators who vote "support" aren't necessarily the same ones who get involved in the hearing. --Tony Sidaway 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statements by banned user

Hasn't it been the practice in the past to treat statements made by non-parties differently from statements made by parties? I seem to recall that with past RFAs, at least those occuring a year or so ago, extraneous comments made by non-parties were simply moved to the talk page. Zeq has inserted his comments in a way that suggests he's a party to the dispute despite not being listed as one and despite being a banned editor. Do you have any suggestions for how to handle this? I don't think it's acceptable for him to insinuate himself into a dispute that he's not a party to (and cannot be a party to since he can't edit the article)Homey 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the issue is that he is not listed as a party to the dispute. If he were listed and considered a party to the dispute then there would be no problem with his making a statement despite being banned but he's a third party. Homey 18:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq has added dialogue to my statement[1]. Please remove it. Homey 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-parties can make statements on the application and these should not be removed. Sometimes these are moved to the talk page when the case is opened, simply to keep the page in its archived form from being cluttered. --Tony Sidaway 23:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, surely Zeq is allowed to be a party, if he or someone else adds him as one? Homey is very determined to prevent Zeq becoming a party either to the arbitration or to the mediation I requested yesterday, and it's becoming somewhat disruptive (involving Homey reverting comments, reverting Zeq's name etc). Any assistance you can provide keeping the RfAr disruption-free would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq is a banned user and as such cannot edit the article until sometime next year. The claim that he can be a party to a dispute concerning an article he cannot edit is preposterous. I removed his comments because it was my observation in the past that comments by non-parties are moved to the talk page. I removed his name from the mediation list as it did not appear on the ArbCom list and as he is a banned user. I did not reinstitute either of these actions when they were reversed so the cry of "disruption" is specious. Homey 04:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why Zeq shouldn't be a party. If he is happy with that, feel free to add him. I also think Homey should restore Zeq to the list of parties to mediation. --Tony Sidaway 09:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That is Ok . I received several erquests to remove my commenst from the RfA and I decided in the interst of geeting issues resolved to remove my input. I don't want to be standing in a way of resolution to thsi conflict. Zeq 12:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I believe that an RfAr would be premature at this time and would not be productive. Therefore I am asking that you allow the pending RfC to continue. Al 08:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I will never stand in the way of any attempts at dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Its more elaborate a request than that. See User talk:Randall Brackett#Your comment at Alienus' RfAr. -Randall Brackett 16:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well its appears as if Alienus has departed wikipedia for the time being. How will this affect the procedure of the case...? -Randall Brackett 15:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If he's really gone, it may be appropriate to shelve the arbitration case. Should he come back, at that point the arbitration can be resumed. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom may decide to proceed in absentia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's possible but I don't personally consider that likely. If he was thought to be likely to be an ongoing nuisance, it might happen, and it he comes back and still engages in the kinds of attacks we've seen then the case can be re-opened. --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Hi, I browsed one time through that signature discussion a while ago and saw your name popping up so I hope you can answer this question. I seem to recall someone (half) blind (?) stating that the <sup> which I use in my sig makes it more difficult for them. Only just now I sort of remembered it. Is it true or was it something else? (I can't find it anymore) If so, I will change my sig. Thanks. Garion96 ^(talk) 01:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You can count me as one editor whose ability to read text is degraded by use of unusual formatting. Superscript makes the text much smaller and more difficult to read. --Tony Sidaway 09:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Even just the word "talk"? Like I have in my sig? Garion96 ^(talk) 11:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Any word. --Tony Sidaway 12:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You only have to click on the word "talk" though, not read it. :) But I will try if I can find something to change it with. Thanks. Garion96 ^(talk) 13:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can't read it, how can you know you have to click it? One idea is to user the same word without the superscript. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Too boring. :) Although I do have that now. Mainly because I noticed (or imagined) that the <sup> causes the line above the sig to move slightly higher. With my original question I actually meant special software for blind people. I thought I read the <sup> might interfere with that. Garion96 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In general it's a good idea for signatures to be "boring". Anything that distracts the reader from the discussion is disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 14:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are out of order

Tony, you are totally out of order describing my unprotecting the blocking policy as "warring." Two admins who were involved in the content dispute, both of whom should know better, protected the page in violation of the protection policy. I therefore unprotected. Please inform yourself before throwing out accusations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. My on-the-ground assessment may have been right or wrong. I withdraw from this dispute without prejudice. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recusal

Is there any way to appeal for Fred's recusal from the article? Can we ask other ArbComm members to vote on the question?Homey 22:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a way. Ask him to recuse, stating your reasons. If he disagrees he will state his objections. If he agrees he will recuse himself. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internal spamming

Tony Sidaway, there should be some sort of guidelines for folks not to do mass notifications via user talk pages, no? --Netscott 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Basically they should avoid doing it lest they be blocked for disruption. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well with your removing that section from WP:SPAM what should we as editors cite to illustrate that folks are not to do that? --Netscott 14:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I daresay the various arbitration decisions on this might be a start. I only removed the current section because it appears to condone the practice, while someone who undertakes to perform such actions in many cases risks blocking. Feel free to rewrite. --Tony Sidaway 14:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this?:

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting in order to influence {{{1}}}. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice"¹, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines found in Wikipedia:Spam. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking². It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you.

I've commented in the talk area that it is a bit too agressive and there's too much legalese... but I suppose the wording there could be a good start. --Netscott 15:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've recreated the internal spamming section in accord with the above text. Maybe you might like to edit it? Cheers. --Netscott 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good start. Much better than what was there before. --Tony Sidaway 15:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Shot down. --Netscott 04:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean "reverted by a single editor", not "shot down". I've invited more discussion on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 16:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool Cat refuse to disengage

During the ArbCom case I and Davenbelle was adviced to stay away from Cool Cat and his edits and let others (especially his mentors) take the lead in monitoring his behavior. However, during the last months this has been made difficult for me to do, as Cool Cat continue to monitor my edits, and attack me on every possible occation, when I edit articles regarding Turkey and related issues. A few of the lastest examples of this is this post to AN/I where he attack me for being bold and redirecting a rather useless article to the main PKK article: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Karl_Meier_is_blanking_articles and here on the ArbCom case regarding Irishpunktom: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cool_Cat. It has been, and it still is my intention to aviod any contact with Cool Cat, as you and the ArbCom has recommended. However, that is of course only possible if Cool Cat end his monitoring of my edits, and quit making unprovoked attacks against me as an editor. As Cool Cat's mentor I ask you to help resolving this situation. -- Karl Meier 16:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw that. He was firmly rebuffed in his claim on WP:ANI, and he is entitled to add evidence to an arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 17:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I guess then, that there will be no problem with me on the other hand adding evidence to his ArbCom case. -- Karl Meier 17:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Eventhough, I would of course have prefered to just end the whole thing and aviod any contact. -- Karl Meier 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Tony Sidaway 17:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRV, yet again

WP:SNOW, Tony? Please, stop. Especially with the debate on the template, where there certainly wasn't any "massive endorsement" of the out-of-process actions. Is this really how we want to handle things here? --badlydrawnjeff|17:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the review. I have nothing more to add. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. It was around 10-7 with a number of days to go before it was finished. Why close it early? --Badlydrawnjeff 18:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pointless review of an item that isn't going to be deleted. Deletion of this template proposed by a troll who is upset at having had his talk page protected when he repeatedly attempted to repost a pedophilia userbox.

See this.

Note that that editor is under probation as a result of his actions on that occasion, and a recent application to have it lifted has been refused. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tony, see that section a few up where I ask you to stop doing this, and provide quotes from a whole heap of other people where they say it's a bad idea? Is there anything short of Arbitration that's going to convince you to listen to the collective consensus and attempt to conduct yourself with some decorum for goodness' sake. How many people have to say "please stop" before you actually stop? - Aaron Brenneman 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making arbitrary demands, Either make some policy of stop trying to bully me. --Tony Sidaway 09:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tony, but bad decisions make it harder to defend your good ones, and this was a bad one. WP:SNOW is dubious enough when consensus is unanimous, let alone with a discussion that clearly isn't united. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you see the possibility of a deletion here? Can you defend this blatantly bad-faith listing by a troll angry because he wasn't allowed to list a pedophilia userbox while banned by the arbitration committee? I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone here thinks that template has the remotest chance of being deleted. Therefore the deletion review should be closed as a waste of time. --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree.--MONGO 10:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see any possibility. That's why I have enough confidence to let the review reach its proper conclusion. Moreover, the motivations of the nominator become irrelevant as soon as someone else agrees with his position, just like we don't speedily close AfDs if the nominator changes his mind if there are still others arguing for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what will happen. It will run for days, with process-wonks turning up to insist that the nomination be allowed to run. Then it will go back to TFD where it will run for days with people insisting that the thing should be kept. This is precisely the reason we use the Snowball clause. To save time on pointless, stupid nominations like this.

If you can find a non-troll who honestly thinks the template should be deleted , you'll surprise me. This is an appalling waste of time, with trolls playing on and getting an excellent response from a misplaced obsession with meaningless process. --Tony Sidaway 10:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I simply don't see why that discussion would be more of a waste of time than any other. With at least 90%, maybe 95% of the AfDs I close, even the controversial ones, if I had come in as soon as the nomination was created, I could probably correctly guess the result before anyone made a single argument. That doesn't make them a waste of time, because the reasons for deletion (or keeping) should be aired in public, so they can be pointed to whenever someone questions the decision.

Arguments against the practice of protecting users' talk pages can be made in good faith. I personally have had editors who are not trolls object to my protecting a user talk page, and I don't see them as trolls. All the arguments are, as we both know, completely wrong, coming almost entirely from non-admins who don't really understand the issue of unblock requests, but they should be addressed nonetheless. The deletion review was not uncontroversial and there was no reason to snowball it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me like you're condoning the use of tfd as a place for policy discussion. The controversial nature of the deletion review was precisely why it should be snowballed. It could only make things worse for no good reason. And that is why people like SPUI like to push these issues. They know they can't convince anyone, but they can always rely on the process wonks to insist on dragging out a pointless debate. --Tony Sidaway 12:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussions can't be "dragged out" longer than about a week. Squashing them to save a mere six days just makes the trolls think that they're onto something and the inexperienced think they must have a point or we wouldn't be so insecure about it. Hell, if this is about whether the matter can legitimately be discussed at TfD or not, at least TfD has a defined time limit. Centralised discussions can hang around forever and a day. We've still got all those fine examples of WP:BALLS going by the name of 'Method Engineering' hanging around waiting for the centralised discussion to conclude, when if we'd gone through AfD we could have nuked them from orbit weeks ago. *fD discussions are nice and neat and all the stupid gets packed into a box in the closet marked "We already decided this", where it can be wheeled out when absolutely necessary. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't decide to speedy keep the tfd, but since it was started by a troll and closed by some good administrators I think further discussion is pointless. And once again, it isn't going to be deleted. So why are we reviewing the speedy keep? It's just process for its own sake, and that's what gives the trolls the nerve to do what they do. The only way to treat them is to stamp on them, first chance. Once we start arguing about giving them the right to abuse our processes, we're off the track. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bad cop

Regarding your block of Anirudh777 (talk • contribs), I am beginning to appreciate your no-nonsense approach, Tony. That is, as long as no wheel warring comes out of it, maybe it would be appropriate to post such cases on AN/I for peer-review. Anyhow, users WIN (talk • contribs) and ARYAN818 (talk • contribs) are similar cases, in my book, but I am too involved to play bad cop there. dab (ᛏ) 13:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to post those cases on WP:ANI. --Tony Sidaway 08:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive Patrol

A presumptive patrol goes around removing citation tags and reverting to vandals' versions in Babri_Mosque and Hindu Rashtra. He seems convinced that I am the vandal while I was removing fundamentalist POV from those articles. [2]. I don't think he grasps the controversial nature of those articles. He has posted a warning on my talk page not to vandalise and edit-war! What action to be taken? Anwar 14:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please use normal dispute resolution techniques here. If the community cannot handle this, try Requests for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 08:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User talk:Karmafist

Hm... greater care needed on my end, apparently. Thanks. RadioKirk 00:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Tony Sidaway 08:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't talk to me, I won't talk to you, and everything will be fine. I'll let you know if anything can change with that. Thanks. Karmafist 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new userbox you might like

Hi Tony,

I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )

Cheers, --Netsnipe 06:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. I suggest that you delete this userbox as the concept is clearly intended to alienate genuine Wikipedia editors of all hues. --Tony Sidaway 08:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H.E. Case

Thanks, Tony, for your notice. I'd like to recuse myself from this case. Like you and a few others, I don't hide behind a pseud. This can be pretty crippling when one is dealing with libel. I can't afford the continued publication of the attacks, and I don't want my name appearing on the same page(s) as the sort of toxic waste which H.E. has proven so adept at producing. Please remove me from this case. I've already decided not to appear anywhere in which H.E. is given a platform, so there can be nothing more to arbitrate.Timothy Usher 08:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean, although "recuse" isn't the right word. You don't have to submit evidence or participate in the workshop, but if the Arbitration Committee decides that your behavior is a problem they may issue remedies involving you. --Tony Sidaway 08:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I'll happily plead nolo contendre, as long it's graceful and discreet. I don't wish to be involved anywhere where personal attacks are tolerated, and would rather be free from slander, and whatever rebukes might be based thereupon, either in sympathy or in appeasement, than continue editting. In such a case, a polite and arranged resignation is better for all parties.Timothy Usher 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration casts a wide net. The members of the Committee are generally pretty clueful about what's best for Wikipedia and will make decisions in that light. Keeping away from the arbitration is okay as long as you also keep away from any possible cause of further trouble. --Tony Sidaway 08:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's one opinion. The Arbitrators are a law unto themselves and see no compunction about dragging in matters which have not been put in evidence and are not the subject of any case. In my opinion, this is a serious defect. Surely if someone can self-add to a case, they ought to be able to self-remove as well. David | Talk 08:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If editors had the ability to self-remove, how could the Irishpunktom case have proceeded without Irishpunktom? --Tony Sidaway 08:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming this is not a rhetorical question, I will give you two answers. Firstly, Irishpunktom didn't self-add - he was always a party. Secondly, were he to withdraw, the case itself would collapse - and that would be no bad thing. David | Talk 09:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What would you have done if someone else had added you to the Irishpunktom arbitration case? --Tony Sidaway 09:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't cross-examine another party about hypothetical situations! David | Talk 09:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well my point is that if I add myself to an arbitration and then remove myself, there's nothing to stop somebody else (including the arbitration committee themselves) adding me again. In the end the arbitration committee will review the case and they will decide who the involved parties are.

On the rapprochement between the principals in the Irishpunktom case, I'm sure the Committee will take this into account in voting. --Tony Sidaway 10:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish I was. David | Talk 10:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

Could you check your mail please? Bishonen | talk 09:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

I'd like to ask right here and right now: what does Bishonen ask of me in order to be free from personal attacks? Just tell me what you want. What I want is an end to the attacks. All else is negotiable.Timothy Usher 10:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at WP:ANI and I see you've both been having a bit of a ding-dong there. I'd suggest that one way to avoid such ding-dongs would be to avoid behaving in a manner that might tend to make my own opinion to converge with that of Geogre. Geogre and I have radically different views on almost everything, but we both respect Bishonen greatly and don't hold any brief for accusations that she acts in a partisan manner. --Tony Sidaway 10:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Think what you wish about Bishonen; I don't know her myself and can hardly offer an opinion. All I care about - and the only reason I'd ever criticized Bishonen's actions - is stopping the attacks from His excellency. What must I do?Timothy Usher 11:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an arbitration case open on this dispute. --Tony Sidaway 11:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

But the record on that very page shows that I'm liable to be attacked there as well. My goal isn't to let someone else slip up so as to later say, diff in hand, 'gotcha!', but to stop the personal attacks from occurring to begin with. I don't want anything to be arbitrated where there's no guarantee the attacks won't continue. He and whoever else can have his/their way, in every respect, as long as it doesn't involve further attacks on me. There's nothing more to arbitrate. I surrender. Just tell me what you need from me to avoid being attacked on Wikipedia.Timothy Usher 11:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee will stop all attacks. --Tony Sidaway 11:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on my RFA

I feel that the fact that you have not produced any actual evidence against me weighs sufficiently severely for me to withdraw my nomination. I am happy for you to oppose me if you disagree with anything I have done, but I will not stand being accused of something unspecified, especially not including personal attacks, as in the case of one opposer. I urge you to closely review my contributions and respond on my RFA, or I will withdraw. I regret that this is happening so close to the deadline.

Yours sincerely,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't produce evidence, but I'm not happy with this application at this time, therefore I have to oppose. --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Spamming

I see now that you're heavily pushing this silly userbox by spamming. Please don't do any more of that. --Tony Sidaway 15:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was only messaging all the people who were attacked on that Encyclopedia Dramatica page. It's the least I could do paying tribute to their work on Wikipedia which leads to such hate from the trolls. Lighten up by the way. Too much counter-vandalism drives us all nuts from time to time. Anyway, there's no one left to notify. Cheers, --Netsnipe 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If as you claim there are people being attacked on an external website, why go out of your way to ask every single one of them to aid in publicising that attack? It doesn't make sense. --Tony Sidaway 15:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess my sense of humour is a bit too Australian/off-beat for you. The silly userbox was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek symbol of defiance and protest. We hold our heads up high upholding Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and won't sunk to their levels of crudeness while all they can do is call us "Bureaucratic F***s" on a poor parody of Wikipedia. It's acknowledging that we hold the high moral ground. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from and I apologise if you've felt offended by it. --Netsnipe 15:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we hold the moral high ground, I see no sense in jumping down and rolling in the mud with the likes of E.D. --Tony Sidaway 15:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence page needs cleanup

In your capacity as arbitration clerk, I'd like to ask that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence be cleaned up a bit. There's been some editing by some editors in the sections of others, and it's getting messy. I don't feel that, as a participant, I should do that. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed a heap of dialog, and also made a comment on the talk page encouraging use of that page for discussion. --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Workshop may need some attention. --John Nagle 17:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a look but it doesn't seem too bad. Please do come back if you feel it's becoming unmanageable. --Tony Sidaway 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not really that bad. The format chosen is hard to edit while maintaining the right indentation, but that's not a big deal We all have bigger headaches. --John Nagle 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First image on the Web

I don't understand the decision you made in closing the AfD for First image on the Web; I only see a single keep vote. I wouldn't dispute a no consensus, but... is it within your authority to just declare a keep that doesn't seem to have much support? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 19:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a vote. This is a far from monumental claim, it's just a bit of trivia from the early days of the web that was documented by Wired who interviewed Genarro. The documentation is adequate and the only question in my mind is whether it should be kept as a separate article or merged to the Cernettes article. I'll leave that up to the editors, however. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility

Reverting disputed improperly sourced content is also uncivil. --Crossmr 18:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read all the facts rather than just default to supporting other administrators [3] this edit shows an admin unlocking the page and telling DS to read WP:OWN, and here User_talk:Samuel_Blanning#Lumber_and_Crossing DS acknowledges his inappropriate behaviour.--Crossmr 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The uncivil behaviour was brought to me by admins closing AfDs 3 days early[4], and clclaiming a concensus that didn't exist, and locking a page to protect their point of view[5]. That behaviour was apologized for, and I proceeded to clean up the article per WP:V. Over 6 edits, all with summaries explaining the removal and reoginzation I brought the article to a point where it complies with policy, and put forth a good faith comment on the AfD saying I would endorse keep as long as the article remained properly cited. In response another admin [6] reverts the article to the unsourced version, and assumes bad faith on my attempting to bring the article up to standards. I reverted that and explained on the talk page [7]. Then the content was again reverted by a third admin [8], with no explanation. For the umpteenth time I've addressed the specific citations problems in detail on the talk page Talk:Lumber_Cartel#Specific_citation_problems where no one who is so keen to revert to an improperly sourced version will bother to discuss that actual problem. Instead they make vague threats [9] about having me blocked. And I am the one being uncivil?--Crossmr 18:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course you're being uncivil. That's why I've warned you not to be. --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made plenty of good faith efforts to try and get interested parties to discuss the citations. Instead admins show up, revert and try to bully me into leaving the article alone. I'll be expecting your warning on their talk pages anytime now.--Crossmr 19:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that you're acting in good faith, but you're accusing other people of acting in bad faith because their interpretation of the standards is different from yours. Perhaps it's time to take a step backwards. Why do so many experienced editors disagree with you? Could it be that the consensus on verifiability of Usenet edits isn't quite as you thought? --Tony Sidaway

Its policy, editor concensus cannot get around that. Its very clear on WP:V. --Crossmr 19:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have found that your interpretation of policy does not match that of several other people. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Would that be like arguing what the definition of "is" is? There is no other way to interpret "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources", I suppose if you assume never to mean "usually" then I suppose you could interpret that another way.--Crossmr 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Again you're failing to assume good faith. Please be civil. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm listing your early close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumber Cartel on DRV. I'm sure that makes me a process wonk, but you're just not always right, Tony. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh in the long run I always am. I just thought I'd save time. --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to User:Betacommand/disscusion/Welsh ?

what was with your edits to User:Betacommand/disscusion/Welsh Betacommand 20:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The page was transcluded into WP:AN/I for some reason and when I edited it I thought I was editing a large amount of inappropriate material off that important page. However I reverted when I discovered the problem, and replaced the transclusion on WP:AN/I with a link. I still have no idea what it was all about, but at least the page isn't cluttered now. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mike18xx

Tony Sidaway, it appears that given User:Mike18xx's re-establishment of the inflammatory commentary that both Szvest and you warned him about and his personally attacking commentary relative to my commenting out Fair Use images in his user space he may need a cooling off. --Netscott 00:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Boy, that guy has issues! I gave him forty-eight hours to think about whether Wikipedia really is about warping and destroying history. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to post the block on the Adminstrators Noticeboard/Incidents to bring others up to speed on User:Mike18xx's habits. Take it easy. Netscott 01:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at my watch-list, Mike18xx's user pages might need cooling off to... but I suppose that's neither here nor there. Netscott 01:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Afd of First image on the Web

Hey Tony, I'm not sure if there was a lack of communication or something, but this article was actually merged and deleted....but I'd rather you change your own sentence from keep to merge, as one must avoid editing other wikipedians' comments. The ikiroid 02:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My close was a keep. I don't make merge closes. I proposed the merge on the talk page, and I'm glad it was done. Someone seems to have deleted the article in error, but it's useful as a redirect so I restored it. --Tony Sidaway 02:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, just giving you a heads-up in order to avoid any confusion. The ikiroid 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I told Texture and popped it on DRV just in case. --Tony Sidaway 02:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It probably won't be much of an issue. But process always yields content results ;). The ikiroid 02:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "put a sock in it"

Tony Sidaway: I was trying to explain my reasoning, I find that line seriously uncivil. I think a user is entitled to feel a little miffed when an article they've been participating in gets railroaded first by a vandalising anon-IP and then after by Mr Wales himself. Perhaps be more understanding and helpful, and less rude. Themindset 04:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot how it looks to you. Sorry. --Tony Sidaway 05:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)