User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 09 21

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] Recusals

It would be appropriate that in any future arbitration hearings either pending or active from which you are recused, you refrain in toto from any further comment on such cases in any WP space. Comments like the one made here [1], remove all pretence of the concept of "recusal". I would hope that you could utilize your "off" WP contact with other Wikipedians to vent your spleen, so to speak. Hamster Sandwich 19:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto and I would also hope that you do not utilize any off-WP contant either. The whole concept of recusal originates in the possible conflict of interest. If you really want to become a party of the case, like you are doing, you should not just recuse, but resign from any position within ArbCom. Of course that's just my thoughts. If you think differently you probably don't care what others think anyway. But I just thought I leave you this thoughts if only for the record. --Irpen 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No. This is a completely unacceptable suggestion. Frankly it's so silly I hope you both feel thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. How dare you. --Tony Sidaway 20:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, your services as Clerk to ArbCom are valuable ones and I don't endorse the suggestion that you resign your connection with the committee. However, it's undeniable that you find yourself actively participating as a disputant in ArbCom cases far more often than the average bear, something I found surprising when I first became aware of it given your longtime role as the Clerk. As you've acknowledged yourself on occasion, sometimes it can be somewhat unclear which hat you are wearing. In that light, while I don't endorse the suggestion made above, neither do I find it to be so outlandish and ad hominem as to warrant the tone of your response. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I dunno...in the arbcom case I am involved in, I can only find one comment he made at all and that was an affirmation that he agreed that editors needed to stand with solidarity when users are under attack. His name popped up a couple of times when I made a statement and elsewhere, and he reclused from clerking or contributing otherwise based on this. If he isn't going to clerk the case, then he certainly has a right to comment. I have three or four folks comment on my proceeding and I've never heard of them before.--MONGO 20:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. I'm recused from the case because I know MONGO from the early days when we were in opposition and grew to respect one another, and I was involved in proposing MONGO for admin, I regard him as an asset to Wikipedia and I think our friendship, despite radical political differences, is a fundamental expression of the Wikipedia ethic. I could not claim to be an uninterested party in any case involving him and so I am recused. Even so I am very circumspect in my actions in his defence. Frankly he doesn't need any help, he's a great Wikipedian, and I hope he knows I think that. That's why I am recused. --Tony Sidaway 21:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say, to be somehow involved with ArbCom and be a party of the case at the same time is not something that I see proper. I would have stepped down if I felt I need to involve myself. But perhaps you have different ethics standards. Oh, and just in case, please do not try to turn the table and accuse your opponents of PA, incivillity or show your contempt in one of other forms as also advised above by Newyorkbrad. I realize that things I am saying are unpleasant to hear but I am forced to bring them up because I see that if there is a conflict of interest it undermines the trust of the community in the fairness of the process. I bring up my honest opinion about the ethicality of your behavior in entirely civilized and civil form. I lay it out clearly and calmly rather than in some kind of attacking mode. Just think of it for a second, rather then replying at once with an utter defiance. When and if you care to explain, if possible please do that in a civilized and civil form. Thanks, --Irpen 20:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony that a goal of recusal is to be able to speak without influencing the decision. The problem is that, as a disputant, Tony's role as Clerk still speaks even while he is recused. Even if he resigned as Clerk, his position as former Clerk would still speak more loudly than other disputants who have no former position on or relationship with the members of ArbCom.
The reason that the original suggestion by Hamster Sandwich appeared to be "ad hominem" is because it was directed at Tony personally. It MAY be the case that Tony is a disputant in more arbitration cases than other ArbCom members or it may not. That notwithstanding, there are other approaches to heading off these kinds of issues. One problem is that Tony acts both as an admin and as Clerk of ArbCom. This is like a policeman also being Clerk of the Court and the problem could potentially occur if any ArbCom member acted as an admin and an ArbCom member. Recusal is one approach. Voluntarily giving up admin privileges for the term that one serves as an ArbCom member (or Clerk) is another approach.
That kind of proposal would be less "ad hominem" and more based on general principles. I would suggest that further discussion on this topic be oriented towards policy-making rather than specific recommendations to specific individuals which may be taken as personal attacks.
--Richard 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
What would be useful would be if people could regognise that the ArbCom can decide of its own accord who to listen to and whose opinion carries most weight. We aren't in thrall to Tony any more than to any other editor. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Quite. See in particular Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. I and some other parties (but mostly I) got into all kinds of ridiculous behavior before and during that case. I'm thoroughly ashamed of my part while reserving the right to be appalled at the part of others--but that's normal for arbitration; if people were acting reasonably there would be no need. The Committee acted coolly and without prejudice and arrived at a decision that, it seems to me, was satisfactory to all.
As a result, I, uniquely among all serving administrators, am under specific limitations to my powers. But those limitations have served me very well indeed. Many times I have run against those limitations and become aware that my powers have been curtailed, and for good reason. Wikipedia is a better place because of this. The encyclopedia is more important than you or me. --Tony Sidaway 21:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a very thoughtful and introspective comment, Tony. Not at all like you. You feeling okay? :) Newyorkbrad 22:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a very naughty thing to say. Newyorkbrad's very civil action noted with great thanks. Those facts are well known and my satisfaction with the ruling is well known. --Tony Sidaway 22:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The ruling was known to me (though perhaps not to others commenting in this thread), but your expressed satisfaction with it I wasn't aware of. But I meant to reduce tensions with a bit of humor rather than to raise them, and I certainly don't want to be naughty, so my last comment is stricken. Newyorkbrad 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I won't go into detail (the evidence page does that) but this is a great Wikipedia success story. I was an English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee clerk at the time of the case. An editor objected to a specific action of mine and, because of the Arbitration Committee's investigation of my past actions, I was given an order to cool it and every Wikipedia administrator has the power to enforce that order by block. So this idea that there is some kind of Wikipedia elite that guards its own is quite wrong. We're all on the same page and we're all expected to conform to the same basic rules of civil behavior. --Tony Sidaway 22:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely silly to insist that a clerk -- or Arbitrator -- withdraw entirely from disputes in which e finds emself solely on the basis of those roles. This merely encourages people to attack clerks and Arbitrators, since enforcing such a rule would leave such people basically defenseless. Would you expect me to stand down from any dispute in which I found myself embroiled merely because I am a Arbitrator emeritus? That is a position from which I cannot resign, but that status does admittedly lend weight to my positions, at least in some people's eyes.

Suggesting that Tony should resign his adminship while acting as a clerk is equally silly. The positions are not incompatible. The community gives far too much weight to the purported authority of the clerks. Clerks are not "junior Arbitrators", and about the only thing they have the right to do that ordinary users do not is to maintain certain Arbitration-related pages that previously were maintained only by Arbitrators. In short, they have the "privilege" of doing scutwork. Some privilege.

I see this campaign as harassment targeted at Tony and find it very hard to assume that the arguments for gagging him are being offered in good faith. Those of you arguing for it should probably desist lest it be used against you in the ongoing proceedings. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has asked me to resign my sysop bit. Well at least, not to my knowledge. --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Richard, up above, suggested that you should do so in order to avoid a conflict of interest. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Well obviously I think that's a somewhat fatuous suggestion. --Tony Sidaway 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Kelly Martin's comment above: "Those of you arguing for it should probably desist lest it be used against you in the ongoing proceedings" says it all realy doesn't it? Giano | talk 19:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, it obviously doesn't say it loudly enough. --Tony Sidaway 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My comment was directed not with M. Sidaway the administrator, but with M. Sidaway acting in whatever "official" capacity he/she/they have as a "Clerk". More specifically and to the point in the capacity that those clerks who are recused from cases for whatever reason should offer no comment or suggestion unless they are called directly into the case as a named party to the case. I feel the issue of recused parties making further comment on arbitration cases in any Wikipedia space is of such importance that there should be a ruling on it. As such it will be my pleasure to draft some kind of proposal to that end, and certainly any other interested parties are welcome to formulate any other such proposals as they see fit. Hamster Sandwich 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's just complete bollocks. Clerkdom doesn't come with a gag. Nice wings, and all the bananas you can eat, yes. But no gag. --Tony Sidaway 03:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion of Wikipedia:Process is Important

  • 23:00, 12 September 2006 Tony Sidaway (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Process is Important" (Process is only important in the sense that it is an obstacle to the improvement of the encyclopedia.)

I feel action on deleting this internally and externally well referenced essay without consensus was not good judgement. Deleting that article was blatant information suppression. Electrawn 23:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In my opinion it gives a blatantly incorrect and actively deleterious false impression of what Wikipedia is about. It's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's an encyclopedia, no-one disagrees with that. Is there any particular phrase or paragraph in that essay you dislike? Haukur 23:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the Speedy Deletion of this project page, as its deletion does not appear to fall within the Speedy Deletion Criteria. This reversion is of course without any prejudice for this being listed at WP:MFD. — User talk:Xaosflux 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That's fine of course. Could you explain why you think this quite inflammatory essay is acceptable? --Tony Sidaway 23:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused... It appears that there was no MfD debate (at least none is referenced on the deletion page). So what happened? Was it speedied into oblivion? Who proposed that it be speedied and who did the actual deletion?
What was the page claiming to be? A proposed guideline, an essay?
--Richard 23:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Richard, you can still view the history and logs of the essay in question, because the history has been undeleted by an admin contesting the speedy deletion. It appears that Tony Sidaway performed the speedy without someone nominating it, as is normal when an admin discovers a speediable page. User:Xaosflux's restoration and the ensuing discussion is all part of the healthy functioning of Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict, x2, x3, x4, x5) This is a highly referenced essay, simply as shown by What Links Here. Some of these references may be reasons for why Process is NOT important, but nonetheless it is at least "popular" (not implying a reflection of consensus) and I feel would benefit from being deleting via consensus on MFD. --Xaosflux 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
As you are currently blocked, I will try to watch here for other responses, but feel free to email me if I miss a reply (please reply on-wiki though). — --Xaosflux 23:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not blocked to my knowledge. I guess I could have been blocked and unblocked. This can happen sometimes. --Tony Sidaway 00:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Pilotguy unblocked you. JoshuaZ 00:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You were clearly informed, BELOW, and offwiki that you were blocked, and that you were unblocked, why pretened here? — Xaosflux 01:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop playing silly buggers. If I was blocked I was obviously unblocked. --Tony Sidaway

If "Process is Important", can some admin unprotect the page long enough to MFD it so that the proposal to delete it can go through the regular MFD process?

You could re-protect it again after setting up the MFD but I seriously doubt that anyone would re-delete it now that we've had a clear indication that some people don't think it should be speedied.

Thanx.

--Richard 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete the page? --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confused over WP:NOT and taking "Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy" literally, which is not what that statement is meant to convey. From Bureaucracy, "This office organization is characterized by standardized procedure, formal division of responsibility, hierarchy, and impersonal relationships." From this, we can infer that Wikipedia that informal procedure, loose division of responsibility and hierarchy, and personal relationships are preferred on wikipedia. That said, with the size and scope of the project, a bureaucracy exists and must exist. Attempts to destroy it are anarchist. The spirit of "Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy" is to not become impersonal (and inhuman) and enforce policies and guidelines as stone. "You violated Article 2 of Section 3 of Policies 4 5 and 6. Goto WikiJail. Do not pass go." Without process and precedent, wikipedia would fall apart in seconds. Therefore we need to revisit BAD processes, policies and guidelines and refine them to GOOD ones, not DELETE. Electrawn

Also, from recent admin actions and commentary, I think you might be due for a "wikibreak". Electrawn 09:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:SNOW

Hi! I made a few further edits to WP:SNOW. I don't think that "corollary of" fits in the text, but I wasn't sure what you meant by "Janet and John reader". If you have any objections to what I changed, feel free to revert parts and/or bring it up at my talk page. :) —AySz88 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The existing text prior to my edit was new, and was a circumlocution apparently introduced as a misguided attempt to "simplify" the word "corollary". A "Janet and John reader" is a book written in extremely simple English and used to teach young children how to read. --Tony Sidaway 23:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I think in the US, they're known as Dick and Jane, when they're known at all, which is less and less each year. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Per Yes, Minister, the "Janet and John" is the summary of a policy paper prepared by civil servants for cabinet ministers. :) Newyorkbrad 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Shamefully, we have no article on Janet and John nor on Peter and Jane from the Ladybird Books Key Words Reading Scheme.[2][3] -- ALoan (Talk) 00:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Look! I have written Peter and Jane for you. Perhaps you would like to help us write this encyclopedia by contributing something on Janet and John? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not planning to contribute such an article at present. --Tony Sidaway 21:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Pity. It is an important part of social and educational history, with which you are clearly familiar. It deserves an article. I understand that Terry Wogan is a fan. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps he will agree to write about it, if asked nicely enough. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should try User talk:Terry Wogan. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Recent edits to the crat board.

Tony, cut it out please. Your recent comments easily pass the line of WP:CIVIL and possibly WP:NPA and aren't helping matters. Your recent predilection to refactor or remove comments from a multitude of users is also unacceptable. JoshuaZ 20:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the comments were ott, but the refactoring was probably a good idea. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unblocking Giano

I'm unblocking Giano if not already done. No reason to think that a block will help. FloNight 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would have been for the best. We'll see how it pans out. --Tony Sidaway 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Impertinent question and comment

Tony -

First, an impertinent question: I was wondering which article you were most proud of, in terms of your contributions. Your RFA, for example, mentions falling (which is pretty much the same as you left it in March 2005). What are your favourites from the last 18 months?

Second, an impertinent comment: I also noticed that your RFA has lots of praise in its 48 supports:

  • "incredibly hard-working and has displayed an almost uncompromisingly open-minded and positive attitude"
  • "He has always tried to keep an open mind in edit discussion"
  • "He is courteous"
  • "reasonable, moderate, cool-headed"
  • "On the whole I think he does good work and acts in good faith, and makes an effort to address concerns"

But then there are some negatives in the 12 opposes:

  • "tendency to get involved in disputes, uncompromising and negative attitude"
  • "Posts to wikien-l suggest he would take a heavy hand as an admin... Other posts to wikien-l indicate an arrogant and condescending attitude"
  • "If a user was doing this on purpose you'd call him a troll"
  • "close to disrupting wikipedia to prove a point"
  • "His tone is at times aggressive in a way that I don't think appropriate for an admin"

The first set of comments (open minded, courteous, moderate, cool-headed, etc) are very complimentary, but the second set of comments concern me a little, particular given the events over the past few days. I should hope that we would all aspire to receiving the positive comments, but I am worried that some people do not detect them in their everyday interactions with you. Perhaps they are getting the wrong impression, but I should hope that you would be equally concerned if others were getting the wrong impression too. Just an observation - feel free to ignore me. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy that, despite my shortcomings, I've been able to contribute to Wikipedia as an administrator. Falling is still my favorite Wikipedia article of all time. Even if I wrote it myself. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am happy if you are happy.
Thank you. I was precisely interested in an article that you wrote yourself. Would you mind me asking why it is your favourite article of all time? -- ALoan (Talk) 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Because it's succinct and informative. --Tony Sidaway 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I feel bad

I've noticed that you get a lot of grief on your talk page, and I know if I had the same on mine, I would dread clicking the new messages bar. Here's a flower. Hope it makes you pleased to have clicked the bar. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, are other talk pages so different? I love seeing that telltale asterisk next to "My talk". Thanks for the flower. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ArbCom vote count

Tony: A question for you with your ArbCom Clerk hat on. An interesting debate can we had on whether an abstention is equivalent to a recusal or not; based on RL analogies, a case can be made either way, but I'll trust to your expertise on committee procedure. But in any event, IIRL there are 14 sitting arbs; 3 were inactive in Intangible, leaving 11; one abstention leaves 10. Wouldn't a majority still be 6? (Frankly, that's not the basis on which the case should be discussed now, the focus should be on the merits, but I'm wondering if I'm missing something.). Regards, Newyorkbrad 05:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You might like to put this to the arbitrators, who are the final authorities in these things. I only do what they tell me.
You're right that treating the abstention as a literal recusal-for-the-vote would still result in a majority of six, where by doing so the number of active arbitrators was reduced from eleven to ten. --Tony Sidaway 05:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something to consider

Hi, Tony. You must be aware of the rather large amount of grief and drama stirred up by your recent block of Giano. I suppose there's no point rehashing that, and I'm not here to tell you things you've already heard- I'm just here to make a suggestion. There are two possibilities here: either you didn't know you were making an inappropriate block, or you did know. In the first case, it means your judgment is very poor when it comes to making blocks. In the second case, it means you knew it would be overturned and cause some drama, and you did it anyway to make some kind of point. Either case is unacceptable. Which, brings me to my suggestion: I'd like to ask that you refrain from blocking other editors in the future. This is, of course, not something we can make you do, but I hope that you'd do it voluntarily, for the good of the project. I suspect that recent events have made it more likely that any further obviously wrong blocks on your part will be seen as disruption, so please, consider this suggestion carefully. Friday (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please examine the actual circumstances, Friday, before you come up with facile and blatantly incorrect "advice". To summarise, the Giano block was in response to extreme, baseless and clearly false allegations of malicious wrongdoing by at least one named party, it was brief and intended to enable to gather his marbles and stop spreading the rubbish all over thr wiki, as he had been doing for days despite warnings, it was immediately subjected to review by my putting it on WP:AN. There was a lot of pointless fuss, but I'm not responsible for that. --Tony Sidaway 18:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
If someone said he suspected I did something malicious, would it be acceptable for me to block him or her? I believe it would be best for me to respond to the person's accusation, or else ignore it. Your attitude above comes across as dismissive and arrogant. This may be common among newbies, but it is not good for Wikipedia when someone in a position of trust acts in this way. I support Friday's suggestion. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
If someone said, without grounds, that he strongly believed that somebody else did something malicious and damaging to Wikipedia, I'd consider that grounds for blocking. This was the situation I acted upon. The whole of the arbitration committee, the bureaucrats and Angela were being accused of a ridiculous conspiracy. That is never, ever acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. It will always be blockable, subject to review. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 2R Thing

Copied from User_talk:Isogolem regarding this edit:

Please don't do that. It gives me the impression that you're counting your reverts. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm not doing it to make you uncomfortable. Still, it's not just an impression. I'm counting my reverts and being honest about it. There are any number of cases of User-A counting User-B's reverts and nailing User-B when they go over. It helps keep me from getting off balance, keeps me aware of when I'm reverting and how much, and avoids ever getting close to WP:3RR. My intent was to never even hit 3R - after 2R, if we're not on to dicussion instead of edits, they've lost balance not me. I'm okay waiting a day, or asking someone else to step up to the plate. Best of intentions.
What's wrong with it? Appearance of wikilawyering? -- Isogolem 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Isogolem. I have a similar policy. I try to limit myself to 1 revert and sometimes I get to 2 reverts but I really try to catch myself after that 2nd revert. I can count on one hand the number of times that I've been at WP:3RR and I don't think I've ever gone beyond that. Ideally, I'd honor WP:0RR but I'm not a saint.
--Richard 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't count reverts. Really. Don't. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why, Tony? If it's has been written already, give a link. If not... I'd like to understand your reasoning. -- Isogolem 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
When new editors see more experienced editors counting, it encourages a false sense of entitlement. Even if the experienced editor is making a very exceptional second revert, this won't be evident to the new guy, who will assume it's what people do. --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Entitlement? Ah, you refer to meant to cite intent of 3RR. Hmm... I'm not sure if I agree with your reasoning. I _am_ a relatively new editor and I think that people reverting like wild in so many places is a much stronger encourager. ... But I see your point, perhaps better perhaps to follow 1RR and not count. Or perhaps to add something the WP:ROWN about this. -- Isogolem 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Can you unblock me please?

I'm doing a Wikification using AOL..proxy...blah blah... thanks Tvccs 18:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Tony Sidaway for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "AntiochCollege". The reason given for AntiochCollege's block is: "Prank account". Your IP address is 64.12.116.138. Tvccs 18:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll unblock that account and see how it goes. We'll have to find another way of dealing with the vandal. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kosovo arbitration

Please remove my name from that list. I have not edited the Kosovo article for many weeks.--Noah30 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a clerk and I don't make calls like that. Please ask User:Dmcdevit who is an arbitrator. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Temporary injunction notice

With all due respect, it seems you made a mistake and added this injuction articles not related to the Kosovo case.

[4] [5] [6] Laughing Man 22:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please bring this to the attention of the arbitrators or other clerks. While I could have made a mistake, I don't think I did. See the unprotection log of Dmcdevit (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) and the additional list of articles on the evidence page of the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 23:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I will bring it the attention on the workshop page, but I can not find a list of articles on the evidence page, it just states "Kosovo related articles" which are not any of the above. I'm not sure where you came up with which articles to add the notice to and the block log of Dmcdevit seems to only be tests? I'm a little confused now. Laughing Man 18:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, here's an excerpt from Dmcdevit's protection log showing the articles he unprotected on 14th:
  • 16:29, 14 September 2006 Dmcdevit unprotected Croatian War of Independence (unprotect: parties placed on Probation)
  • 16:29, 14 September 2006 Dmcdevit unprotected Markale massacres (unprotect: parties placed on Probation)
  • 16:29, 14 September 2006 Dmcdevit unprotected Srebrenica massacre (unportect: parties placed on Probation)
  • 16:29, 14 September 2006 Dmcdevit unprotected Priština (unportect: parties placed on Probation)
  • 16:29, 14 September 2006 Dmcdevit unprotected Kosovo (unportect: parties placed on Probation)
--Tony Sidaway 18:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I see, so most likely Dmcdevit has made a mistake if you are following his direction. I will wait for his response on the workshop page. Thanks. Laughing Man 18:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Block of Giano

Hello. I'm writing to you over my puzzlement in discovering you blocked Giano yesterday. Common sense dictates that in a highly volatile dispute involving established editors whereby one side (you) originally take a strong position against another side (Giano), any blocking related to that dispute —certainly one involving mention of yourself as a voal opponent— is inappropriate. A reminder of the two positions (originally):

  1. This is Wikipedia's most disgraceful day. There can be no going back now, every future RFA is condemned to be a meaningless charade dependent on how chummy the candidate is with the 'crats. No one will ever trust the 'crats or the process again. Wikipedia has soiled its bed now it must sleep in it. Giano | talk 07:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. This was a very encouraging initiative by the bureaucrats. Nothing makes me more ashamed of Wikipedia than the disgusting rabble that RFA has become. Bureaucrats should take the initiative and award the bit on merit. Whether an editor can pass a "beauty contest" is of little use in deciding whether he'll wield the bit well. --Tony Sidaway 11:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (italics are my emphasis)

These are obviously mutually-exclusive points of view. As for the comment on Taxman's talk page (the reason for the block, right? I'm trying to follow the timeline), you are of course entitled to think that the machiavellian claims asserted by Giano are false (I, for one, consider them rather wildly conspiratorial, though they may touch on a more organic tendency), and if you feel it was expressed in an incivil way (or that, regardless of civility, it is inherently subversive/disruptive), that's fine, raise it on ANI or elsewhere. What concerns me, and I hinted on it more gently on the NA RfAr, is this heavy-handedness over sensitive matters. So please try to resolve the dispute with Giano with those considerations in mind. El_C 00:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I utterly, absolutely and without apology or defense refute the ridiculous suggestion that an editor cannot do what he must do to prevent damage to Wikipedia performed by actual egregious attacks of a person who happens to have expressed an opinion distinct from that of his own.
The suggestion that I am of course entitled to think that the machiavellian claims asserted by Giano are false is misplaced. I assert shamelessly and without apology and in the face of the light of truth that those claims are damaging, and utterly false. Such attacks have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for such attacks. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not actually concerned with the "light of truth," I am refering to an attempt to resolve a volatile dispute rather than making it worse. El_C 00:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you happen to notice that several different people thought your block in this case was inappropriate? Why are you so resistant to the idea that you might have been wrong? You're wrong here, Tony- don't make this kind of block ever again. Friday (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think they were wrong. I am permitted to disagree with you, you know. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
FFS, this is a wiki. He blocked someone for a short time, someone else reverted it. BIG DEAL. It isn't as if Tony reinstated it. People seem to be diving off the deep end because it was an 'eastablished user', so what? Established users ought to understand that this is how wikipedia works - I'd bemore concerned with biting newbies. Let this rest. --Doc 00:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Doc, you're right that a quickly reverted block isn't a very big deal. If this were an insolated incident, I wouldn't think that Tony's approach here is a big deal either. But it's not an isolated incident, it's part of a pattern of disruptive behavior- thus, several editors are asking Tony to cut it out. Friday (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this driving off the deep end is a double edge sword, sorry, SWORD! ;) Anyway, I don't think I'm out of line in pointing that you are oversimplyfying, Doc. Please give us a chance to discuss things through. El_C 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Friday, El_C, others, myself, whoever, we are wasting time here.

  • No one but Tony doubts he's wrong
  • Tony thinks he is right and nothing will change it as it never did
  • Tony does not care what others think
  • Tony will not change his attitude and will do worse, like block even more and remove criticism from his talk and public pages
  • Whatever he does, Giano is gone. Nothing Tony, you or I can do will compensate an editor who could produce 3 FA a month. Certainly not Tony if his best article is Falling and he hasn't written anything for any article for months
  • As long as Tony is not restrained by others, nothing will change.

As such, just undo his damage next time and save yourself time from trying to convince Tony, or if you feel like it, take him to ArbCom, or a community block, as I suggested yesterday. The rest is a pure time waste. Tony's damage to Wikipedia is significant enough without valuable editors wasting their time trying to convince him of things. --Irpen 00:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains, Tony, that several administrators and editors have voiced concern about your actions over the last few days, which appear to have led, in whole or in part, to the departure of an excellent editor and regular featured-article writer. As one of your firm beliefs is that we must put product over process, I hope you'll agree that the loss of such a good editor is a serious one. The block is a cause for concern (several admins and one arbitrator were lining up to undo it) as is the constant moving and removing of other people's posts. Others have asked you to stop this, and I add my voice to theirs. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel that Giano failed the final test of being able to treat the encyclopedia, and his fellow editors, with respect. I blocked him for three hours to cool down, and put it up for review, and it was reversed in minutes. In view of his vehement, unrepentant and frankly quite paranoid attacks on trusted Wikipedians, it's not really surprising that he's decided to take a rest. If he comes back he should stop attacking other Wikipedians. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's better to bring these concerns to review first, since you were so prominently named as a hostile party by Giano. El_C 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would rather agree with Friday, Irpen and SV. I personally think that you made an initial mistake, and a rather minor one in fact. No one blames you for it, at least not directly. However, in my (not so) humble opinion, you enclosed youself in a vicious circle of overreactions that led to highly controversial blocks and a departure of an excellent contributor. This loss is not replaceable and certainly is out of proportion compared to rather minor problems this user caused. And want it or not, you're at least partly responsible for it. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If I didn't want my judgement in the Giano block to be subject to review, I would not have asked for it to be reviewed. It's silly to say things like "nobody but Tony cares what other think" when clearly I do. That I disagree strongly with other people does not mean that I ignore their viewpoints.
Now I put the block up for review, and accepted the result of the review without reservation, However, the fact that I do not agree with the opinions of some of those who gave an opinion seems to be regarded as an issue. Well, it isn't. I'm permitted to disagree with people who have different opinions from my own. Indeed if I were not, that would be silly. It would mean that we would all have to not only agree that consensus rules Wikipedia, but that expression of a point of view differing from the majority view, however reasonable and well founded, could not be tolerated.
And that isn't how Wikipedia works. -Tony Sidaway 01:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
So, hearing what you've heard, knowing how many objections there were, would you have done the same? - A Man In Black 01:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Would I again block an editor who repeatedly and in the face of clear warnings continues to accuse his fellow editors, falsely and clearly without basis, of maliciously harming Wikipedia? Absolutely. Every single time. --Tony Sidaway 01:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Who decides what's "without basis"? - A Man In Black 01:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Tony, the issue is that you were decidedly on one side of the debate (and indeed named prominently as such by Giano in that comment). What is further striking to me is that you failed to communicate to Giano how damaging you felt his comment was. The same earlier this week, with your filing of an RfAr without any attempt at dialogue with the people whom it was filed against. If you are unable to draw any lessons from these two recent examples, I expect we shall see other preventable crises borne of this approach. El_C 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to A Man In Black, the absence of a reasonable chain of inference and a factual basis in any of Giano's edits on this subject or those of any other editor, persuades me, very convincingly, that Giano was making it up as he goes along. And the fatuousness of his claims also helped me to make up my mind on this.

In response to El C, of course I was on the side of people who find Giano's wild accusations incredible. How could it be otherwise? And Giano would not have made his false and damaging claims if he had not indeed intended to claim that the arbitration committee, the bureaucrats, and (improbably) Angela, were involved in some weird conspiracy. I cannot imagine that anybody could make such specific false and clearly damaging accusations by accident. Your mileage may vary, but for all our sakes I hope it doesn't. We need to keep our discussions based in reason and fact. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget good ol' Essjay! But no, I did not mean that "debate" (?), but what this would be conspiracy was said to facilitate, wherein he saw you as a hostile party. I'm not sure who is claiming accident. One can attempt to correct misperceptions through dialogue, however. El_C 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm barely aware of Essjay's existence, so I don't think it can have any bearing on this matter. I think Giano's wild accusations were well beyond dialog. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What about your own recent accusations against Jayjg & others, were these also beyond dialogue? El_C 08:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Now you're just being silly. --Tony Sidaway 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You are taking too much liberty in deciding what is beyond discussion. Your lack of communication is having a harmful effect. El_C 18:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Look at this talk page again, and tell me about "lack of communication." --Tony Sidaway 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I looked. You can write volumes of text, so long as you fail addressing the concenrs raised, it amounts to exactly that. El_C 19:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I've done my best to respond to all reasonable concerns. I'm satisfied that I have communicated my opinion completely and competently. --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I find it incomplete and unsatisfactory. You have not addressed the concerns raised substantively. El_C 19:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rovoam again

He keeps reverting the Artsakh page...do you think semi-protection is a good option at this time? I've used up my three reverts for today. --Khoikhoi 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I can. Meanwhile don't worry about it. Revert warring will only encourage him and the article can wait until it's fixed.
If you would prefer, go to WP:RFPP an ask for the page to be semiprotected if that would help. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the advice. —Khoikhoi 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbcom appeal

I have launched a second appeal against the article ban, and have quoted your opinions in the statement of case based on a contribution of yours on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Just wanted to alert you in case I was quoting you out of context, or had made unwarranted assumptions. David | Talk 20:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. --Tony Sidaway 01:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mediation in progress

I requested Wikipedia to lock the article in order to solve the dispute [7]. Then I asked for Mediation on the page. The other person involved in the article did not bother to contact me besides constanst messages that I left in his talk page. He thens starts bulllying me using my personal e-mail. I followed all the proper procedures to avoid this dispute. Why I am getting banned? Messhermit 23:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You're banned because you edit warred on the article. --Tony Sidaway 23:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That is why I am asking. What do you mean with Edit Warring? The other using was attempting to sell T-shirts using the article as a support! [8] He was modifying the articles of Dictator, Slobodan Milosevic and created a categoy call "dictators" to support that. I mean, I avoided a flame war with the other user, and I did not engaged in any personal attack! Please, be more detailed, I want to know why I'm getting banned Messhermit 23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
By edit warring, I mean these edits: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
But have you even read my talk page? I wanted to avoid that, but the other user keep editing the article and promoting POV. In my talk page you can even see that I was taking the appropiate steeps to solve this paceafully. The only thing that the user does is using loaded terms to describe this president. Once again, I did not engaged nor did I started a flame war. You can look at my editions on the other user's talk page and [this talk page]. By any mean did I assume it was edit warring to defend the article. I'm guilty of preventing POV? Messhermit 23:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Surely not [16]? (Which still leaves plenty, yes.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Edit warring consists not in the nature of a person's edits but in his manner of editing. --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. I did not insult nor added loaded terms to the article. As a note, on this case [17], I just reverted a text that was for months on the article that that Bdean1963 simply deleted without discussing it or at least asking for "sources". Surely you are not defending Bdean1963 way's of how he edited that article, because if you state that it was because of the way of how I handle this, then the him is more than guilty. Messhermit 23:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that I agree with your edits or anybody else's. I'm saying that you edit warred and, because of your probation, you're banned from editing the article. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
On this edition [18], I rv that edition because the issue of when he was born was already stated in a subnote on the article Reference #1. Once again, I did not vandalise the article. Messhermit 23:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that you did not vandalise the article. --Tony Sidaway 23:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Then? What I was suppose to do with the article, leave it and permit some people to abuse it and promote T-shirts by making the article more appealing to the buyer? Messhermit 23:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Nobody notified me that the probation included all of my editions. I expected that to happen in case something like that happened in the ecuadorian-peruvian articles, which was the main reason for the probation. How can I be punished for something I did not know? Messhermit 23:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The probation is worded as follows:

Messhermit is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by any administrator. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit#Log of blocks and bans.

--Tony Sidaway 00:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So even after I use the appropiate steeps to solve this dispute, I'm going to be banned. Then what is gonna happen with the article? As it is now, is loaded with POV terms. The other user would be happy with this. I mean, the mediation was because of that, and I don't believe that this justify to cancel that. If that is what you already decided, the I will totally abstain from editing this article, but that the content is not netral, that still remains. I ask you to revive the mediation. I simply will not be involve when the time comes to edit the article. At least, I will prove that I was not vandalising the article.Messhermit 00:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You certainly were not vandalising the article, and you may continue with mediation and discussion on the talk page. You are only banned from editing the article itself. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Then how come that the mediation is being closed down? Messhermit 00:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Ask the mediator. I did not ask him to close it. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] implementattion at Kinsella ArbComm

Hi Tony. Something is amiss with your implementation notes. Did you mix up the notes from another case? Best --Bucketsofg 01:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that your implementation notes go with Zer0faults --Bucketsofg 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Well caught. I updated both cases. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AN/I

We've already discussed your removal of posts, and I've asked you to stop doing it, or at least cut down how often you do it, and others have requested the same. Sometimes it's necessary and justified, but not when a sizable number of admins have commented constructively on a thread on the admins' noticeboard. SlimVirgin 05:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely the fact that we have this huge amount of clutter on WP:ANI is an argument for its removal, not against. Certainly we all have to continue to use our judgement when deciding what to remove, but this is an obvious one. It has absolutely nothing to do with adminship and it doesn't require admin action. --Tony Sidaway 05:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been amazed at the large amount of non-urgent debate that has been posted to WP:ANI and WP:BN. I only just started watching these pages in the last couple of weeks so I have no idea of whether this is Situation Normal or not. I would urge that most of this debate be held on pages which are not used for "operational" purposes. It is reasonable, IMO, to suggest forcefully that these discussions be moved elsewhere. Moreover, much of it should be archived (not removed!) to clear the clutter. This is not intended to denigrate the value of the discussions in any way, just to suggest that forums such as WP:ANI and WP:BN should be kept clear of non-essential clutter so as to allow important notices to be identified quickly and acted upon forthwith. --Richard 05:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
In this case I removed it to Phil's user talk page, per our policy for off-topic stuff that turns up on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 06:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2006_09_21_97b9.html"