User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 08 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Tony Sidaway

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

1 Support required for self-righteous editor
2 DRV
3 Potential Policy Idea
4 Deletion
5 Final Question on the Matter
6 User:Karwynn/Compiling Evidence/data dump to be sorted
7 Bloat
8 Cleanup Taskforce
9 Farsi Wikipedia
10 Hello
11 Gaming again
12 Image:Orthodox-Church-in-Banja-Luka.jpg
13 Arguments
14 Socafan
15 Trivial, yet annoying
16 Professionalism
17 Merging and whatnot
18 Request your opinion
19 Spamalot
20 Report at WP:AN/I
21 Iran related articles noticeboard/Incidents
22 User:AquaticTheory
23 Redirect relisting
24 SPUI (talk • contribs)
25 User:WelshCountryside
26 ¡Thanks! (was: Personal Attacks)
27 For you
28 per Neuropean, re Robertsteadman
29 template potentially advocating illegal acts
30 re:Encyclopedia Dramatica
31 Would you have a look at these diffs please
32 User:Socafan
33 Case closed?
34 Question for you real quick
35 arb comm Kinsella
36 Temporary Injunction against CoolKatt
37 Access to Lexis Nexis?
38 decolonization and POV
39 i need help
40 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun
41 RFArb
42 Thanks
43 Spam
44 Fundamentalist Sockpuppet
45 Did you start a wiki about Townsville Pri Sch?
46 Vandalism
47 Falun Gong and signing off
48 Tea and crumpets
49 Talk:Michael Jackson
50 Problems with SqueakBox
51 User:62.255.83.8
52 My revert at the workshop page

[edit] Support required for self-righteous editor

Hi, I have as of late noticed that Wikipediatrix has been constantly changing and adapting an article to suit her POV - The Frosties Kid. After several attempts to reason with her by other users and myself in Talk:The_Frosties_Kid she has blatantly disregarded anyone's input and the fact that this article is based on a true subject. On top of this she turns the argument around by making everyone else appear guilty of being in the wrong. It is eveident that she has no knowedge nor cares to learn about the subject that the article relates. Please could you help in this matter seeing as I don't know how else to apporach it as she is being very unreasonable. Thank you. Piecraft 11:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the article. Please discuss changes on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 11:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I have put forward my views and statements relating to the article. So I'm just waiting for any further feedback. But that's what started all this trouble in the first place, the fact that every other user was ready to discuss changes and the matter with Wikipediatrix who all of a sudden has now disappeared after the lockdown of the article. Anyway, hopefully this can be resolved without anyone going insane. I'm not going to lose sleep over this though. Thanks again for stepping in though. Piecraft 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Can the lock be removed, things have settled and there is now substantial evidence + citations. thanks --Jum4 09:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Note from mboverload I support doing a TRIAL unlocking of the article, and I can alert another administrator to relock it. Say to put it on article parole or something, I can monitor it and if another admin sees your comment they can quickly protect it again. --mboverload @ 09:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not support said unblocking until users Jum4 and Piecraft can be made to understand the concept of Original Research, and to not make personal attacks to me such as "Wikinazi", "loon swinging a handbag", "get your head out of your ass" and "if you are too slow". Such uncivility is unacceptable. The discussion page indicates that they think personally emailing a cereal company is a valid source for a Wikipedia article, and Jum4 brushed off my WP:OR concerns with, and I quote, "Let's be honest most articles on Wikipedia are over embellished and long winded." wikipediatrix 16:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for your advice, from now on I will be civil. wikipediatrix I really meant no malice in my comments and I really am surprised you reacted the way you did. I'm just frustrated as this is the first article I have started and it going nowhere. All the claims have now been referenced so I really just want this sorted. Boy have I learned a thing or new, my next article will be so much easier!! --Jum4 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, firstly let me say that this Frostied Kid article is going nowhere fast. Basically every user is happy to revert the article as it was, and how it originally adhered to the regulations (save for the fact that the name of the actor is unknown because it has not been released). However as I have stated before none of the content placed into the article is "original" according to wikipediatrix. If you look through her track record she does tend to have a flighty way of dealing with other users and articles on WP, and does not consult nor discuss before making radical deletions or altercations to the article. This was the main reason I called your attention to deal and arbitrate this problem with The Frosties Kid page. As I see it wikipediatrix is still being self-righteous, and trying to get away with it by not adding to the discussion to help improve the article and throwing around cries for wolf that she's been insulted by myself and Jum4, just because she knows she's in the wrong for this one time. I know I may come across frusterated but it is getting to the point of ridicule, there are enough sources that cite the validity of not only the article but also the content and phenomenon of this ad. Sure it needs trimming but to senselessly delete relevant information regarding the ad and the internet phenomenon that it is goes against the purpose for this article. Please shed some of your wisdom on this because I'm tired of continuously asking the same questions and pointing out the reality of the subject to blind eyes. Thanks. Piecraft 01:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

I am sorry for my strong comments at DRV. I just wanted to quickly clarify something with you - if you believe that the consensus at an AfD is redirect, do you list the result as "keep", delete" or "redirect", because I think that this may be causing some misunderstanding. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If I think that a redirect consensus exists, I usually close as keep, and may perform the redirect myself. This is because redirection is an edit (which can be performed or reverted by anyone), not an action of deletion (which requires administrator powers to perform or revert), --Tony Sidaway 08:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this has caused some misunderstanding, as many people (including myself) thought that a redirect was more akin to a deletion, in that the article no longer exists of itself, though I can see your point too. Maybe it would be better if in future you closed with Keep and redirect, or similar, just to make things absolutely clear. --David Mestel^(Talk) 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It wouldn't be right to mislead. A redirect is an edit and we must not obfuscate that. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing with a Keep and redirect isn't misleading and it would help avoid confusion. Dionyseus 01:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It might mislead because if somebody read "redirect" in the close they might think that was a result of the deletion debate rather than an edit. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't at all misleading - if redirect is the consensus of the AfD, the edit is made as a result of that AfD. And even if it were slightly misleading then I would say that it was the least worst option, as keep really does look to an outside viewer as if you plan to keep the article and do nothing to it. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As closer, that is often all I do plan to do. The purpose of AfD is to decide on deletions. If an editing consensus emerges then anyone can act on it--that's how editing (as opposed to deletion) works on Wikipedia--so it is not incumbent on the closer to perform edits. --Tony Sidaway 13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe "keep, with consensus to redirect". I just feel that saying only "keep"is misleading, as redirects essentially mean that the article ceases to exist as an article in itself. --David Mestel^(Talk) 07:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not really true. --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How? --David Mestel^(Talk) 14:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Make a page on Wikipedia, say User:David.Mestel/Redirect test. Type in some content and save. Then edit it by blanking and replacing the content by "#redirect User:David.Mestel. At that point it's a redirect. Now go to the new redirect page and look at the history. You will see that the original content is still there. Click on the original version and you'll see it. Now edit that and save it. The redirect has now been replaced by the original content. It never ceased to exist, it was simply occluded by the redirect. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think mine still stands - to readers of the encyclopedia, it doese not exist as a seperate page with seperate content. And besides, what harm does it really do to say "keep and redirect"? --David Mestel^(Talk) 19:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It does no harm, and I'm not against saying it. But I sometimes don't. And I think that's okay too. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff, though perhaps next time it comes up on DRV, you should just leave a note saying something like "by keep, I meant keep and redirect". --David Mestel^(Talk) 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Policy Idea

Hello Tony Sidaway, having read your comments in the ED article for deletion discussion it got me to thinking about the idea for an actual policy that in effect would be prohibitive of Wikipedia having articles about organizations and people who are well known for their criticisms of Wikipedia. I imagine that such an idea has been previously proposed and I was thinking that you might be aware of prior discussion of such a nature. Is there anything you might be able to point me to or any kind of advice you might be able to give me in terms of pursuing such a policy proposal? Thanks. Netscott 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would fly. I think that it would be a good idea but it hasn't a chance of becoming policy. It could also have undesirable side effects. If the NY Times publishes an article about Wikipedia, do we delete the article on them? I think it's a reasonable occasional criterion for deletion that we may feel that we can't really write dispassionately about a subject, but that's as far as I'd go. --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support something like this. I really don't think that Wikipedia should have any articles on sites, people or publications that are critical of Wikipedia. It just doesn't make sense to have things like that. Netscott, let me know if anything comes of this, I would love to support it. --Bouquet 22:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is always easy to maintain our principles in peacetime. It's when we're faced with opposition and conflict that we need to be more, not less, vigilant of our principles. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Howdie. I just came across this discussion. Every the worst tyrant believes in freedom of speech so long that speech is totally uncritical of his authority. It would send a pretty bad message if Wikipedia censored opinions and content that questioned its ideals and functioning. His Excellency... 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to get carried away and think that Wikipedia is supposed to be an open society (which it isn't) or an experiment in free speech (far from it) or some other search for a philosophical ideal. It isn't. It's a project to build a high quality encyclopedia. Since Wikipedia itself is a very small part of the world and one, moreover, that we're not really equipped to evaluate neutrally, it's probably best to write about the many other things and leave the writing about Wikipedia to the outside world. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Hello again. I apologize for this in advance because I know I irritate you, but WP:DR requires me to discuss this matter before going any further. You speedy deleted a subpage of mine as an attack page, despite my statement that the branch of subpages was NOT intended to be an attack page of any sort, but merely a review of evidence, including it's quantity and it's relevance (found here. There was already a delete discussion going on, see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Karwynn/Compiling_Evidence/data_dump_to_be_sorted, which discussed the matter of it being a possble attack page. By deleting the page outright, I fell like you completely bypassed the ongoing discussion and acted unilaterally, nullifying good faith efforts by Hipocrite, rootology, DJ Clayworth and myself to resolve the matter using the appropriate measures. Would you consider restoring the page, blanking it temporarily as a compromise, and continuing discussion in the MfD section? Thanks for your time, Karwynn (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I regret that, because of the nature of this page, it cannot be restored to Wikipedia because it contained wholly and completely unsuitable material. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For fairness' sake, I will tell you that I raised the issue in the MfD page, and you may wish to comment there, as well as at WP:ANI. Karwynn (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for the heads up. --Tony Sidaway 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Having been quite patient with those who are accusing me of making attack pages and then completely ignoring my comments, I respectfully request that you head over to WP:AN and reply specifically to this. I need to know why my stated objectives for these sub-pages are not seen as being honest, good-faith descriptions. I can specify the objectives further if need be. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already told you that I strongly disagree with your assertion that it isn't an attack page. --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, no wonder you're so annoyed by me, I don't make myself clear enough: What I'd like to know is why you don't agree. Karwynn (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the second time you've said you think I'm annoyed at you. I'm not. I don't agree because of the nature and provenance of the material. I've already said this on WP:ANI. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Question on the Matter

I must ask one final thing - I may recreate the page, removing any reference to IP, Checkuser or sockpuppetry information, simply for the sake of revewing it. I will also add the "admins are going to delete this soon, it's a big conspiracy etc." part in the beginning. I will likely add my disclaimer-style descriptions (found here to it if I do. I will only be using it as a resource of possible diff links. I can even clear off the original author's commentary. Are there any other problems you would have with the page? Karwynn (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Please don't take that as an invitation to proceed. --Tony Sidaway 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see how that's a lot to ask on my part, since the page was very long. What do you suggest? Karwynn (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only suggest you drop the entire ill-advised venture. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Karwynn/Compiling Evidence/data dump to be sorted

Hi Tony (I've given up, I'm using the familiar from now on, unless you'd rather I didn't),

As with just about everybody on Wikipedia, I got the email recited on this page. I investigated, and determined it was mostly bullshit (except for the allegation that you did, indeed, use the word "fuck", but that doesn't mean very much.) If a user wants it to hang out in their wiki-space until they too can determine it's bullshit, where's the harm? A listing of spurious allegations that is already wiki-public knowledge, thanks to spammers, hardly seems to constitute an attack page to me. (Not to mention that, technically, CSD A6 doesn't apply to userspace...but you know that.)

Since the content is pretty much meritless, I'm not just going to reopen the debate... but I do wonder why speedy deleting the thing seemed the best course of action to you. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It was an obvious speedy because trash like that has no place on Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia, remember. :) --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay... I'm not even going to try dissecting and analysizing that truism, because I'm too tired! As long as I'm here, I'll mention two completely unrelated things -- 1.) I'm not sure where you got the idea to have a spoken version of your talk page, but I think its ingenious and quite cute; 2.) Before we got on the wrong foot by butting heads over deletion issues, the reason I admired you no end (and am still very much predisposed to like you) is that you remain the only person I know with a political compass score further to the Left than my (-7.3, -6.7.) I can't help myself: everytime I come across that score on your talk page, I picture the Dalai Lama (he's the exemplar for our quadrant), and I get a really big smile. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Some troll did the recording after I deleted some of his decidedly odd audio recordings of real articles. I kept it because it's funny. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloat

Would you kindly remove the illogically added commentary to the AfD? It just constitues unecessary bloat particularly in light of User:Rootology's own citation of the same content properly linked to a pertinent section of talk page. Thanks Tony Sidaway. Netscott 02:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I've added any such commentary to the discussion. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to User:Hardvice's bloat that represents what he's been reverting back onto the AfD. Even bainer agrees with the spirit of my removing the duplication bloat on the noticeboard post that Hardvice made. Netscott 03:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you and bainer and hardvice and anybody else who cares about this have a little confab and reach consensus on what to do? --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing by your last commentary on User:Hardvice's talk page that you're perhaps coming to understand what editors have had to deal with in interacting with him. His writing style reminds me much of the attacking spam message. Netscott 03:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

3 hours is a bit short as User:Hardvice has literally been spreading that example of stalking all over the place (see his comments in this thread ). It'd sure be nice to see if there was indeed a relation to User:Rptng03509345. Netscott 04:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Taskforce

I don't know if you are available but I added WiMAX to your desk. Let me know if you want me to reassign it. Thank you. RJFJR 03:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit too busy for the foreseeable future. --Tony Sidaway 03:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farsi Wikipedia

According to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise User:Zereshk is trying to attract votes from the Farsi language Wikipedia. [1] Obviously I (and probably you) can't read Farsi but the aforementioned user who understands it says that is what he is doing. He also commented on the section regarding the incident on AN/I. I thought you might be interested because you commented on the AN/I.[2]--Jersey Devil 06:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Small correction: Sorry, the link I gave was broken, corrected now. It's in English actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this has been discussed on WP:ANI. I have nothing to add to that. --Tony Sidaway 11:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi, I am on my ArbCom for user:Ericsaindon2 page, and I do not know how it works. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.227.173.154 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly simple really. The arbitrators will investigate the situation, decide if there is any harm being done to Wikipedia, and propose remedies to make sure that the harm stops. The most important page is the Evidence page, on which you can put, in a section marked with your username, evidence about the situation, or refuting evidence provided by others in their own sections. There are fairly plain directions on the page, but come back to me if you're still uncertain.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Evidence

However if you are Ericsaindon2 I have to warn you that you are currently evading a one-month block placed by Fred Bauder on 19 July. Please don't do that. As Thatcher131 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) noted on the talk page, Ericsaindon2 can place evidence on his talk page and this will be copied to the evidence page of the arbitration. Evidence can also be emailed directly to any arbitrator (their email addresses are on Arbitration Committee) or to me as an arbitration committee clerk. If evidence is sent to any of these people in email. they will ensure that all of the arbitrators see it. --Tony Sidaway 11:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaming again

Sorry to disturb you, but User:Tazmaniacs and I are it again: Groupement de recherche et d'études pour la civilisation européenne and Nouvelle Droite. I cannot seem to self revert on the latter page to avert a 3RR penalty. Intangible 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Don't war any more and I'll try to help you sort this out. --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that Intangible's calling for you. I'll humbly advise you, dear administrator, to tread softly when blocking people, especially if you are not aware of the nature of the conflict. You may be interested in this Rfa filed against Intangible by User:Cberlet. I have recently reversed a wave of edits by Intangible deleting the reference to the term "far right" without any basis either than trolling. He hasn't troubled himself with any "fact" tags and is not interested in upgrading the quality of Wikipedia. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is another message for you on my talk page. In two words: get familiar with the content dispute before taking administrative decisions. Your administrator status doesn't entitles you to take sides in a dispute of which you seem not to be familiar with. They are loads of contributors which support my reversal of Intangible's removal of the term "far right" from the National Front page and other related far right pages. Please be aware that Intangible is obviously a member of the far right — who is trolling around by removing this "far right" term from relevant articles —, I'm not sure you've found the best cause here. Tazmaniacs 16:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Orthodox-Church-in-Banja-Luka.jpg

I listed this image for speedy deletion as a uploader of image. Please, can you delete this image. There was discussion about relevancy of fair use of this image. Regards, --Pockey 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Allready deleted. --Pockey 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments

I believe I've offered proven arguments that I am not a troll, but a person with a different opinion than you. If this is not enough, I would like to continue trying to convince you on my talk page. Hardvice 11:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just cease your speculations about MONGO's IP, and you'll have convinced me that you're not beyond redemption. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should remove the remaining editing history of that IP, since everyone thinks it's mine...I invite anyone with the ability, to checkuser my IP anytime they want to...it begins with 68, not 24. I also request that the next time someone tries to post what they think is personally identifying information about me deliberately, after being made aware that they shouldn't, that they should be blocked indefinitely. All these attempts at character assassination are simply harassment.--MONGO 13:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

THen why are you so eager to remove the IP contribs? It seems like you'd want to keep them as a show of good faith. Boy, would that be a blow to those of us who think it's yours. Karwynn (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is...what difference does it make...that IP has not demostrated one piece of evidence in any edits that it has done anything other than good faith edits here, so what is your point? You're on a witch hunt it most definitely appears.--MONGO 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn, you should really just stop talking about, thinking about, asking about, having anything to do with IP addresses. It's a non-topic. Why haven't you already said "oops, I didn't realize we're touchy about IPs here, please delete them from the history and I won't do it again"? Why are you still asking questions about the IP, and about how MONGO is acting about the IP, and about how you think it's MONGO's IP? If you think it's MONGO's IP, you'll refrain from discussing the matter any more out of your sense of decency and respect, right? If you think it isn't MONGO's IP, you'll refrain from discussing it out of your sense of decency and respect for whoever's IP it is, right? Better than both of those would be neither to think it is MONGO's IP nor to think that it isn't, because you're simply not thinking about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

One other small point, Karwynn. You should know that MONGO, and Tony Sidaway, and I, would all jump to prevent someone from revealing your IP address, or linking you with an IP address they thought might be yours, because we all would consider it our duty to do so. I'm pretty comfortable speaking for MONGO and Tony in that matter, because I know them both to be dedicated admins who consider user privacy a very high priority. A Wikipedia in which none of us ever speculates about another's IP address is better than the other kind - let's see if we can make it so. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't exclude me from the list of people who would fight to defend Karwynn's privacy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to omit you, Hipocrite. I just hadn't seen your name in this thread. In fact, those of us who understand that IP addresses of users are simply not up for discussion are legion, and that fact should suffice to show Karwynn that our objection to posting this particular IP address is completely routine and appropriate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

To up the thread Tony said, "Just cease your speculations about MONGO's IP, and you'll have convinced me that you're not beyond redemption." Thanks. I'm glad to see people assuming good faith. Hardvice 08:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already told you outright that I think your activities constitute trolling. Believe it or not, Wikipedia policy does not shine most brightly for those who assume good faith of trolls. But trolls can be reformed, so behave yourself. --Tony Sidaway 09:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't assume good faith mean not jumping to the conclusion that people are trolls when they may just lack social skills or other related things? Hardvice 10:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't make sense to ignore even the most egregious and clearly malicious behavior on those grounds. You have attacked MONGO, and a less well grounded editor would have been repelled and driven away from Wikipedia by the virulence of the attacks. If you continue, your days on Wikipedia are numbered. --Tony Sidaway 10:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socafan

He claimed that your deletion of his arbitration request "violates policy". Can you clarify to him? 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember it. If he thinks I abused my position he can repost it and I promise not to get involved in it. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It was only that the policies say arbitrators who are asked to recuse answer. Two did not. You removed the request again. [3] I do not object as nothing was happening. No one has suggested how to resolve the conflict that is still ongoing. I do not know what to do. Socafan 22:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivial, yet annoying

Please stop refactoring my signature outside your talk page and AN* pages. --brenneman 02:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I try to leave at least one full copy of the thing in each section I have to edit; the remainder I telescope down to something less obtrusive. It really is appallingly big, you know. --Tony Sidaway

I can actually relate to Brenneman's commentary here... the problem with leaving one is that it suddenly makes subsequent commentary appear as though it's coming from a separate editor. I tend to go back and restablish my signatures for the sake of consistency so that readers will be able to not have to consciously determine if the same individual is commenting or not. Netscott 03:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's better if subsequent editors don't have to wade through acres of clutter. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with your commentary but as I've never had the impression that a consensus about such a view existed I've not concerned myself too much relative to it particularly in light of my growing colleciton of sigs . Netscott 03:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember when you first edited Wikipedia? Do you remember reading anything about it being an encyclopedia? --Tony Sidaway 03:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I also remember about being a Wikipedian which apparently has less value for you. But I suppose you could ask the same thing from the folks whose signatures I've admired. Netscott 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Read that page, Wikipedian, again, carefully. See if you can find anything about how it is the job of a Wikipedian to clutter up discussion pages with bloated graffiti. Try to see what it actually says about Wikipedians. --Tony Sidaway 03:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"The ending of Wikipedian, though, suggests being part of a group or community. So in this sense, Wikipedians are people who form The Wikipedia Community.", in my view signatures form an integral part of establishing one's identity in that community and as such one's signature outweighs any concerns about "bloat". Netscott 03:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, good for you. But in my experience I have to remove clutter from the discussion in order to get to the actual words. So you do your thing and I'll do mine, and I'm sure we'll get along fine. --Tony Sidaway 03:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the spirit... but I suspect we'll see more Netscott's and Aaron Brenneman's making similar posts here on your talk page before too long. ;-) Netscott 03:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a problem. Educating those who need to be educated is a pleasure. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I mutually share your view. Hehe :-) Netscott 03:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tony, there is another option: templates. --71.36.251.182 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there are many cases where tidying up a talk page with some well-placed white space contributes a lot more to readability and editability than refactoring signatures, and might make the latter unnecessary. Just a thought. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a great idea. It'd be far less likely to cause unneccessary wikidrama by irritating other editors, too. Friday (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Can signature templates be in userspace like userboxes are now? I don't really "get" templates and how they work still, it'd be a really easy thing to shift over, I bet. --badlydrawnjeff 18:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the issue there is that, each time a page is transcluded (whether it's a whole article, or a userbox, or a simple sigfile) that's an extra bit of work for a computer in Florida to do. I'm sure there's a more precise way to say that, but essentially, with the number of signatures flying around here, Wikipedia's servers would be turned into signature-transcluding machines, and that's certainly not what the people who contributed money to buy the servers had in mind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. --badlydrawnjeff 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The signatures are far and away the most serious problem in discussions, because they are interspersed with comments in the edit box and large signatures make it very difficult to find those comments. --Tony Sidaway 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no getting rid of signatures. Are you sure you're not being overly fanatic in your opposition to them? --Friday 19:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I'd like to show you an example of what I mean. Could you point me to what you consider an egregious example of a page that's rendered uneditable by bulky signatures. I remember you had a good example before in this discussion, but I can't remember where. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember either. Since I started refactoring the cumulative benefit has been so marked that I seldom encounter a discussion that is unmanagable. In response to Friday, of course the beauty is that I'm not getting rid of signatures at all. I'm simply cleaning up discussion pages to make them easier to edit. --Tony Sidaway 19:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See, I was never bothered by signatures, but I find the lack of eye-saving white space to make some pages very difficult to find my place on, in the edit window. Maybe I'll start cleaning up pages that I find difficult to read. If there were a culture of edit-window hygiene around here, that wouldn't be such a bad thing... -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember that it wasn't a conversation, but an administrative page, and it was mostly about Voice of All's signature. Perhaps you've already refactored that one down to a managable state. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall comparing bishonen's RFA with one from a year later. The difference was very marked. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what? I think we discussed all of the above and more on the RFC, the number of people who joined me in finding the whole complaint utterly baffling was quite huge, and one arbitrator went on record as describing it as possibly "the stupidest certified RFC I have ever, ever seen." I do agree with Aaron that it's trivial. I ask him to keep his annoyance to himself. This act visibly improves the signal-to-noise ratio of discussions and I consider it to be worth my time. --Tony Sidaway 01:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professionalism

I noticed that you had deleted (and then protected from re-creation) the article on Musa Cooper, with the comment of "Crap". [4]. I'm not aware what was in the article at the time, but I can verify that the individual is currently notable, as a contestant on the game show So You Think You Can Dance, and that the "crap" comment is now circulating among the show's fans as "this is what Wikipedia admins do to articles that they don't like". :/ Might I ask for more explanation as to the article's deletion, and/or a reversal so that the article can be expanded, as is going on with the show's other contestants? I would also humbly suggest that you might want to reconsider the wisdom of using pejorative edit summaries when using admin tools, thanks. --Elonka 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It was crap. Nobody pays me to do this job. --Tony Sidaway 02:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging and whatnot

Does merging an article involve merging their histories, or is all the text incorporated into one article, with the emptied one being deleted/redirectized? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That kind of merge (which is known as a history merge) is sometimes performed where an ill-advised split has occurred, but normally you just merge the text of the first article into the second and turn the first article into a redirect to the second. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm thinking of incorporating the text from this article, putting it into this article, and then listing the former for speedy deletion as an unlikely search entry. Does that seem enough in order, or is there a better way? The ikiroid 01:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You can do the first thing (the merge) without the second thing (the delete). Keeping the original around costs us almost nothing and ensures compliance with the site license. So don't list it for deletion. We're not running short of paper. --Tony Sidaway 01:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do. Should I rename the emptied article to something more........easy to use as a redirect? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave it there (people type some weird stuff into search engines). Add more redirects that you think may be useful. --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the advice :) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request your opinion

I would like you to take a look at this dialogue. Do you think there is a personal attack here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#published

Here is an online definition of "publish":[5] and the first two apply: [v] prepare and issue for public distribution or sale; "publish a magazine or newspaper" [v] have (one's written work) issued for publication; "How many books did Georges Simenon write?"; "She published 25 books during her long career" One should look closer and ask, "Who is the intended public of the work?" Examples could be "the english-speaking world" "those residing in and around Boulder, Colorado". Here is a link to the definition of public:[6] The first two definitions are nouns and apply: [n] a body of people sharing some common interest; "the reading public" [n] people in general considered as a whole; "he is a hero in the eyes of the public" The first definition listed here of public is what I am refering to. --Fahrenheit451 17:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to put those into the wiktionary and link them to this page? Wjhonson 18:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Really, that would be far better than what User:Fahrenheit451 just did, which was to delete out all of the definition of Publish. Terryeo 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a personal attack there. Terryeo referred to your act as "to delete out all of the definition of Publish." What you actually did was to remove the following text from Reliable sources:

'''[[Publishing|Published]]''' means ''previously published to the [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Publication public]''. The word derives from Latin and means ''to make public''.

Terryeo's words seem like a reasonable description of what you did. --Tony Sidaway 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamalot

Hey, Tony, any word on what people think of my preliminary proposal? Way off base? IronDuke 15:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Still thinking about it. --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Report at WP:AN/I

Hi, Tony. I see that Robertsteadman and Neuropean were squabbling at your talk page recently. Neuropean has now left. His behaviour was certainly not impeccable, but it does seem certain that Robert was wiki-stalking him, and hurling insults at him (sockpuppet, vandal, stalker), and that it just got too much for him. Robert is also the indefinitely-banned user Robsteadman (talk • contribs), who engaged in massive edit warring, abuse, and votestacking-sockpuppetry. He was allowed back on probation, with the new name Robertsteadman. Although I personally find Rob(ert) to be an extremely abusive and disruptive editor, I believe that I have always behaved with fairness towards him, voting to keep his article,[7] removing a taunt after his sockpuppetry was discovered,[8] removing evidence of his sockpuppetry and of his indefinite blocking from the talk page of his article[9] [10] (since it probably wouldn't be very nice for him if someone — maybe one of his students — looked up the composer Robert Steadman, and found out what his history on Wikipedia was), and on several occasions reverted vandalism or harassing messages from his user or talk pages, and asked other editors to leave him alone, despite the fact that throughout all of this, he was making hysterical accusations against me as well as against numerous others.

I feel that I should have acted more quickly, because when I saw the accusations of wiki-stalking, I took a quick look at the contributions of both editors, and it seemed to be true, but I was involved with making other posts, so I put off doing something about it. I don't think Neuropean will be back, but I'd like to feel that this can't happen again with someone else. It was completely characteristic of the way Rob(ert) used to behave with people he had been in dispute with before he was indefinitely blocked. If you have time to look at my report at AN/I, I'd appreciate it. If not, no problem. I know it can take a long time to read up about something that you haven't already been following. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes think that the earlier we can catch these cases the better, but I admit I'm usually much too slow. I took a look at the accusations but decided to let them ride unless Neuropean made a more pointed complaint. I think I should have taken the time to ask other about Robert Steadman. --Tony Sidaway 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please talk to user: Syrthiss who has more information - there is much more to this than the factually inaccurate acocount being posted around WP by Ann. Robertsteadman 17:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran related articles noticeboard/Incidents

Please watch this page and post your public messages on this page so that everybody may have access to it. Thanks

--Aminz 05:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, --Aminz 07:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:AquaticTheory

I do not think it would be a godd idea to block this user. As per the Arbcom ruling:

PoolGuy restricted to one user account

User PoolGuy shall use one user account. That user account may be PoolGuy or a new account which he may create in order to get a fresh start. Should he create a new account he need not disclose its name.

Passed 7 to 0 at 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He is quite entitled to the AquaticTheory namespace. A block would only get in the way of the mediation session. --BarryC _(talk) ^Uncyc 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

He was subsequently subjected to a community ban:

16:16, 25 June 2006 Andrew_Norman (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) blocked PoolGuy (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) with an expiry time of indefinite (Exhausted community's patience - see WP:AN [11]

See also this discussion which led to the community ban. --Tony Sidaway 17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect relisting

Hi,

Why in the heck did you speedy close "King's Highway (Ontario)" a second time, when DRV just finished overturning the previous speedy keep as improper? What were you hoping to accomplish? This closure is being undone: I will consider another speedy keep closure a violation of your ArbCom ruling, and will sanction accordingly, or ask another to do so. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't be such a stuffed shirt. I speedy closed it because it's an obvious redirect and you're just wasting time. Another speedy close (which I'm not considering doing) would not be a violation of my arbitration ruling. Don't make empty threats. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would consider it a violation of your ArbCom ruling. A new speedy close after an old has just been overturned is effectively reversing the DRV. Reclosing now would be reversing my re-opening. I would seek sanction for you under such a circumstance. That is no threat, but a statement of fact, so I'm glad we won't have to pursue that. This is part of a contentious naming dispute, with parties who love to bring these things to DRV (and elsewhere), and we don't need to be giving them any irregularities on which to harp. I don't especially think the redirect is bad either, but following DRV's suggested course hurts nobody.

I'm not trying to be a "stuffed shirt": I was just left to wonder whether you'd even looked at the thing before you closed it, given that a speedy close had just been overturned. If you had looked at it, I would feel rather miffed, because you were just creating more work for DRV. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks. A speedy keep without people running around trying to turn this into the bureaucracy it isn't would be a fitting end the stupidity of the original listing. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPUI (talk • contribs)

Tony SPUI is continuing to violate his probation from the Highways arbcom this time on Minnesota State Highway 33. He's engaged in another edit war with a totally new user this time. JohnnyBGood 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've asked both SPUI and Jonathunder, as very experienced Wikipedians, to stop edit warring and resolve their differences by discussion. --Tony Sidaway 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How many warnings does he get. This is the second or third time in a week you've warned him. He's violating his probation, you obviously agree or you wouldn't be warning him. Are the warnings indefinite as long as he moves his disruption around? Cause if so I'd like to do the same but have so far restrained myself. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to apply the block to me for coming up with this monstrosity in the first place. Really, Highway 33 isn't that important, except for people driving from the Twin Cities to the Iron Range. And there are other routes, like US-53. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do think Elkman is overracting, however I'd also like to present that he's been so irked as further evidence of SPUI being incivil to other users and further hurting the project as a result. I know you want to give the guy chances when many others are demanding his head on a pike, and I'm not totally univolved I'll admit. But doesn't there have to be a line in the sand with a user that is this divisive? I mean seriously. His block list is a mile long and rightly so, yet they always seem to be lifted after less then an hour. And now he's go TWO probations against him and yet he's being given chance after chance after chance to continue violation at least one of the probations (I admit I'm not to familiar with his first probation which is still in effect). Sorry if this seems like a rant, but I'd like to see policy applied evenly. Last week William Allen Simpson was blocked for calling SPUI a "vandal". Yet SPUI for being equally incivil, while under a probation that demands he be civil, didn't even elicit a warning. SPUI is a heavy contributor, of that there is NO question, however heavy contribution is not a license to do as he pleases and then get away with it. And if he is going to continue to get away with it then that should be applied evenly and people like WAS and myself should get indefnite amounts of patience. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:WelshCountryside

Hey, Tony. Steve Caruso from the AMA here. Just making a quick followup. Was it confirmed that User:WelshCountryside was indeed a sockpuppet? That user account applied for help under the AMA and Jossi took their case. I just wish to be certain of the proceedings. Peace and thanks! --The_Thadman 00:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's that particular editor's modus operandi to start a sock puppet and hammer away endlessly on a grievance that runs as follows:

The Arbitration Committee restricted him to one account in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy, where it was found that his use of multiple accounts had been disruptive.
Notwithstanding that, he disputes that the blocking of his sock puppet GoldToeMarionette (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu), [12] in March, before the arbitration case began, was in order, and insists that its continued blocking is unjust.

Here is a discussion on WP:RFAR in which he tries to get the Arbitration Committee to unblock GoldToeMarionette. They refused. His PoolGuy account was indefinitely blocked shortly thereafter in a community ban because of his relentless badgering on this matter.

The behavior of the new accounts WelshCountryside (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (first edit 01:52, 19 July 2006, made an AMA request for assistance) and AquaticTheory (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (first edit 02:31, 19 July 2006, made a Mediation Cabal application) is consistent with PoolGuy's use of sock puppets and obsession with the case of GoldToeMarionette. Those accounts have made no edits unrelated to that case. I have concluded that both are sock puppets of PoolGuy, and blocked them accordingly.

Should jossi decide to take up this editor's case, and should he still be interested in clearing his name, I suggest that the next step would be to apply on his behalf to the arbitrators or to Jimbo for an appeal in this case. --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being so thorough with your response as all of this certainly puts my mind at rest. :-) As things look, Jossi's actions are in agreement with the proceedings as he has closed the case, stating as such. Peace and many thanks! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 04:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ¡Thanks! (was: Personal Attacks)

Hi, in response to your complaints on WP:ANI I removed some of the personal attacks. Unfortunately this seems to be a probable AOL user so cannot easily be blocked for long. You don't have to take this kind of attack, though, so please contact me directly if he continues and I'll see what I can do. Naturally you should remain civil even under this kind of provocation, but I've no reason to doubt that you are civil at all times. --Tony Sidaway 02:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

¡Thanks!

Long time, no see. I have spent much of my time lately on my own intactivistic wiki and dealing with personal problems in the real world.

- [13]

Eloquence hosts it for me via Myoo.De. Unfortunately, this leaves every little time for WikiPedia.Org. Indeed, this unpleasant business has lead to more time on WikiPedia.Org than I have spent in weeks.

I could have removed the attacks myself, but I left them there for the moderator to see. Until I lost patience with the user, I did remove them myself. Indeed, the anonymous IP earlier had penis pictures up too, but that was before I lost patience trying to engage the user and removed them myself.

I look forward to editing with you again in the future.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For you

This stern barnstar is awarded to Tony for being stern.--MONGO 05:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was awarded this recently, and even though I know you stated you don't like barnstars, thought you might like to get this one anyway...you jerk:)--MONGO 05:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the picture. It's purty. --Tony Sidaway 10:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] per Neuropean, re Robertsteadman

(this is being sent to Shane, Dan, and Ann as the three who Neuropean contacted with his request as well as Tony)

Assuming you read what Neuropean wrote, do you have any consideration of giving Robert another last chance? I have my own feelings on the matter, but want more feedback. Please reply here, or on my talk page, or email me. Syrthiss 12:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I read what he wrote and I think in the circumstances he was very polite. I don't think we should allow Robert a second chance; he's already driven one editor away. --Tony Sidaway 12:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Syrthiss 12:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template potentially advocating illegal acts

Tony, you may want to look at {{User joyride}}. The term joyride in International English is often understood to mean steal a car and race in it. The template also uses the word hot which, in the context of mention of cars and joyriding, is understood in International English to mean stolen. So to millions of potential readers worldwide, this template appears to be indicating that the user of the template breaks the criminal law by stealing cars. There is a tfd against this template. In the circumstances however, given the meaning that will be attached to such a template, i.e., that it advocates, promotes or endorses the breaking of the criminal law regarding car theft, can such a template be allowed to remain on Wikipedia? I am all in favour of templates, but I believe this one goes far too far across the line in potentially being seen to advocate criminal acts and so warrants deletion irrespective of the vote result. Jtdirl 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've speedied this as "Blatantly inflammatory and highly likely to bring Wikipedia into disrepute". --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this argument is a little strianed - joyriding does not imply any kind of illegal activity, and certainly it is not likely that a few users proclaiming their own affinity for driving around aimlessly would bring the entire project into disrepute. I would like to see this template userfied. --71.36.251.182 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Thanks for your adjective-heavy description of my action. Your opinion is noted, but I still don't see any valid reasons to close that debate early (as I don't see any valid reasons to keep deleted the article in question). I think that a neutral closing administrator will see the emptiness of arguments of those in favor of deletion and will do the right thing in the end. Grue 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

While I respect your right to a view on the merits of the article, and to reject the overwhelming consensus to keep the article deleted, your actions have actively harmed Wikipedia, and you've admitted here that you took the action to advance a partisan minority view. In the light of that, I ask you again: please reconsider your action. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The real consensus is there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination), not some secluded DRV page. This leads me to believe that my opinion conforms with the majority. Grue 12:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have misread the close. Nandesuka recorded a delete, and this has been endorsed massively on review. --Tony Sidaway 12:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hum...I can't see that there is any concensus to restore the article..not even close. The purpose of the DRV is to determine if the Afd was closed inappropriately. Since no one demonstrated by way of discussion at the Afd that the ED article could conform with policy such as WP:V and guidelines such as WP:RS, it was not a viable candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia. No one has demostrated that the Afd was improper closed, so why keep the argument ongoing? Who cares about past Afd's...Wikipedia is an evolving entity, so maybe our standards are higher now. I think the quality of featured articles and the demands for proper referencing and prose have risen a great deal in the year and half since I first edited here. Maybe if ED becomes more notable in the future it can have an article.--MONGO 12:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, nice way to discuss that with me before doing that. Maybe now you at least understand why I did that. (Note that was addressed to Grue, not Tony)--Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 15:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would you have a look at these diffs please

Dear Tony Sidaway

I see from User Talk:Mike18xx that you have been having dealings with him. I have thought of putting an incivility warning on his user page but it is blocked. I'm not sure if he is currently blocked or not. I still find the dispute procedure quite confusing. Anyway, I wondered if you could look at these diffs and take action or tell me how to proceed. They involve User:Aminz who was recently blocked and then unblocked, unfairly as it seems from what I can make out, and is now taking time out.

[14]

Appears to me to be uncivil.

[15]

Not very civil and does not indicate commitment to common search for improvement and consensus.

[16]

Ditto

[17]

I am particularly worried by this last one, as it uses one article's talk page to say disrespectful things about editors on another page.

Thank you

Itsmejudith 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your report. If you want to say something to or about this editor, User:Mike18xx, you can put it on his talk page. His user page seems to have been protected owing to an apparent attempt by that user to recreate a deleted article on his user page. He is not currently blocked [18]

Having looked at his recent output, as listed by you above, I'm blocking him for a week (to give Wikipedia a rest from such gross attacks) and may soon make an edit on WP:AN to discuss his future on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of double-punishment for the same offense, as mike18xx was already blocked for three days previously for those particular offenses. Methinks you're being used by would-be censors whose apparent tactic is to pester administrators with crybaby antics whenever they do not get their way in an article. If you were to actually look at who is writing what in the Pinochet and Allende pieces (do some comparisons on the history pages), you'd easily see who are the vandals and who's keeping the pieces up to reasonable semblances of Wiki standards. Please unblock him.--Joan

Thank you Tony for taking action. I'm surprised by Joan's comments. I don't know anything about the history of the Pinochet and Allende pages. In fact I have never visited Pinochet and only looked at Allende today, when I made a minor edit, to make a link to a newspaper operable. So if I am a would-be censor it is not on those pages for sure. Itsmejudith 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Socafan

Thanks. I was beginning to feel paranoid! Just zis Guy you know? 20:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't. You're with friends. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case closed?

I don't see how that can possibly be the case when the ArbCom hasn't even heard my side of the story yet, or even acknowledged a willingness to do so. Surely that must first be addressed. Everyking 10:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Six out of the eleven active arbitrators have heard enough and passed the motion. --Tony Sidaway 11:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

They didn't hear anything. They made up their own minds on their private mailing list. I asked them if they would read and consider evidence, and they did not respond, not even after 10 days. Everyking 11:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question for you real quick

What do you make of this? Seems like the last time I was involved in something with this user, he was the one invoking WP:NLT with someone else...Cheers and a pint! CQJ 11:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I recently blocked him for a week for that and similar edits. If he resumes, please let me know. --Tony Sidaway 12:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arb comm Kinsella

At the RFArb/Kinsella, User:Arthur Ellis points out that Ceraurus, who has been added to the involved parties, is under indefinite block and therefore might not participate.[19] As the clerk, I wonder whether you might either (1) offer to copy any statements from Ceraurus' user page to the ArbComm page or (2) temporarily unblock him for the purposes of joining the ArbComm if he chooses. --Bucketsofg 13:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll invite him to submit evidence on his talk page. He can also send evidence to me or an active arbitrator in email and it will be considered in the case. --Tony Sidaway 14:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that's a bit of a ruse since checkuser found it likely that Ellis is a Ceraurus sockpuppet (or the other way around, whatever). Thatcher131 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary Injunction against CoolKatt

Who do we get to enforce this? he's made one edit outside his restriction. (fixed that I miscompared the time)CoolKatt number 99999 (talk • contribs)--Crossmr 18:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Give him time to get the message. If he's still editing against the injunction from tomorrow, ask him to stop. If he doesn't, report it to any admin and reference the injunction. He can be blocked to enforce it. --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the clarification.--Crossmr 22:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Access to Lexis Nexis?

Hi Tony, do you have access to Lexis Nexis or similar resources? I left a message for Rob about this too, but while researching content for the Carrick Primary School articles I discovered a link which made brief mention of an Irish Republican Army bombing of the school back in 1975. Unfortunately there isn't much in the way of free news content available on the internet for events that happened 30 years ago. Silensor 23:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't, but the bombing did happen. Andrew Johnston of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was killed by a booby trap bomb attached to a school desk at Carrick Primary School, Lurgan, on 7 July, 1975. [20] --Tony Sidaway 00:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] decolonization and POV

Please see Decolonization. I believe another editor insists on repeatly adding POV material to this article. What do you think? Can you do anything? This editor does not respond to what I write. Thanks Hmains 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)