User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 09 05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

purge edit icons
Archive: Interim • 10/25 • 10/14 • 09/24 • 09/21 • 09/18 • 09/16 • 09/05 • 08/23 • 08/15 • 08/01 • 07/27 • 07/22 • 07/19 • 07/15 • 07/06 • 07/01 • 06/25 • 06/18 • 06/15 • 06/14 • 06/07 • 06/03 • 05/30 • 05/25 • 05/20 • 05/10 • 04/08 • 03/15 • 02/13 • 02/02 • 01/27 • 01/19 • 01/06 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004  edit

Contents

[edit] Wikipediatrix

Tony, HELP! I do not know if you notice or not but Wikipediatrix has a very short fuse and seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way. We have articles on here that she has continually gotten involved in. When we have asked her to help us she became very confrontational and even claimed we were editing under different names. It got to the point that other editors were calling her down for her antics. I surely hope that this is not a regular problem that everyone has to deal with in thier dealings with her? She has tagged yet the same article on David L Cook for "cites" We went in and gave what we had. Such as a quote from Bob Hope. That comment was made at a banquet full of comedians and not recorded by television or radio. We have tried to explain these things and she still comes right back and tags everything again. I do not know if this is all she has to do all day but it certainly is very hard to deal with someone who has this kind of agenda. We are not Wiki savy and do not claim to be. We have gone in when we check these things to see if everything is done right and if not we try to fix them. I do not know how to cite the things she is talking about. Most of the things that are said between celebrities or at functions are not things that are citable in our opinion. Could you please help us? We need to get this woman off of our backs! She is very nasty. Thanks Daylon Ware IAMAS Corporation 9:14, 2006,25,07 (UTC)

She's doing a good job. Please see Verifiability and Reliable sources. If there is no reliable source for Bob Hope's opinion on David L. Cook, then we can't use it. --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Another Kurdish related AfD, which seems disruptive IMHO: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish celebration of Newroz. Bertilvidet 06:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hagiographer

I have had problems with this user before. Thanks fort getting him to stop altering my user page in unpleasant ways. he has here altered my signature to that of another user, User:Pura Paja, please can you discourage him from doing so, SqueakBox 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic)

Don't let the modest title confuse you: Sheldon is a bicycle god. I noinated him for an award from the UK's largest cycling club in 2004, and sent the certificate to him myself with the greatest of pleasure and at my own expense. This is not a criticism: the article did not make much of a case. Just zis Guy you know? 23:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Always happy to be set right on fact. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic)

Don't let the modest title confuse you: Sheldon is a bicycle god. I noinated him for an award from the UK's largest cycling club in 2004, and sent the certificate to him myself with the greatest of pleasure and at my own expense. This is not a criticism: the article did not make much of a case. Just zis Guy you know? 23:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Always happy to be set right on fact. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Moby Dick is back on his harrasment parole

Moby Dick (talk • contribs) is back. Please see the ANB/I case. --Cat out 11:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly we seem to be again at a disagreement about Moby Dick. --Cat out 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrator Smoddy (Sam Korn) has clarified that in his view the ban does apply to all namespaces. I'll await further comments to see how it pans out, but provisionally it looks if the remedy should be applied very expansively. Please do remind me if I don't appear to take this on board (I have lots of other things to do but that doesn't mean I've forgotten that I brought the case to spare you from being hassled by Moby Dick). --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I just think we are again getting too stuck on burocracy. I think I have tollerated Davenbelle/Moby Dick long enough for one and a half years.
He should be blocked strictly for harrasing (stalking) me. Can we please block moby dick as fast as he gets me blocked? Please load his contribs
He will just get a new account and continue you know... I cant keep starting arbcom cases... He is no better than TRT.
--Cat out 00:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Boston, Ontario

Completely inappropriate yet again. You must stop doing this. WP:SNOW cannot be invoked, and you are completely out of process in closing things early. STOP. There was not a single completed AfD in this case, and a major process issue to boot. --Badlydrawnjeff 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuck process, or at least process for its own sake. The deletion review was obviously going to end in an overwhelming endorsement for SynergeticMaggot's close, so no harm done. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you just provoking me at this point, Tony? Be honest. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going out of my way to provoke, but taking into account your expressed reasons for calling the deletion review, the degree of support for the original keep close, and the heavy endorsement of the close that has been recorded so far, I think that continuing that unproductive review is against the interests of the encyclopedia. Your real concern appears to be a wish to impose strong processes on Wikipedia; my concern is to stop your attempts to do that, at least where those processes are unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
See, this is the funny thing: you and I ultimately share the same goal. The problem, of course, is that I want to make it so we're doing the things you keep doing and pissing everyone who isn't Cyde and Doc off as the way we do it. Instead, you keep doing it and lose the support of everyone. We need processes here - surely, you wouldn't support a violation of WP:NPA or WP:V, yet violations of WP:DP are a-okay. There's no consistency here, except in your desire to thwart anyone who might possibly have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind by going and doing your own thing. It's completely absurd, really, and it's like you're going out of your way to be a dick to people. Be who you want to be, but have a little respect, y'know? --Badlydrawnjeff 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment of this situation, and your identification of the outlier in this matter. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not shocked. That's a shame, unfortunately. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh Jeff. Nobody likes a sore winner, you know. Since the article is kept, what on earth is the point in arguing how it was kept? Speedy closure of uncontentious and obvious cases makes for less disharmony. --JzG 19:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Who won here? I certainly didn't. I've watched the basic operations of this encyclopedia get shit on again, and I've watched a bunch of people who we supposedly entrust to keep the peace around here disregard what they're called for in order to do whatever their bidding is. That's disharmony. Speedy closure causes disharmony, obviously, as well. If I'm fighting a one man crusade here, then so be it, but I'd love to get some backup even once. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the encyclopedia doesn't work how you think it does. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it does. These problems don't manifest themselves in other areas. The only time it seems like the encyclopedia does work differently when certain people who have a similar Wiki-view to your own get involved, and I don't know what else I have to do to change that culture. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Tony is onto something here....But who knows. SynergeticMaggot 19:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you shouldn't be fanning the flames here. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I wont be revert warring this, yet you think you'll be able to get through to Tony on this? You need to stop bothering people like me, Tony, Doc, Cyde, and everyone else with this. SynergeticMaggot 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Tony eneds to know what the results of his actions are. If you don't want to be bothered, stop doing things that are out of process. You make the choice. --Badlydrawnjeff 20:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A redirect you might get some use out of ....

WP:FUCKPROCESS --Cyde Weys 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest not tossing cans of oil on a fire? I think he knows where WP:SNOW is. :) SynergeticMaggot 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Redundant. WP:SNOW is a better shortcut. --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Roll back of your removal

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bunchofgrapes&action=history

I rolled you back. It's Bunchofgrapes' call, not yours, on whether he wants to take this recall seriously. Many very reasonable people are urging him not to. And if he decides to heed their advice, I'll remove it myself, but till then please do not interfere with the process. I'm not just process wonking when I say that, either. Thanks. (If I could get on IRC right now I would have taken it up with you there but I cannot, since I'm in class...) ++Lar 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, but somebody had to give you all a chance to slap your foreheads and say "what are we doing? MSTCrow? ffs!" If you want to go through the whole week, or whatever, that's fine too. --Tony Sidaway 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm PERSONALLY hoping that BoG will come to his senses and do so in a lot shorter timeframe than a week. (but as clerk maybe I shouldn't say that :) it messes with the impartiality I want to project). I admit it, I want to build up a nice library of these cases to show people that the process works and isn't TOO heavy. However I got a good laugh from your action, so thanks for that! ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitration

I'll trim it now. rootology (T) 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You did a good job of trimming it. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem, sorry for that. I'd never done it before and was fairly nervous (see my nearly destroying the template in the edits). Thanks again. rootology (T) 23:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ArbCom question

Is it proper as one of the main parties to ask one of the people a question about their outside statement? Zoe's is so far into the (for me) fictional side I wanted to ask her about it. I never even heard of MONGO before I stumbled across the ED article... fully 7-8 months after I started on WP. rootology (T) 04:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just put the question on her talk page. --Tony Sidaway 04:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic)

Don't let the modest title confuse you: Sheldon is a bicycle god. I noinated him for an award from the UK's largest cycling club in 2004, and sent the certificate to him myself with the greatest of pleasure and at my own expense. This is not a criticism: the article did not make much of a case. Just zis Guy you know? 23:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Always happy to be set right on fact. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Moby Dick is back on his harrasment parole

Moby Dick (talk • contribs) is back. Please see the ANB/I case. --Cat out 11:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly we seem to be again at a disagreement about Moby Dick. --Cat out 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrator Smoddy (Sam Korn) has clarified that in his view the ban does apply to all namespaces. I'll await further comments to see how it pans out, but provisionally it looks if the remedy should be applied very expansively. Please do remind me if I don't appear to take this on board (I have lots of other things to do but that doesn't mean I've forgotten that I brought the case to spare you from being hassled by Moby Dick). --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I just think we are again getting too stuck on burocracy. I think I have tollerated Davenbelle/Moby Dick long enough for one and a half years.
He should be blocked strictly for harrasing (stalking) me. Can we please block moby dick as fast as he gets me blocked? Please load his contribs
He will just get a new account and continue you know... I cant keep starting arbcom cases... He is no better than TRT.
--Cat out 00:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Boston, Ontario

Completely inappropriate yet again. You must stop doing this. WP:SNOW cannot be invoked, and you are completely out of process in closing things early. STOP. There was not a single completed AfD in this case, and a major process issue to boot. --Badlydrawnjeff 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuck process, or at least process for its own sake. The deletion review was obviously going to end in an overwhelming endorsement for SynergeticMaggot's close, so no harm done. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you just provoking me at this point, Tony? Be honest. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going out of my way to provoke, but taking into account your expressed reasons for calling the deletion review, the degree of support for the original keep close, and the heavy endorsement of the close that has been recorded so far, I think that continuing that unproductive review is against the interests of the encyclopedia. Your real concern appears to be a wish to impose strong processes on Wikipedia; my concern is to stop your attempts to do that, at least where those processes are unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
See, this is the funny thing: you and I ultimately share the same goal. The problem, of course, is that I want to make it so we're doing the things you keep doing and pissing everyone who isn't Cyde and Doc off as the way we do it. Instead, you keep doing it and lose the support of everyone. We need processes here - surely, you wouldn't support a violation of WP:NPA or WP:V, yet violations of WP:DP are a-okay. There's no consistency here, except in your desire to thwart anyone who might possibly have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind by going and doing your own thing. It's completely absurd, really, and it's like you're going out of your way to be a dick to people. Be who you want to be, but have a little respect, y'know? --Badlydrawnjeff 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment of this situation, and your identification of the outlier in this matter. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not shocked. That's a shame, unfortunately. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh Jeff. Nobody likes a sore winner, you know. Since the article is kept, what on earth is the point in arguing how it was kept? Speedy closure of uncontentious and obvious cases makes for less disharmony. --JzG 19:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Who won here? I certainly didn't. I've watched the basic operations of this encyclopedia get shit on again, and I've watched a bunch of people who we supposedly entrust to keep the peace around here disregard what they're called for in order to do whatever their bidding is. That's disharmony. Speedy closure causes disharmony, obviously, as well. If I'm fighting a one man crusade here, then so be it, but I'd love to get some backup even once. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the encyclopedia doesn't work how you think it does. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it does. These problems don't manifest themselves in other areas. The only time it seems like the encyclopedia does work differently when certain people who have a similar Wiki-view to your own get involved, and I don't know what else I have to do to change that culture. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Tony is onto something here....But who knows. SynergeticMaggot 19:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you shouldn't be fanning the flames here. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I wont be revert warring this, yet you think you'll be able to get through to Tony on this? You need to stop bothering people like me, Tony, Doc, Cyde, and everyone else with this. SynergeticMaggot 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Tony eneds to know what the results of his actions are. If you don't want to be bothered, stop doing things that are out of process. You make the choice. --Badlydrawnjeff 20:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A redirect you might get some use out of ....

WP:FUCKPROCESS --Cyde Weys 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest not tossing cans of oil on a fire? I think he knows where WP:SNOW is. :) SynergeticMaggot 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Redundant. WP:SNOW is a better shortcut. --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Roll back of your removal

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bunchofgrapes&action=history

I rolled you back. It's Bunchofgrapes' call, not yours, on whether he wants to take this recall seriously. Many very reasonable people are urging him not to. And if he decides to heed their advice, I'll remove it myself, but till then please do not interfere with the process. I'm not just process wonking when I say that, either. Thanks. (If I could get on IRC right now I would have taken it up with you there but I cannot, since I'm in class...) ++Lar 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, but somebody had to give you all a chance to slap your foreheads and say "what are we doing? MSTCrow? ffs!" If you want to go through the whole week, or whatever, that's fine too. --Tony Sidaway 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm PERSONALLY hoping that BoG will come to his senses and do so in a lot shorter timeframe than a week. (but as clerk maybe I shouldn't say that :) it messes with the impartiality I want to project). I admit it, I want to build up a nice library of these cases to show people that the process works and isn't TOO heavy. However I got a good laugh from your action, so thanks for that! ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitration

I'll trim it now. rootology (T) 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You did a good job of trimming it. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem, sorry for that. I'd never done it before and was fairly nervous (see my nearly destroying the template in the edits). Thanks again. rootology (T) 23:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ArbCom question

Is it proper as one of the main parties to ask one of the people a question about their outside statement? Zoe's is so far into the (for me) fictional side I wanted to ask her about it. I never even heard of MONGO before I stumbled across the ED article... fully 7-8 months after I started on WP. rootology (T) 04:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just put the question on her talk page. --Tony Sidaway 04:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please?

Please stop seeking to defend me against random accusations and the not. I am a big girl and can take care of myself. Your continued, impassionate defense of me on my RfC talk page harms both your own reputation and mine, and serves no useful purpose. You and Aaron are not going to reach consensus on that page, and the continued talking past one another merely occupied disk space, bandwidth, and contributor time without generating value. I implore you to simply stop it and move on to something more productive. Regards, Kelly Martin (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course, when you say I could do more productive things. I'd no idea you thought of my comments as "passionate". I'm just doing the stuff I've always done. As far as I'm aware Brenneman has not edited that page in six days. --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitration policy

I noted a discussion of the three-month ban you imposed based on a violation of a recent ArbCom ruling. In a rare display of self-restraint, I'm not going to get involved in the ongoing discussion at WP:ANI; however, for what it's worth, I will draw your attention to the provision of Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy which states: "A grace period of a minimum of twenty-four hours shall be observed between the fourth net vote to close the case and the going into effect of those Remedies passed in the case, unless four or more Arbitrators vote to close the case immediately, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have voted to close the case." It's probably silly for me to draw your attention to a provision of the Arbitration Policy -- you probably wrote the Arbitration Policy -- so this is a mere head's up for what it's worth. I haven't looked at the merits of the case and have no opinion as to whether the user should be banned from the article now or given another chance or anything, just a process point. Newyorkbrad 23:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. No I didn't write the policy (and I'm sorry if you got that impression). The fourth vote to close was made at 0259 GMT on 20 August [1], and the ban was imposed at 2216 on the 22nd [2]. --Tony Sidaway 00:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't literally mean you wrote the policy, just acknowledging you've been at the center of RfAr for a long time and I haven't. Substantively, my point is that you found the user liable for "violation of probation," but arguably under the policy, at the time of the violations the probation hadn't taken effect yet. FWIW. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't about liability, it's just about having remedies to stop people fucking around. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. As I said, my comment was FWIWW. Newyorkbrad 00:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've asked the Committee to clarify. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removing my comments

Why did you remove my comments defending myself and not the original one of Netscott that was making accusations against me of "provoking" Karl Meier to revert war on Islamophobia? Surely you should remove his as well, since it's entirely about me and is thus irrelevant to the issue? Deuterium 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You could be right. My main concern was to avoid the discussion of the Karl Meier article ban being derailed by discussion of your case. Please feel free to copy your discussion to the user's talk page and continue it there. --Tony Sidaway 02:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I might do that. Deuterium 02:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] (hopefully) last ArbCom question

If someone makes any kind of flagrantly "wrong" or untrue statement, is it something that should be addressed on the ArbCom talk page, ala an RfC reply? Tom's outsite statement just now is literally complete fiction. My apologies for asking you, but you're the only Clerk I know. If this is improper please delete this... rootology (T) 22:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You can rebut the claim in your own section on the arbitration application. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Does it count towards the 500 word recommendation...? rootology (T) 22:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
God, I hope so. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
A straightforward denial will do. Ten words or so. If the case is accepted, you will have a full opportunity to rebut any evidence presented. --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I opened the case since you are recused. Can you check to make sure I did it right? Also, if you think Hardvice should be notified, can you post the notice to his talk page? Its protected. (Also Weevlos) Thanks. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardvice and Weevlos should be notified. I can't do it for the same reason I could not do the others. --Tony Sidaway 12:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Hardvice and Weevlos should be notified. I can't do it for the same reason I could not do the others. I'll unprotect the pages so that you can do it. --Tony Sidaway 12:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Notifications taken care of. Thatcher131 (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your strange comments.

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Unfortunately, I feel that your characterization of my comments as "personal attacks" have no basis in reality, especially when I was commenting on your very strange, and very rude, characterization of another editor as "utterly barking mad"[3]. If you don't want people to observe that you're wrong about something, then you should try harder to not say things that are spectacularly erroneous.

Good day. Nandesuka 12:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You've engaged in this kind of snide attack before. I did not describe anyone as "utterly barking mad." Just stop trolling. --Tony Sidaway 12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
You might want to look up the definition of the word "pusillanimous" — first, since you like using it, and second since it is relevant to how you characterize what you write when someone calls you on it. Nandesuka 12:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Deescalate this. Even the one in the 'right' will achieve nothing by taking it any further. No one wins here.--Doc 12:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've no intention of responding further to this pusilanimous trolling. --Tony Sidaway 12:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but even the description in that response ('pusilanimous trolling') is still an attempt to have the final word, and no doubt some other idiot will feel obliged to reply in a simmilar vein, and so the escalation continues. --Doc 12:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Hereby withdrawn with apologies for potentially encouraging further interaction in this unproductive vein. --Tony Sidaway 12:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clerks

Is the list of clerks still up to date? I see Thatcher131 doing clerk-type work and FloNight being invited to clerk by Sam Korn (as a direct result of your own invitation to her). Of course with many things you don't have to be a clerk to do it, but I am interested in where we stand in terms of who is an official clerk, and whether we (ArbCom, that is) should endeavor to make official those who are doing the work. I'd appreciate any illumination you can give. Thanks. NoSeptember 13:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it (from public statements; I'm not privy to any discussions) the arbitration committee is very keen to appoint new clerks, overall, but is cautious about choosing suitable candidates. Informal clerking is welcome and would almost certainly count in any future decision to appoint "official" clerks. --Tony Sidaway 13:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
So the list on WP:AC/C is still the complete and accurate list? I think I will add it to User:NoSeptember/Functionaries. Thanks. NoSeptember 13:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk about timing, Sam just added FloNight to the list :). NoSeptember 14:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I opened the case on MONGO based on a discussion at WT:RFAR. I just don't want to tick off the arbs. Editor88 was also doing some informal clerk work. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that any editor may voluntarily do many of the clerk-related actions. About a month ago ArbCom requested more clerk applications, but seem to have taken little action, similar to the lack of action on finding new checkusers. NoSeptember 14:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The difference being that CheckUser is much more sensitive and selective, and less amenable to expansion even with volunteers. Though recently, checkuser and oversight have begun to spread to bureaucrats, with two and three bureaucrats with the permissions, respectively (ask any others to volunteer and we'll take the request seriously). Regarding clerks, though: I am ready and willing to promote many more, but last time I checked, Snoutwood was the only applicant I knew well enough to vouch for, and he's on break. So far, that official list is up-to-date , and basically, while I am happy to see others helping out, the distinction is that those are the ones the Committee has given its trust in any non-mechanical judgment-based matters that may come up. I would love to have many more volunteers (nudge, nudge). Dmcdevit·t 00:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll bring this threaded conversation to the attention of the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I see several recent additions to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Candidates. I'll add my name there unless there is a better place. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Another Kurdish related AfD, which seems disruptive IMHO: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish celebration of Newroz. Bertilvidet 06:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I do of course accept if you find my inquiry groundless. I would however appreciate to know if it has been addressed. Bertilvidet 13:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Even though the concrete reason for my inquiry has lost some actuality I would still appreciate feed back. Bertilvidet 07:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason that I posted this message is, that I thought you were User:Cool Cats mentor, or at least in some way was involved in the debates about their edits to and attempts to delete Kurdish-related pages. I stand corrected if I am wrong. Bertilvidet 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Please let me know, if I was wrong. Bertilvidet 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question

User:Badlydrawnjeff has requestedsome pages be restored for the arbcom case...is that something you can do for him? Thanks.--MONGO 06:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea for me to do that. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] UNBLOCK GIBRALTARIAN NOW!!

STILL there has been not one attempt to justify my initial ban, nor any ewxplanation as to why a person can be banned for calling a racist a racist, but the racist himself goes unpunished. My initial ban cannot be justified by any stretch of the imagination, and no-one has been able to even attempt doing so. I ecpect, and demand that it be reverted IMMEDIATELY! ..... Added at 12:28, 27 August 2006 by 212.120.224.86

The initial ban is justified not merely by a "stretch of the imagination" but instead by this. -- Hoary 12:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This guy is harrasing me and other people on a periodic basis. He's totally unashamed of his behaviour. A collection of articles (see {{Gibraltarian}} template) needs to be semiprotected because of him too. Hopeless and unreformed. E Asterion u talking to me? 16:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dbiv violating article ban

User:Dbiv is taking his characterization of ArbCom's ban as "purported" [4]seriously: see [5], [6], and [7]. --Calton | Talk 20:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the necessary enforcement step. [8]. --Tony Sidaway 20:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you put "upfront" instead of "blatant"? I'm quite clear I'm not recognising the ban so I'm being upfront about it. "Blatant" makes it sound like a criticism. I am being open. You might also have left the note on the article talk page so that all would be alerted to the fact that I have no intention of obeying the ban - that was what it was there for. —The preceding comment signed as by Dbiv (talk • contribs) was actually added by 80.177.212.6 (talk • contribs) - 20:54, 27 August 2006

In addition to his recent schtick of editing under his IP number and adding an "Unsigned" template -- which has the effect, intentional, I'm sure, of obscuring his edits and their source -- Dbiv has taken to redirecting the talk page of the IP number he's using -- which has the effect, intentional, I'm sure, of obscuring the warnings associated with that IP.

I've been reverting the redirect on the grounds that it's not a User Page, it's an IP page. But if yo want to take Dbiv at his word, then blocking that IP for the duration of his block -- since he's not supposed to use it to get around a block anyways -- would seem called for, especially since the rationale for not blocking IPs is to avoid collateral damage, surely not an issue here. --Calton | Talk 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] pornography posted by PublicgirlUK

Hi Tony. As an 'old hat' around here I would like to ask your advice. Would you mind pointing me to relevant policy pages or processes regarding the management of unlicensed pornographic images to WP? After reading the contributions of the user in question, I'm experiencing a growing concern that the images posted are in fact being used to disrupt WP, or worse, to publically derogate a young woman. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I would be grateful for any advice or observations you may have. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I decline to comment on the grounds that I have nothing remotely palatable to say about this affair. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I was just asking for WP sources, policies, precedent, etc., but if you choose not to engage I completely respect that and will try to find other avenues. Thanks again. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, really nothing personal, and absolutely no reflection on the role of any other Wikipedian in this matter. But hey, not our finest hour. --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Terryeo violation of probation

Hi Tony, unfortunately User:Terryeo has again violated the terms of his post-arbitration probation with a personal attack on another user (see [9]). I've invited him to withdraw his comments - if he doesn't, could you please take the appropriate enforcement action? -- ChrisO 12:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the discussion spells out what my comment was pointed toward (results of editing) and makes more clear that a personal attack was not done, nor any individual's motivation singled out. Terryeo 13:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, he hasn't withdrawn it, so I've requested enforcement on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement -- ChrisO 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I stated the situation as simply and clearly as possible and made no comment about User:Raymond Hill's motivation for his editing. ChrisO suggests that no matter how an editor brings up the situation where one of us places a google group message on his personal website, then comes here to Wikipedia and cites the message as a secondary source, that the editor who brings it up is personally attacking the editor with the personal website. That is not the situation, to state a situation is not a personal attack. I have replied likewise on the Administrators' noticeboard and feel this "run around after Terry, interpret what he says as a personal attack" is silly and time consuming. Terryeo 15:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Answered at WP:AE. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, but I'd rather other administrators took care of these things. I think some people are getting the idea that arbitration enforcement is something that only some administrators can do, and my status as an arbitration clerk may add to the confusion. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SqueakBox isn't respecting his ban

As can be found in [10], SqueakBox is accessing the Wikipedia in spite of his ban from the address 63.245.13.229, that SqueakBox claims to be his real IP address (here) and not that of User:Pura Paja. He also insults me here claiming I want to vandalise his user page and that I'm a sock puppet of Zapatancas, when my innocence was demonstrated at the time. So, please enforce the rules.

By the way, I don't understand why the insults he has dedicated to me in his user page aren't being removed what clearly goes against WP:NPA. Hagiographer 06:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Tony, do you plan to enforce the rules? At least you could say you have no intention of doing anything that SqueakBox wouldn't like. I'm getting tired of posting overwhelming evidence to have it ignored. Hagiographer 06:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Enforcement of arbitration remedies is the responsibility of all administrators. I am busy. --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ArbCom

You've been recommended to me to talk to about the arbitration committee on the English Wikipedia. Over in the German version, we've been talking about establishing such an institution again. So we were interested if we could maybe hear from some users experienced with such things in other projects. Would you possibly be available to talk to on IRC sometime? Please let me know whenever. Thanks! sebmol 21:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm Tony_Sidaway on freenode and I'm often available during British evening and night hours. As an arbitration clerk on the English Wikipedia I would be glad to provide any information you need to help you to make your decision. --Tony Sidaway 21:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dbiv redux

Now calling himself DavidBoothroyd (talk • contribs), but redirecting this and the IP page (User:80.177.212.6) to his talk page. God only knows WHAT rationale he's working from this time. --Calton | Talk 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I registered this account solely so I would be able to correct material inaccuracies in my own biography. However, I now find myself forced to resort to it to action this change, which I am explicitly allowed to do: I want all talk to go to User talk:Dbiv. If you need to leave messages about User:80.177.212.6 do so at the user page, not the talk page. This seems perfectly fair to m e. Meanwhile Calton is being disruptive. He is not an admin and has no role in any of this. DavidBoothroyd 13:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2006_09_05_42f4.html"